On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:32:17AM -0400, Tom Neff wrote:
> Copyright without control is a meaningless concept. If you are not allowed
> to grant and withhold permission to distribute a work, then you do not have
> effective copyright for it. One might argue that this is true for Internet
> postings in general, but no more so than for a poem on a milk carton.
Agreed.
> Listowners and digesters commonly assert "compilation copyright" over their
> particular sequences and assemblies of others' writing, even where the
> latter is in the public domain. But they are in no position to assert,
> waive or otherwise mess with the INDIVIDUAL copyright each member holds in
> her or his postings. A listowner may say "you own your words," but this is
> purely informational, like saying "the sun came up today," and not a
> revocable statement of policy. The listowner might as well say "Danny
> DeVito owns your words" and it would have the same force and effect, i.e.
> none.
I would counter this by saying that if the membership conditions of a
list included a clause in which the subscriber agreed to assign
copyright in all postings to the list, then this *is* valid, and would
mean that the poster gives copyright over to whoever is specified.
Assignment of copyright may invlove a written agreement in some
jurisdictions.
rgds,
--
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
