Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!clarke
From: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Followup on "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" copyright problem
Message-ID: <3112@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 14:22:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.3112
Posted: Wed Jul 16 14:22:30 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 14:26:25 EDT
References: <4652@sun.uucp> <1986Jul2.233539.3816@utcs.uucp> <464@hadron.UUCP>
Reply-To: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Distribution: net
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <464@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
>Private correspondence is considered to be the property of
>the addressee, who in this case has chosen to publish it
>without any copyright attributions.

This statement is correct, but insufficient:  The *physical correspondence*
belongs to the addressee, but the *copyright* belongs to the addressee.  So
Niven should have been asked for his permission for this too!

Disclaimer:  Two thoughts make me wonder about whether what I just said
applies in this case.  First, copyright law in the U.S. has always differed
from British and European practice, and the rule I quoted is British.  (If
you care, I know it because I misspent much of my later youth reading the
TLS instead of physics.)

Secondly, one frequently sees biographers (etc.) thanking owners of letters
from dead biographees for allowing the letters to be quoted.  Do the rules
change when the author is dead?  If I knew, you might be more inclined to
believe me.
-- 

Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
              (416) 978-4058
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke