Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Raspach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: compilation copyright question
Keywords: poster's rights
Message-ID: <25545@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 9 Feb 89 17:41:47 GMT
References: <5982@leadsv.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 66

>Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a
>copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a
>compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something
>that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history
>book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling
>a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr
>connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights
>being violated?

Definitely. If you affix a copyright notice on a work and someone else re-uses
that work under any circumstances (except in specific, limited excerpts) then
that person is in violation of your copyright. 

Also, be aware that when the U.S. adopted Berne, the copyright requirements
were tweaked so that (if I've read things right) every published work now
has an implicit copyright. Registration and copyright notices are still 
recommended for help in proof of violation, but the assumption on any piece
of writing published now is that there is a copyright attached unless there
is proof otherwise. Getting damages for violations where no registration or
copyright mark exists is practically speaking impossible, so there's no
practical difference, but the intent is clear. Since the latest revision of
the copyright laws, unless you (1) have permission to use the work in question
or (2) your use falls under the fair use requirements, you should assume you're
violating someone's copyright.

Now, a number of caveats to that previous paragraph:

1) I'm not a lawyer, much less a copyright lawyer. Your mileage may vary.

2) This applies to U.S. copyrights. International copyrights are a whole 
   different ballgame -- and, for what it's worth, Brad is in Canada, so
   international copyrights apply. (For that matter, Brad could be in Armenia,
   and if he picked up the stuff in Canada, Canadian copyright law would be
   in force. Once it crosses the borders, the protections of the U.S. laws
   go away, even if that's the point of publication).

3) implicit copyrights are on published material. Whether posting to USENET 
   constitutes 'publishing' it is not known -- there's no legal precedent
   I'm aware of. And if you ask me, I wouldn't want to bet either way on that
   issue.

The bottom line: If you post something, you own a copyright to that material.
Practically speaking, however, that means nothing -- because the data flows
internationally and many of the restrictions of implicit copyright are 
meaningless once they leave the borders of the U.S. So if you want to protect
your work, put an explicit copyright on it and note whatever restrictions you
require. Don't leave it up to chance or goodwill -- if you care about your
words, make sure people know what the restrictions are.

>If this kind of compilation copyright is legitimate, and moderators
>and information collectors are allowed to steal people's work, art,
>etc. on the pretext that "it takes to time to compile all this and 
>therefore I should be compensated" .. then shouldn't the newuser 
>announcement contain a VERY PROMINENT WARNING to that effect?

If it's public domain material, it's not stealing. You can *not* own 
public domain material.

If it's not public domain material, then it's not legitimate or legal.

chuq

Chuq Von Rospach/Editor,OtherRealms/Member SFWA                 chuq@apple.com

This signature under construction