Xref: utzoo news.misc:4166 misc.legal:13449 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: news.misc,misc.legal Subject: Re: Copyrights on Usenet Articles Message-ID: <1990Jan12.164847.5111@world.std.com> Date: 12 Jan 90 16:48:47 GMT References: <24551@gryphon.COM> <769@unix386.Convergent.COM> Distribution: usa Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 68 In-Reply-To: dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM's message of 11 Jan 90 19:14:27 GMT >This is definitely something that is good to know. When something goes >into the "public domain," does that mean that *all* of the author's >rights with regard to the publication lapse? S/He know longer controls >the item in *any* way? This seems extreme. An example: Yes, that is the definition of public domain. I think what everyone is really struggling with is whether or not it is really PD. But if it is PD there's basically no restrictions on its use (the only hedge there might be some possibility of it being used in a way which you can argue was libelous or damaging to your reputation etc., that's independent of all this and is probably always open if you can still be identified with the work etc.) >Joe Blow writes a story that he sells to OutThere Magazine for first NA >serial rights. It gets published in Analog, and after that Joe gets a >request to have the article posted to the net. Joe says, "Go ahead." >The article is posted. Later, Monumental wants to buy the movie rights. >Some sharp researcher at Monumental finds out that the story has been posted >to Usenet, is therefore in "the public domain," and doesn't buy the rights, >just runs with it. From your information above, Monumental would be within >their rights, and ol' Joe would be out of luck. Right? That's a rather complicated example. But then again I'm not as certain that putting something on USENET automatically protects everyone as you describe it did the movie maker. Look, this is law, not mathematics. It can be reinvented by a court almost every morning by just deciding some new case. At best you have "strong grounds" and "good arguments" and "worthwhile cases", not proofs that you're right or wrong. My gut feeling on your question is that if it was pretty clearly your work and someone else made a bunch of money on it under some fairly fuzzy pretense that since it had appeared on a network it was no longer yours that most any Judge and Jury would side with you. The matter is quite clear, you did the work, they made money off it, common practice says you deserve something. In fact, any lawyer worth 2c would be able to settle a case like that for something, probably less than you hoped, but more than nothing, out of court. But that's not the answer you were looking for. There's a fine and confusing line between business and law. Any movie maker who tried to defend based on your example would probably be deemed irresponsible to their shareholders to even invest the $15-$20K it takes to begin a defense when you'd probably settle for about that. You do understand that litigation is an investment for a corporation, just like anything else, and a return on investment argument has to be constructed based on various scenarios? I do understand the inner longing for a law which is abstract and rational, but it doesn't exist in this world. It's not even obvious that it should. "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." -Clarence Darrow -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs