At 11:15 AM 2002-08-19 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>Actually I believe that such a responsibility exists only where
>>the list-owners want the situation to be different from the default
>>that is implied by copyright law, namely:
>>
>>* Without explicit permission, no-one is allowed to mirror the list,
>> or create public archives.
1. There are two issues here. One is the individual poster's implied
permission. It is my belief that, barring a statement that changes
expectations, that the original posted has not implied that their posting
can be copied to archives other than the ones that are associated with the
list mechanics.
2. The collection copyright. Say I am an editor of a science fiction
anthology. I solicit authors, decide what stories will be in the
anthology. All of these stories have been published elsewhere. I write
not one word, I simply publish the stories in a hardbound book. Joe's
publication services contacts the same authors, and buys reprint rights for
the same stories (now even cheaper since this is not second, but third
publishing), and publishes a paperback. I sue them: They have violated my
collection copyright.
The point is that I have exerted effort. I make no bones about it - I
control the content of my lists, in some cases after the fact, but in other
cases, I am automatically editing mail that is submitted. But even if I
didn't, I believe that as list owner, simply exerting the effort of naming
a list, writing or not writing a statement of purpose, and enforcing or not
enforcing a set if rules gives me a collection copyright on the collection
of messages.
Someone who establishes an external archive is violating my collection
copyright, as well as violating the copyrights of the individual authors.
>>* Just telling people about the existence of the list (by mentioning
>> it in a directory of lists) is ok even without explicit permission.
The fact of the existence of the list is just that, a fact, and need not
copy any actual text from the list. This is implied by fair use. Someone
could even "review" the list and excerpt or summarize the rules, give brief
samples of typical postings for review purposes, and write their
impressions of the list. I believe that those sorts of things are all well
established fair use.
>Why do you believe those are implied by copyright law? I'm curious what
>your rationale is.
I'm not sure what other rationale that there is. The work involved in
creating a collection can be small or large. As long as the collection is
not a simple table of facts organized in a simple and obvious way, like a
phone book, it is protected.
--
We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high.
We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns.
- Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
