What is Fair Use?
Hindy Bradley
I'm feeling hesitant to post here right now because I think you must
think I'm doing something terrible to draw Bliss' public wrath. Here
goes, anyway.
I am in need of advice and hope that some of the Americans on the group
can help or at least clarify something for me.
Here's the situation.
I complained to Geocities about the MST-ing of my fanfic on
Debbilmouse's page, claiming copyright infringement because my stories
were taken, verbatim, with not even my email addy removed.
Debbilmouse is claiming fair use, but I don't know what this means. Can
someone explain it in American legal terms to me, please?
My other take on the situation is that when Geocities investigates the
page, they will see that the stories are pornography and the page will
come down anyway.
Hindy
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
XFCTalk --
A place for writers to express themselves in any way; vent, ramble,
snarl, whatever because posting is still writing and as long as our
fingers are on the keyboard, our minds are focussed in a creative
effort.
--Hindy Bradley, Host XFCTalk
To subscribe, please send an e-mail to:
majo...@majordomo.microserve.net
subscribe XFCTALK <your email addy>
Brandon Ray
understanding of "fair use" is that it is a legal doctrine which allows
very limited use of copyrighted material without permission of the
copyright holder.
For example, if you write a story, I believe it falls under the fair use
doctrine if you have your characters discuss the fact that they watched The
X-Files last night, and have them talk about whether they likedthe episode
and why. It would also be fair use (I think) for one character to accuse
another one of "acting just like Cancerman".
However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
whatever reason. Note that a number of web sites HAVE received legal
warnings from the copyright owners when they posted unauthorized images
from the show. Now, to my mind posting a picture of Gillian Anderson as
Dana Scully is far less intrusive than most if not all of the fan fic I've
seen...but apparently Carter and/or his lawyers feel otherwise.
The bottom line is, getting back to your question, I don't think you have a
leg to stand on, legally, if someone copies a story you wrote and MST's it
-- or even if they just post it verbatim and claim that they wrote it.
Remember the disclaimer that appears at the top of virtually every story
that gets posted: WE DO NOT OWN THESE CHARACTERS. We have no standing to
sue anyone, or ask that anyone be prosecuted. Fox does; 1013 does. But
apparently they don't care about fan fic.
Having said THAT, I will add that I think appropriating someone else's idea
in the way you described is a pretty shitty thing to do. I would never,
ever dream of doing that. The only copying of stories I do is for my own
personal use, or to forward them to a couple of close friends who also
enjoy reading them, and I ALWAYS preserve all the headers, credits, etc.
If I start an online archive (which I am thinking about doing), I will only
include stories whose authors have given appropriate permission.
Oh, the other thing this person may be thinking of is that there is a right
of commentary under American law. You can write a review of someone else's
copyrighted work, and you can publish that review, including limited quotes
from the work under review, without the copyright owner's consent. But you
can't quote large chunks, and MSTing a story would seem to me to be across
the line into infringement. You might try pointing out to this individual
that Best Brains (the people who produce MST3K) do get permission from
copyright holders for every film they do.
Hindy Bradley
> However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
> archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
> every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
> post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
> because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
> whatever reason. Note that a number of web sites HAVE received legal
> warnings from the copyright owners when they posted unauthorized images
> from the show. Now, to my mind posting a picture of Gillian Anderson as
> Dana Scully is far less intrusive than most if not all of the fan fic I've
> seen...but apparently Carter and/or his lawyers feel otherwise.
One of the stories they have MST-ed doesn't mention the names of *any*
1013 characters. It is solely my creation. Do I have a better chance
with regard to that story?
Hindy
Amperage
>One of the stories they have MST-ed doesn't mention the names of *any*
>1013 characters. It is solely my creation. Do I have a better chance
>with regard to that story?
The right of someone to parody another's works is long established as
permittable. . .quoting the entire text of another's work is not. Quoting
*part* of another's work for the purposes of review or the suchlike, so long as
the author is acknowledged, is acceptable.
An MST'ed story kind of crosses into all three categories, I would imagine.
From an ethical standpoint: Are you pissed because someone is parodying your
work? In that case, well, people are mean sometimes, but not ethical ground
has been crossed. Or are you pissed that someone is stealing your work? In
that case, I would say that the norm ethics of the NG have been violated. From
what it sounds like (and albeit, my knowledge is limited to what was presented
in this posting and the fact that I'm feeling insomniac this morning and have
already surfed everything else. . .) it's a problem of the first, not the
second. . .
I only *wish* that someone would MST Oklahoma, even in part. . .
Laura Burchard
Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net> wrote:
>However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
>archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
>every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
>post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
>because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
>whatever reason.
