Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: compilation copyright question
Keywords: poster's rights
Message-ID: <25731@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 89 17:25:08 GMT
References: <5982@leadsv.UUCP> <25545@apple.Apple.COM> <4536@inco.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer, AUX Developer Tech Support
Lines: 48

>>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.

>You're assuming an answer to 3).

Well, yes I am. I'm assuming that in a court of law, USENET would be held to
be a common carrier (i.e. that the distribution medium is passive and can
not be held liable for the content, since USENET sites doesn't have any control 
over the content. Instead the post (and/or the posting site) would be the 
point of control and legally liable). Common carrier status is the most
likely format for USENET, since otherwise that would imply that every site
had to approve every article before forwarding to protect itself legally --
not close to practical. 

>If this is correct, then it should be possible for me to sue every site
>that receives/transmits this article, since that constitutes copying.

Yup. You could. Knowing the vagaries of the court, you might even win. There
are no precedents to say one way or another, and communication law is
complicated enough that I won't hazard to guess who anyone would rule on
anything. 

>If I can't sue, then I must have given up some of my rights by the
>act of posting. Which rights?

Well, your copyright message notwithstanding (of which excerpts above are
quoted under the fair use precepts of copyright law, so I'm covered (nyah))
you posted the message to the network with the knowledge that, copyright
message notwithstanding, it'd be distributed automatically without sites
checking for the copyright and getting your permission. Since you posted the
message knowing that the copyright would be violated, a good case would be
made that you had to know the copyright was unenforceable and therefore by
posting anyway you gave an implicit right to redistribute and the
unenforceable parts of the copyright are invalid. 

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and definitely not a communication law or
copyright specialist (just a knowledgable laymen) so I'd suggest heavily you
find (and pay for) a real expert if you want definitive answers.


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

This signature under construction