Tom Neff writes:
> J C Lawrence <email@example.com> wrote:
> > My line is that the poster retains copyright, but not control over
> > the post, due to the fact that he explicitly relinquished those
> > rights for that post when he sent it to the list.
> 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.
I agree... that's really what it's about.
The original "to-the-list message" posted as an example read in part:
| There is no secrecy, or
| control of the dissemination of data once it is posted.
I think that's a bad message to send out... yes, it does carry the
message warning that what you post is at risk for being spread
by virtue of its being posted. On the other hand, it seems to say
that it's OK to freely distribute other list members' posts, and
I don't think that's a good thing to imply.
More accurate would be "you retain copyright and control over
your individual message but don't expect the list-owner to help
you enforce it."
> 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.
It *is* possible for the individual members to assign copyright
to the listowner (much as you might sell a story to a magazine),
but I believe that a mutually agreed-upon non-zero compensation
is necessary for such assignment to be legally effective.
I think that an individual post could also be placed in the
public domain by its author, but that this needs to be explicit,
and is not automatic.