It's actually a teensy bit more complicated than that; I recommend reading
Rebecca Tushnet's Entertainment Law Journal article,
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~tushnet/shc/tushnet.html.
My personal feeling is that if it came down to a court case, that
fanfiction would lose; but that is less because it is historically
inadmissable than because there has been a steady encroachment on the idea
of public rights in regard to intellectual property, as content providers
have become both more economically important and financially powerful. In
many ways, copyright has been transformed in the last 20 or so years from
a deliberately created psuedo-property right to a true property right; I
am not convinced that we will not see an end, in my lifetime, to the idea
of copyright ever passing into public domain.
>The bottom line is, getting back to your question, I don't think you have a
>leg to stand on, legally, if someone copies a story you wrote and MST's it
>-- or even if they just post it verbatim and claim that they wrote it.
Now this is *definitely* not true. Secondary copyright does exist. In
fact, even if Fox were to go after a story and win, they would not own the
copyright to the author's words; only the right to destroy the
publication. Or consider the original MST question; believe me, if another
channel started running MST3K episodes, MST3K lawyers would be after them
in a heartbeat and win.
>Oh, the other thing this person may be thinking of is that there is a right
>of commentary under American law. You can write a review of someone else's
>copyrighted work, and you can publish that review, including limited quotes
>from the work under review, without the copyright owner's consent. But you
>can't quote large chunks, and MSTing a story would seem to me to be across
>the line into infringement. You might try pointing out to this individual
>that Best Brains (the people who produce MST3K) do get permission from
>copyright holders for every film they do.
There's two rights that could be involved, actually: the right of parody
and the right of commentary. Parody, however, does not normally involve
taking the author's actual text; rather, it involves rewriting it in a
parallel but mocking fashion. (cf the Pretty Woman case, Campbell v.
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)
Certainly the principle of the MSTing is allowed; quotes and commentary.
IANAL, but it seems to me the question would be whether the amount quoted
is over the allowable amount. It's not the entire work, which would almost
certainly be barred, but the one I looked at closely for comparison ran
about fifty percent, which is awfully high; I don't know of any case that
allowed such a high percent for something of that length. But there are so
many factors involved that this sort of thing is usually fought out case
by case.
For general background on copyright and the net, I recommend reading:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.cetus.org/fairindex.html
ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/carroll/law/copyright/faq/
Laura
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
Loch Ness
purely academic anyway, but...
Hindy Bradley wrote:
>
> I complained to Geocities about the MST-ing of my fanfic on
> Debbilmouse's page, claiming copyright infringement because my stories
> were taken, verbatim, with not even my email addy removed.
>
> Debbilmouse is claiming fair use, but I don't know what this means. Can
> someone explain it in American legal terms to me, please?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on the Internet. However, straight
out of my Law of Mass Communications textbook*:
"Factors to be considered by courts in determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a fair include:
"(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."
*Law of Mass Communications: Freedom and Control of Print and Broadcast
Media, Fifth Edition, by Harold L. Nelson and Dwight L. Teeter, Jr.
Now note that the not-for-profit issue no longer applies because of
recent changes in the law. Also note that the market value of the work
is $0.0.
Assuming the situation really is as you've described it, I'd say the
"substantiality" factor means it's *not* a fair use. But even if it's
not a fair use, that doesn't mean it's an infringement. And since the
whole idea that a fanfic can be copyrighted is a fantasy, the question
of whether it's a technical, legal infringement strikes me as moot. On
top of that, American courts generally have blinked in cases of parody,
on the theory that you can't *do* a parody if you can't at least make
references to the original work.
For someone to do what you've described is exceedingly rude, no doubt
about it. But when it comes to potential legal actions, I don't think
either of you have a case. And I think going to someone's ISP and
forcing him/her to take the page down over something like this is also
rude - and completely excessive. The bottom line with all this is, on
top of the enforced paranoia created by some of Fox's actions, we are
all getting much, *much* too serious about ourselves and our work. This
stuff has no commercial value - if anything, as recent events have
demonstrated, it can *devalue* original works written by the same
authors - and my personal opinion is that even the best of it is *not*
great art.
Would I like it if someone MST'd my stuff? Hell, no. Would I attempt to
have him/her driven off his/her ISP? Hell, no. It's not worth it, and
the sun's still going to rise in the east in the morning.
--
InverNessie | Come and take it.
loch...@texas.net | -- Legend on Goliad
That deep water only *looks still. | battle flag
iwo...@earthlink.net
Although this may be redundant I thought I'd briefly post a little of
what I've read concerning Title 17, Section 107 -- yep, the fair use
section. This is for informational purposes only and does not
constitute legal advice.
"There are four factors that apply to every fair use question:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or it is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."
From what I've been told by a lawyer I work with, fair use court cases
are very fact-specific. Interpretation of the law is not a broad
sweeping black or white but judged case by case within the letter and
spirit of the law. One of the standards used would be intent.
Okay, I've taken enough of your time and it's a beautiful Saturday; I'm
off to enjoy it.
Take good care,
Marlene
iwo...@earthlink.net
(not Isabelle Wonders or iwonders)
shanna...@pnx.com
copyrights by using their characters, but an author nevertheless has
creative ownership of the story she writes. e.g. 1013 can't grab a
fanfic story or script and use it without the author's permission.
Publishing on the Net is a bit risky if you're at all sensitive about
others making use of your work for purposes you don't approve. Yes,
you own it creatively, but unless you want to hire a lawyer and fight
the issue, which is pretty silly unless someone is making money off
your work, you just have to realize the risks involved.
MSTing or appropriating or archiving someone's work without their
permission is wrong and a decent person wouldn't do that. But there's
a whole lot of people out there who could care less about being a
"decent" person and only want to satisfy their own desires or try to
make themselves look better than someone else.
Hindy, I don't know what your argument is with Bliss and I don't want
to know. I pretty well kill-filter all flame wars and arguments, so
I'm not referring to either one of you in the above paragraph.
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:35:26 -0500, Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net>
wrote:
>
>However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
>archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
>every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
>post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
>because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
>whatever reason.
>
>The bottom line is, getting back to your question, I don't think you have a
>leg to stand on, legally, if someone copies a story you wrote and MST's it
>-- or even if they just post it verbatim and claim that they wrote it.
>Remember the disclaimer that appears at the top of virtually every story
>that gets posted: WE DO NOT OWN THESE CHARACTERS. We have no standing to
>sue anyone, or ask that anyone be prosecuted. Fox does; 1013 does. But
>apparently they don't care about fan fic.
>
---------------------------------------------------
Shannara
Keeper of the flame
Daddy793
bliss wrote:
<<Hindy, leave me out of your paranoid fantasies, please. I am not wrathful, I
am
not vengeful, I could care less. I don't like being accused of myriad crimes
of which I'm innocent, particularly in public, and yes, then I will snap back.
>>
Yes, please. Let's all remember that this is why the whole nastiness started --
public, name-naming accusations based on pure suspicion. Not a single word of
hard proof. Yes, this a free forum. Yes, you can say anydamnthing you please.
But so can the targets of your rants. Now, I'll admit that I'm not sure what
this is all about, as my fucking browser won't even let me load my *own* page.
I can understand how much it must hurt to have your creativity mocked. Yeah, it
would piss me the fuck off, too. However. Complaining about it only draws still
more attention to the thing. I think it would be best to consider it a
compliment that you managed to affect this person as much as you did... don't
let them know they returned the favor and they'll eventually crawl away.
Remember, public accusations even *with* proof are damaging to the community as
a whole. Some mean-spirited joke is only damaging if we *let* it be so.
Te
~~~~
"Hey, you! You seem sick and twisted enough for the character I'm writing.
Show me what a bad idea a relationship with you is!"
-- Misha, the flirt...
Imajiru gave me a home! http://unicorn-x.net/te/
Maureen S. O'Brien
There's another issue here beside the legal one. Just because we
legally have the right to do certain things or forbid certain things,
is it wise?
Yes, it's distressing to get MSTied, especially by someone who does it
unkindly instead of impersonally. (And you are speaking to someone who
had her own personal troll quite recently, mind you.) But is it wise to
get all het up about it? Most particularly, is it wise to bring
Geocities into it, or copyright law into a MSTing?
Steven Ratliffe posts here occasionally. Nobody on the Net has been
MSTied more; he's practically a cult figure. His good humor about his
Marissa stories' MSTings just showed everyone what a classy guy he is.
That's why I listen when he posts: he may not be God's greatest writer,
but he is sure as heck a gentleman.
So. If a MSTing is mean-spirited, don't feed the energy creature.
If a MSTing is not (or even if is), it's all publicity.
And if the MSTing isn't funny -- MST the MSTing and make it so!
Maureen, who thinks it wasn't wise to post her cool new X-File before
everyone had forgotten who Punky was, as it seems to have set a bad
precedent in the ng. My viewpoint character was not a Tuckerized Punky,
although he did set me thinking on the subject of flamers.
Kate Verleger
>
> In article <360CED78...@avalon.net>,
> Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net> wrote:
> >However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
> >archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
> >every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
> >post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
> >because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
> >whatever reason.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet's Entertainment Law Journal article,
> http://pantheon.yale.edu/~tushnet/shc/tushnet.html.
A very, very good article, even if it does arouse rather intense
feelings of intellectual inadequacy when I read this article by the
kid I used to play Uno with at recess.....
But the main point is this: general convention in the industry has
been to not-hassle the non-profit folks, as they seem to have a
-positive-, not negative, effect on overall demand for their
products. Since the stuff we write and discuss directly changes our
preferences for the goods, it follows (and here I'm going of on the
economic reasons for Fox to -=not=- hassle us), that, other things
being equal, at -any- price they charge for -any- of their products,
we're going to be willing to buy more stuff if we -do- read and
write fan fic than if we don't.
Or, in English, fan fic enables our addiction to the X-files as a
series and as a product line. (See the adaptation of the Henry V
speech "we few, we happy few, we band of Philes" regarding the 2nd
weekend of FTF's release).
(I may just have to get ahold of her and see if she'd be interested
in doing a joint econ / law paper on the subject; this offers some
-really- neat avenues of research, and might just get some of our
worries about being shut down alleviated.....)
BUT. I will clearly state that I fully, as an econ grad student,
believe that the expectation that property rights will be guaranteed
by the law is necessary both to a well functioning society and
economy.
IOW, if you bought a print of DD and GA as M & S at a con and scan
it on to your web site, IMHO, you're on your own.
-- Kate
This message was brought to you by six characters in search of an
opera.
bliss
>Hi All,
>
>I'm feeling hesitant to post here right now because I think you must
>think I'm doing something terrible to draw Bliss' public wrath. Here
>goes, anyway.
>
>I am in need of advice and hope that some of the Americans on the group
>can help or at least clarify something for me.
>
>Here's the situation.
>
>I complained to Geocities about the MST-ing of my fanfic on
>Debbilmouse's page, claiming copyright infringement because my stories
>were taken, verbatim, with not even my email addy removed.
>
>Debbilmouse is claiming fair use, but I don't know what this means. Can
>someone explain it in American legal terms to me, please?
>
>My other take on the situation is that when Geocities investigates the
>page, they will see that the stories are pornography and the page will
>come down anyway.
>
>Hindy
>~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>XFCTalk --
>
> A place for writers to express themselves in any way; vent, ramble,
>snarl, whatever because posting is still writing and as long as our
>fingers are on the keyboard, our minds are focussed in a creative
>effort.
> --Hindy Bradley, Host XFCTalk
>
>To subscribe, please send an e-mail to:
>
> majo...@majordomo.microserve.net
>
>subscribe XFCTALK <your email addy>
"I am not an angry girl/but it seems like I've got everyone fooled/everytime I say something they find hard to hear/they chalk it up to my anger/and never to their own fear- Ani DiFranco
"'snuff ed"
"but how often is too often?"
bliss
in the Copyright Infringement argument with Hester, some days back. In one, she
stated that anything you publish on the 'Net is essentially copyrighted, but
that you may not be able to prevent people from making copies.
Her second message lists several sites. I went to these sites out of curiosity
to see if there was, in fact, any action I could take to get the excerpt of
Complicated Shadows taken down from a certain web site.
Fair Use consists of limitations put on copyright protection:
1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The excerpted text, in other words, must be used for commercial purposes if this
factor is violated, in my understanding. Please, any lawyers feel free to come
forward and correct my interpretation, law is not my field. Reviews, despite
being generally published in for-profit publications, are protected by the fair
use doctrine. I would tentatively assume that excerpts used for Recs pages, or
even for parody are also protected, because I do know that parody and satire are
protected under the law to a certain degree.
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
My understanding of factor 2 is that there are some kinds of work that are more
protectable than others. Novels, for example, and unpublished work. However,
as my work was, in essence, published on the 'Net, and because factor
3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole;
The excerpt of my work is a small part of the whole, and therefore cannot be
proven to violate my copyright. Now, there is some argument on what percentage
of a work CAN in fact be used within parody or satire, so I again welcome
comment from any attorney with a working knowledge of Fair Use.
and
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
If, in fact, you have a market for the the work and the value of your work is
subsequently damaged for further marketing, I believe that your copyright is, in
fact, protected.
Obviously, in my case, I published my works for free, there was no question of
marketing them. Hence, my solution to the Gordian knot was simply to reclaim
control of all my work by removing it from the 'Net. In my case, the party in
question has kept both the recommendation and the excerpted text up and is
apparently happy to refer readers to work which no longer exists. However, I do
believe that I will have legal recourse should she or anyone else choose again
to archive it.
Hindy, leave me out of your paranoid fantasies, please. I am not wrathful, I am
not vengeful, I could care less. I don't like being accused of myriad crimes
of which I'm innocent, particularly in public, and yes, then I will snap back.
Otherwise, I have a real life and better things to do, not to mention better
friends on the 'Net with whom to continue to have fun in fanfic, with XF, and
with each other.
I suggest you do the same.
bliss
bliss
This is text from the following web site:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/
A fair use example: It can often be difficult to determine whether or not a
particular use is a
"fair use". The four factors described in the statute often lead to conflicting
results. This is best
seen in analyzing an example fair use situation. The quotation of short passages
from a novel in a
negative newspaper review of that novel is generally considered a fair use. But
an analysis of the
four factors makes this result far from clear.
First Factor (purpose and character of the use): In analyzing the first factor,
the copying party
used the quotations in a for-profit newspaper (and therefore the use was for
commercial gain).
Generally, this would mean that the first factor weighs in favor of finding no
fair use. However, the
fact that the purpose of the use was to review or criticize the work is a fact
favorable to a finding
of fair use. While it is not clear from examining the statute, the later fact is
probably more
important than the first, meaning that the first factor set forth in the
Copyright Act should weigh
toward a finding of fair use.
Second Factor (nature of the copyrighted work): In analyzing the second factor
in our
example, a novel is one of the premier examples of a work which should be
protected by
copyright law. As a result, the second factor weighs toward a finding of no fair
use. If the novel
had not yet been published, this would be even more important. It can be
difficult to prove fair use
in the quotation of an unpublished work. However, it is not impossible, since
the unpublished
status of a work is only one element in the fair use analysis.
Third Factor (amount and substantiality taken): As for the third factor, only
short passages
from the novel were included in the review. This generally means that the third
factor is analyzed in
favor of a finding of fair use. However, the "quality" of the portion taken is
analyzed under this
factor as well as the "quantity." It is possible that these short passages are
the most important part
of the novel. If this were the case, this third factor might lead to a
conclusion of no fair use.
Fourth Factor (effect on potential market for protected work): Finally, the
fourth factor
should be considered in our example. Courts have stated that this is the most
important factor in
the fair use analysis. In this case, the negative review would clearly impact
the potential market for
or value of the copyrighted work. However, courts have stated that this factor
is to look only at
the portion taken to analyze the effect on the potential market, and not at any
negative comments
contained in a review. Thus, the question is whether the inclusion of the short
passages in the
newspaper would effect the market for the novel. When only short passages are
involved, courts
have generally held that there is no market effect, and this factor should be
analyzed in favor of a
finding of fair use.
cici...@yahoo.com
Loch Ness <loch...@texas.net> wrote:
> And I think going to someone's ISP and
> forcing him/her to take the page down over something like this is also
> rude - and completely excessive.
Well, it seems to be the "in" thing to do these days, doesn't it?
CiCi
======
THE CIRLE OF CiCi
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/3293/index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Modlist0
>
>Hindy et al:
Well well, the Oracle speaks....
>
>There's another issue here beside the legal one. Just because we
No there isn't babe. Don't spout your moralistic crap here. This is UseNet.
Don't you remember? Consult your newbie guide. Anything goes, nothing is
private. You post, you open yourself up to abuse. Live with it.
>legally have the right to do certain things or forbid certain things,
>is it wise?
Find that in a fortune cookie?
>
>are speaking to someone who
>had her own personal troll quite recently,
You called?
Personal trolls usually follow the self-righteous moronic fools.
Sound familiar?
>
>That's why I listen when he posts: he may not be God's greatest writer,
Like you are?!!!!
>but he is sure as heck a gentleman.
You could learn something here babe.
>
>
>
>Maureen, who thinks it wasn't wise to post her cool new X-File before
No one can accuse you of humility can they?
>although he did set me thinking on the subject of flamers.
You make an unwarrented assumption, oh foolish one.
CyberPunk, TNG
Modlist0
>Well, Brandon, you're right in one respect, we're violating 1013's
Oh my, DO YOU THINK?!!!
>copyrights by using their characters, but an author nevertheless has
>creative ownership of the story she writes.
Not on UseNet. Ask the all-knowing Ms.O'Brien, with her often quoted newbie
guide!!
CyberPunk,TNG
Who is quite amazed how this "newsgroup" has fallen apart. FOX doesn't have to
worry about the copyright violation issue, you all will self-destruct any day
now.
Btw, Ms.O'Brien, I am awaiting another OH SO COOL Punky story. PLEASE don't
delay. Post now. FOX and their lawyers are enjoying the saga.
