There is a big difference depending on how she got the content. If it was from a personal email that was later sent to her then you are likely out of luck. If it was posted on a website somewhere and she cut and pasted it she cannot. Personal emails are a very gray area. Now as for the content being on a site, she can link to it all she wants to, but cannot just copy the material. Not only is intellectual material innately copyrighted, but so is the format in which it is laid out. There is no expectation of privacy. They can link to it all they want. But that does not make it public domain for anybody to copy. Just my .02 I have learned over the years from my stuff being ripped off.
Any Lawyers out there? "Fair Use" and Reposting
- Thread starter drbill
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
Interesting. I've been told (based on case law) that personal correspondence is far more protected than "public" postings.
Well, I am not a lawyer and I know that area changes all the time. But arguments that may well be set by now have included: who owns the email and content? By sending the email are you giving up the content? And junk like that. I for one feel it still falls under US copyright laws, you wrote it you own it. I am in a few such battles myself right now with websites publishing articles I have had printed in the pulp print. Just because something is available to the public does not make it public domain. In fact these articles were printed in the US, I am trying to sell them to European mags who will not buy because they are posted on these sites. Like I say, I do not know whatever the official law is at the moment, but I would not email any material you want to protect. Way too much can happen.
OP
Agreed... better safe than not.
Isn't it funny how, when people do you wrong, they're hostile to YOU about it?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor did I sleep in Holiday Inn last night.
Most of this is from the Computer Security Handbook, 4th Ed., Ed: Seymour Bosworth & M.E. Kabay. There is a Fifth Edition. Ch. 12 is The Legal Framework for Protecting Intellectual Property in the field of Computing and Computer Software.
Bottom Line: The Copyright Act is in 17 USC Sections 108 - 121. The "Doctrine of Fair Use" is codified as part of the copyright statute in 17 USC Sec 107. However, to enforce such a thing would take a lawsuit. The fact that she got her lawyer involved may be enough to be sure SHE won't do such a thing again, but there is always the 'next guy'.
Fair Use versus Privacy Act versus Copyright is in the news a lot these days. Look at the suits from people suing because of what was posted on a blog or Facebook, for example. People are being fired for what they write on line. The US Government is investigating what is written on line. It is recognized problem of which the solution is being slowly defined by the Courts passing judgment on various cases. ScubaBoard's own legal case is one such case.
The Handbook says, ". . . fair use remains a nebulous doctrine -- an equitable rule of reason with each case to be decided on its own facts."
One of the tests for fair use is "Transformative Use". Did the use of the work act as a springboard for a new work? In this case, the work was an exact copy of your work and therefor transformative use would not apply. (Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 2000 US Dist LEXIS 5669 (CD Cal Apr9il 5, 2000) The court recognized the public benefit of posting articles for commentary and criticism but found that the initial postings contained little or no commentary that [shows new work].
So, what to do?
There is a certain government legal organization that requires all of its employees to place the following as a "signature" to their email. Such a statement displays a clear intent of the individual, and therefore makes any further action by the reader / recipient clearly against the originator's will. This is enforceable by law should a future infraction incur.You might also add, "The author retains all copyright privileges per 17 USC Sec 108."
Just a few thoughts from a geek.
mrbeast1414
Contributor
Jerks will be jerks my friend. Personally, I would out the cretin who did this (unless it was me! :O ) and suggest that your found their actions to be less than courteous.
On ScubaBoard, anyone who claims copyright infringement has my ear. Emails and PMs were meant to be private unless both parties agree otherwise. BTW, any public posting here is copyrighted by ScubaBoard. The only exclusion is by mutual agreement with me and of course, our photo gallery.
On ScubaBoard, anyone who claims copyright infringement has my ear. Emails and PMs were meant to be private unless both parties agree otherwise. BTW, any public posting here is copyrighted by ScubaBoard. The only exclusion is by mutual agreement with me and of course, our photo gallery.
OP
Thanks Jax.
Pete, fortunately none of this happened on ScubaBoard. I'd be less concerned about it here since although the board is membership based, it can easily be searched by non members. It happened on a much more private e-mail list where posts only go out to members of the list, and was reposted on Spearboard.
Not a peep since the incident so I consider it closed.
Pete, fortunately none of this happened on ScubaBoard. I'd be less concerned about it here since although the board is membership based, it can easily be searched by non members. It happened on a much more private e-mail list where posts only go out to members of the list, and was reposted on Spearboard.
Not a peep since the incident so I consider it closed.
- Messages
- 1,938
- Reaction score
- 168
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Similar threads
