John Buckman has written:
> I'd recomend having your list server software add a copyright notice
> in the mail header. Something like:
> X-Legal: Contents copyright 1996 Albert E Newman.
>
> The advantages of a copyright in the header are that:
> * most people's mailers won't display it, so it won't interfere with
> normal mail.
I used to do that, but I found that most people's mailers do
indeed display all headers, except 'From ' without a colon,
'Received: ', and 'Message-ID:'. All user-optional headers
are displayed, at least to my subscribers.
The list headers are an amusement at first, but later become
a repetitive nuisance.
> * It asserts your copyright notice, and would probably be worth
> something in court if you decided to recoup damages. If XYZ
> Internet Services generates advertising revenue from hits looking at
> your archives, you have can claim a portion of those revenues.
Well, my list header assigned the copyright to the sender.
Boldly and definitively, to make a point! Despite what has
been asserted here, I doubt that the list owner may claim
any proprietary interest in the content of posts -- even
with a cautionary statement to the contrary.
According to the law and accepted practice, the human author
can lose the copyright only by accepting employment or by
signing a *written* contract and receiving compensation.
Mouse-clicking "I accept the terms" may not qualify as a
written contract, although that has yet to be tested in the
courts. For one, without a quid-pro-quo, there is no
contract.
It's possible that posts to an E-mail-list may have the same
nebulous status as letters-to-the-editor of a print
publication. In the letter of the law, the human author
retains the copyright, but in historically accepted
practice, both the publisher and the author claim all rights
to a published letter. That is, neither can easily restrict
the other's use of the letter's content.
Probably the greater legal challenge to list owners is the
question whether an unmoderated E-mail-list is a common
carrier. That is, may we be held liable for a violation,
like libel or copyright infringement, by a subscriber? Or
are we like the telephone company -- guiltless despite the
crimes our subscribers use our facilities to commit?
The danger in attempting to claim some proprietary interest
in posts is that we assert responsibility for the content.
We are declaring ourselves ready and willing to redress an
offense by a subscriber. Such redress may be far costlier to
the list owner than simply removing the offender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Richman vicric@panix.com National Writers Union
Harlem, New York PGP 2.6 UAW Local 1981, AFL/CIO
"The fare shall not be fowl." -Credo of the Vegetarian Umpires Association
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