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
(Amperage) writes:
>
>I only *wish* that someone would MST Oklahoma, even in part. . .
"Francis?? Who's FRANCIS??"
"And who the hell is 'MARION'?"
"No wonder the guy has nightmares."
"Averman?"
"He's Skinner, but with hair and personality."
"What's with this poetry?"
"Skip it, I did"
"I don't know what the hell is going on here"
"That's because you skipped the poetry."
"Why does he call this guy 'Frito'? "
"Because he can't spell 'enchilada' "
"That young agent is doomed."
"OW!! That had to hurt!"
"That Mulder is a crazy bastard."
"I wish they'd knock off the drugs, I like it when he screams."
"hudDLE! hudDLE!"
"Wouldn't they just throw his ass in the loony bin?"
"Yeah, but then it would only be 100k, and we couldn't fry our
eyeballs out reading it."
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Teddi Litman
ampe...@aol.com (Amperage) wrote:
>I only *wish* that someone would MST Oklahoma, even in part. . .
>
>
I admit I haven't seen the pages that started this whole thing. (They were
taken down last time I checked. It *does* make me wonder why some people are
so intent on finding legal recourse to have them taken down when they are
*already* down.) Usually however, parody (MST-style or otherwise) *is* a
labor of love. It might have been fun to read MSTs or other parodies of some
of our favorite, classic fanfics. I doubt it will ever happen now though
because of all this. Oh well.
Teddi
shanna...@pnx.com
http://members.tripod.com/~shirleysmiley
---------------------------------------------------
Laura Burchard
Coleen Sullivan-Baier <giz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <19980926103059...@ng105.aol.com> ampe...@aol.com
>(Amperage) writes:
> "He's Skinner, but with hair and personality."
> "What's with this poetry?"
> "Skip it, I did"
> "I don't know what the hell is going on here"
> "That's because you skipped the poetry."
Gizzie, have I told you lately that you are a goddess? Now this is *good*
MST3K -- the thing that would have irritated me if I was one of the
authors MSTed at the site in question was that was *lame* MSTing. I think
you gotta love what you MST in some way, even if it's just appreciation
for the glorious cheesiness of a walking carrot, for it to work. If you
hate it, it just comes off as an unclever way to whine.
Laura Burchard
Daddy793 <dadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes, please. Let's all remember that this is why the whole nastiness started --
>public, name-naming accusations based on pure suspicion.
Er, no. Hindy answered a very public post with a question, gave the
grounds for her suspicion. And I will note that in fact, the involvement
has yet to be denied.
Daddy793
Laura wrote:
<<Er, no. Hindy answered a very public post with a question, gave the
grounds for her suspicion. And I will note that in fact, the involvement
has yet to be denied. >>
My apologies for confusing that. As for denials... eh. To me, it just gives the
original accusation weight it doesn't deserve if you're truly innocent. We are,
after all, no courtroom.
Te
~~~~~~~
iwo...@earthlink.net
>has yet to be denied.
Bingo.
Thanks, Laura, for the cool head and the sane voice. And for
reminding us that facts have been ignored, actions have been shrugged
off but misdirection, bile-spewing and public sword-falling continue.
Marlene
iwo...@earthlink.net
(Not "Isabelle Wonders" or "iwonders")
bliss
for furthering the cause of the fanfic community while continuing to make dark
hints and suggestions.
What a comedy.
bliss
iwo...@earthlink.net wrote:
"I am not an angry girl/but it seems like I've got everyone fooled/everytime I say something they find hard to hear/they chalk it up to my anger/and never to their own fear- Ani DiFranco
Veronica
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
Veronica
Veronica
Veronica
Veronica
Hindy Bradley
bliss wrote:
>She responded by telling me to 'beware crossing her path'.
Here is Bliss saying she does not post private email:
> Because I decline to post private email to the group,
Here is Bliss offering to send private email to all and sundry:
>but anyone who REALLY needs to have their mind cleared, feel free to
> write, I'll forward it to you.
Here is Bliss admitting to sending private email to her friends:
> When the nature of said communications became clear, I forwarded it already to a
> few level-headed folks to serve as both witness and safeguard against my habit
> of cleaning out my inbox indiscriminately.
Hindy
sorry to prolong what began as an otherwise helpful thread.
Modlist0
>
>Here is Bliss quoting my private email:
Here is an ignoramus showing a total lack of comprehension....
>
>
>Here is Bliss saying she does not post private email:
>
I haven't seen this "private" email posted anywhere. Although I would LOVE to.
I don't have to tell you that email is NOT private do I? I am getting mighty
sick of educating you loons on this "newsgroup".
