RPP redux: copyrights and the Internet, cont. [NPC]

["Dennis Moore" <clayboy56>]

I am certainly not versed in law, let alone a lawyer, however I have become
pretty familiar with the copyright law, fair use and using the Internet and
email. Here is what I understand about copyright with regard to the
information I relayed, since a few people have been asking.

Some background: I am part of the group responsible for founding and
operating the James Purdy Society. As an author, Jamess bread-and-butter
relies on those statutes, and the industry that depends on them as well. It
was imperative in all we do to respect the law in order to respect him.

Also, I got two shots over the bow as we began. One came from the Hemingway
Society folks who tried vigorously to discourage us from starting a society
for a living author. Although I knew we would be potentially facing a
hostile estate if the family swooped in after James dies, it was a reality
check to hear their horror stories and about all the litigation and legal
troubles they had to face.

The other had to do with a symposium that was planned by the New School
University that some of our board members were involved with. Even though
everyone involved was certain they were acting with impunity  claiming
fair use  James shut it down. (The reasons arent pertinent here.) But
through it all I did make sure I understood the section[s] of the law
regarding fair use.

First about websites (including blogs): regardless of whether they are
privately or commercially owned, it doesnt matter, there is no such thing
as fair-use, since it is a publicly accessible medium. If this isnt obvious
to you, try and get permission from people. Believe me, it is much harder
than you might think - even for an organization founded and operated
primarily as an educational resource/institution - precisely because it is
so accessible, and then so easily copied and used by another party.

Often you cant locate the owner. More often, you will never hear back from
them, and if you do, most likely they will want money, typically for a
limited-time use, and seldom will they want full-text made available.
Permission to use photographs has been even more difficult, not to mention
original art. In any case it takes a lot of time to get just a little.
Bottom line: without the express permission of the copyright holder, your
use is not legal.

Thus if the copyright owner contacts anyone to remove the material, they
have no recourse but to comply or face penalties (depending on the
situation, intent and use, extent of the violation, whether plagiary is
involved, how the use is advertised/promoted, and whether remuneration or
profit is involved. 

Indeed, Jenny Lens reported from her experience:

That happens to my photos ALL the time. If I like the site, I send photos
to replace it. if they are really large and won't answer me, I get their
provider to remove the page (I did it for a runaways site full of photos
from other photographers). Trouble is, it takes a full time effort to track
down my pix, and the worst are books, CD, DVDs cos they make money off my
photos!!

Secondly, regarding email distribution* (see example disclaimer below):

Our e-news is sent through email via a list of people [members] who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving educational information per the
founding mission of the not-for-profit educational institution. To archive
the e-news on our website we will have to redact all copyrighted material
for which we did not have express documented permission to use. (Note: each
specific use must be authorized, that is for any time/place it is to
appear.) At any time However permission of use can be withdrawn at any time
by a simple written notice. The disclaimer also notifies the person
receiving the information that he/she is not allowed to distribute/
publicly/relay the material [privately].

So what about my infraction? I cut-n-pasted 7 Online Copyright Myths
by Judith Kallos from SiteProNews.com and posted it to the babel-list and
the eternal-cafi. I violated the copyright of Judith and Site Pro, twice.

Okay, lets say the case can be made for babelogue that it is an
all-volunteer organization, operated on in-kind donations, which does not
receive money from anyone for the service they provide, and which for the
point here, is deemed an educational institution. Then perhaps my relaying
something copyrighted relating to Patti Smith would not be a violation.
However, once it is on the archive it is not protected as fair use.
Furthermore, especially since I know it will end-up on the web site, I am
likely responsible for a violation.

In either case, if the copyright owner contacts babelogue requesting the
post, or portion thereof, be removed, it would have to be. Otherwise there
could be further action, such as having the site shut down. The same thing
applies to any of the material on babelogue.

However, since the babel-community has not formally organized as an
educational institution/organization, and I also know that  I imagine under
the strict interpretation of the law I have committed a violation
regardless. Similarly, the owner of the babelogue site is not protected by
fair use statutes.

After Seena told us about the astro-site, had I sent her the article - that
would have been perfectly legal. Not if I blogged it though, that would
constitute publication and all the same rules apply as you learn in
college for papers, especially as to be submitted for publication.

So what about the eternal-cafi? Well Im sure yahoo has a butt-load of
lawyers devoted to these issues, so intuitively Im certain they would have
no fair-use protections. Every email has corporate crap (although less so
than before) in its body, one. They accept advertisements, sponsor
companies, etc. I dont even suppose if you make your group private you
escape this reality. Im not sure about the groups archive, or not, but I am
very conscious of these issues with regard to the groups I moderate/own on
msn.

My intuition also tells me that yahoo, etc. have pretty much figured out how
to protect themselves from what individuals do using their site  but only
to a degree. After all, we all remember the napster story.

Bottom line to remain ethical and principled one will need to be very
conscientious in cyberspace. Also she/he needs to be prepared to spend a lot
of time and energy for little return to use copyrighted material to any
significant degree, say on his/her web site. Each person is also responsible
to the degree he/she is going to respect the _intent_ of the law, since many
of the hairs have yet to be split in this arena. Unless she/he is a lawyer
versed in intellectual copyright law, Im certain it would be too difficult
to navigate the specifics of the statues and legal precedence, other than
just always to figure on the side of caution  and respect.


) August 2005. Copyright by Dennis Moore. All rights reserved. [Note: Even
without my making this explicit, as original material this article is
protected by copyright laws. I could provide [public] permission of use here
as well, stating that reproduction was allowed.]

* Disclaimer [example]: This [James Purdy Society] e-newsletter may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. All material is being made available to
advance the knowledge and understanding of the life, work and influence of
James Purdy.  We believe this constitutes fair use of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, the material in this
publication is distributed, without remuneration or profit, to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this publication for purposes of your own which go beyond fair use, you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.