Posting the FULL text of the email is a violation of netiquette, making a
reference to it isn't.
Crazies...
First you infringe on copyrighted material, then you whine that said stolen
work has been infringed upon. Clueless be thy name.
>
>Here is Bliss offering to send private email to all and sundry:
So?
Repeat after me. EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE.
UseNet IS NOT PRIVATE.
WWW IS NOT PRIVATE.
You may stop once these facts penetrate your dim little skull.
>
>Here is Bliss admitting to sending private email to her friends:
Well let's just put her in the pokey, shall we?
She could post it on web-sites galore and you wouldn't have any recourse. DEAL
babe.
>
>
>Hindy
>sorry to prolong what began as an otherwise helpful thread.
What is it with these stupid self-serving tags?
Anyhoo, girlfriend, prolong away, you are helping me in my mission to stop the
violation of copyrighted material.
Love,
Punkie (AKA CyberPunk, AKA Maureen's muse. So while I am flattered some of
you think I am affiliated with this strange little war, you are wrong. I am
pleased at this disarray, don't get me wrong. Y'all are helping my cause.
Unwittingly I realize, but that's okay. I will take any help I can get...)
Veronica
Here is Veronica's Flame Filk:
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
Here is Veronica's Flame Filk:
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
Here is Veronica's Flame Filk:
This is the flame that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friends...
Some people started postin' stuff,
Knowin' the havoc it would cause,
And they keep on flamin' here,
forever, just because.......
Here is Veronica's Flame Filk:
Daddy793
Let's take a break for a little reality check, shall we?
I posted a summary of this mess as I saw it a few days ago. Another individual
took one point out, and pointed out where I had been, apparently, in error. I
apologized immediately, hoping this meant people would move on. I found out
just a few hours ago that this person's post was a baldfaced lie. I can't quite
bring myself to flat out *ask* what her motivations for lying were, but I'm
terrified they have more to do with prolonging the nastiness than anything
else.
But that's not quite my point, here. Yes, it's an uncomfortable idea that our
e-mails can be shared. However, to shamelessly quote, what we have here is
failure to communicate. It seems to me there are a handful of people responding
again and again to the ever-building pile of resentments and misunderstandings.
There are time concerns. There are phrasing concerns.
"Who said what to whom and when? And what, precisely, were they responding to?"
My betas would kill me for that construction, and rightly, but that's exactly
what's going on here. A newsgroup is far too large and unwieldy to make *any*
sort of sense of the issues behind this most recent snarl. bliss' offer is an
uncomfortable one, but, to my eyes, the only *possible* way this can reach any
sort of satisfactory conclusion for those involved.
Hey, here's a suggestion: start yourselves a little mailing list. In your
introductory posts state clearly and concisely as possible what's troubling
you. Discuss. Make an effort to reach, if not consensus, then at the very least
an agreement to put this to bed. What I like most about this suggestion is, of
course, the fact that if it's taken up *I* won't have to see any more of this
on the ng.
Perhaps you've missed the point of bliss' offer. She just offered *all* of us
the ultimate relief. The cure for any list's or newsgroup's flamewar pain:
Take. It. Private.Worth a try, don't you think?
As for the lifted quote from Hindy's e-mail: If anyone -- anywhere -- warned me
against "crossing their path," you better believe the absolute *best* they
could hope for me to do is not to e-mail them again. Threats are not to be
tolerated. Especially from someone who freely and publicly admits to having a
website they don't care for TOS'ed. This is something to be proud of?
Hindy wrote:
<<Here is Bliss quoting my private email:
bliss wrote:
>She responded by telling me to 'beware crossing her path'.
Here is Bliss saying she does not post private email:
> Because I decline to post private email to the group,
Here is Bliss offering to send private email to all and sundry:
>but anyone who REALLY needs to have their mind cleared, feel free to
> write, I'll forward it to you.
Here is Bliss admitting to sending private email to her friends:
> When the nature of said communications became clear, I forwarded it already
to a
> few level-headed folks to serve as both witness and safeguard against my
habit
> of cleaning out my inbox indiscriminately. >>
Te
bliss
as the kind that have been aimed at me in recent days by a denial is absurd.
Stillwater wrote to me to ask me let this rest, but I see that Laura and Marlene
still have some sort of bizarre ax to grind.
In fact, I did make a denial in answer to Laura's pot stirring post up in the
Unfounded Accusations thread. Facts are just too difficult to deal with,
apparently.
Throughout Lisby's alleged travails, the last communication I had with her was a
one line message on September 12th, I believe stating that I would be grateful
if she would remove *the quoted excerpt*, not the page or the recommendation.
I posted publicly to SlashX on three occasions, asking that the matter be kept
between me and Lisby and establishing my position. As for Hindy, I have no idea
where her head is at or why she persists in making subtle hints that I am
persecuting her, when I just flat don't care.
On the day that Cici Lean was TOS'd permanently, I wrote to Hindy privately
asking her if she'd had anything to do with it, primarily because the Socks
Shoppe went first, she's been public about her animosity to what she calls 'the
cult of the dead lab rat', and semi-public about her animosity to Cici.
Please note, this was PRIVATE, not on the newsgroup. She responded by telling
me to 'beware crossing her path'. Since then, I have not had private contact
with her, nor do I intend to.
I have a life, small and uninteresting as it may be to anyone else. I work a
nice challenging job for 45-50 hours a week, I had Goo as a houseguest last
week, I have teenagers and, alas, four cats, and I am also trying to write again
I have better things to do and better people to hang with than a couple of
semi-trolls who persist in blaming me for all that is wrong in their lives. And
the day I need to publicly deny anything to someone who relies on innuendo and
implication to try, convict and hang people in absentia, I hope I will hang up
my modem and quit.
Because I decline to post private email to the group, I can't prove to anyone
the nature of the communications from either Lisby or Hindy and one of Hindy's
friends, but anyone who REALLY needs to have their mind cleared, feel free to
write, I'll forward it to you.
When the nature of said communications became clear, I forwarded it already to a
few level-headed folks to serve as both witness and safeguard against my habit
of cleaning out my inbox indiscriminately.
Marlene, why don't you and Lisby go back to having fun on your mailing list, and
Laura, why don't you stuff it.
bliss
iwo...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>And I will note that in fact, the involvement
>>has yet to be denied.
>
>Bingo.
>Thanks, Laura, for the cool head and the sane voice. And for
>reminding us that facts have been ignored, actions have been shrugged
>off but misdirection, bile-spewing and public sword-falling continue.
>
>Marlene
>iwo...@earthlink.net
>(Not "Isabelle Wonders" or "iwonders")
"I am not an angry girl/but it seems like I've got everyone fooled/everytime I say something they find hard to hear/they chalk it up to my anger/and never to their own fear- Ani DiFranco
cici...@yahoo.com
dadd...@aol.com (Daddy793) wrote:
> As for the lifted quote from Hindy's e-mail: If anyone -- anywhere -- warned
me
> against "crossing their path," you better believe the absolute *best* they
> could hope for me to do is not to e-mail them again. Threats are not to be
> tolerated.
Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form.
>Especially from someone who freely and publicly admits to having a
> website they don't care for TOS'ed. This is something to be proud of?
Well, who knows. Maybe it's addictive.
CiCi Lean
PS: This -is- my last contribution to this thread, I'm 99% sure. So,
please save the "Can't We All Get Along?" and "Give Peace A Chance"
emails. Thanks.
JenRose
Modlist0 wrote in message
<19980928152649...@ng92.aol.com>...
<snip>
>Repeat after me. EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE.
>
>UseNet IS NOT PRIVATE.
>
>WWW IS NOT PRIVATE.
<snip>
This is all the more reason to pretend, in each and every post, that the
people you are talking to are real, actual human beings.
Fallable human beings. Human beings who have bad days sometimes. Human
beings who probably aren't really out to get you, but may simply be
having difficulty communicating clearly their intentions.
For 94% of the people who post on this particular board, I'm convinced
that the basic intent is good.
At times, many of the people here don't quite manage to communicate
their points of view without ruffling feathers, and many, many times,
the people reading here are not successful in reading without getting
their feathers ruffled.
It's like wearing pantyhose too long on legs that haven't been freshly
shaven. The hairs get rubbed the wrong way and *nothing* is right.
I choose, most of the time, to assume that other people's hurt feelings
are more about them than they are about anyone else's actions.
Personally, I think it rather strange to write fanfiction and then
attempt to limit its audience as much as possible.
I think it is rather peculiar that people are willing to be nasty in
emails in private but cry foul when that nastiness is made public. If
you don't feel strongly enough about your position that you aren't
willing to defend it in public, don't go on the attack. That said, when
a conversation is, by mutual *agreement* private, going public with it
is just plain tacky.
I also find the "I don't own the characters but don't steal mine" a bit
strange. I've done this myself, but it causes cognative dissonence of a
sort.
My personal ideal:
1. That fanfiction be preserved in as many places as possible, sorted in
as many ways possible by smaller archives, and kept in a variety of
larger "vaults".
2. That stories not be taken down... I'd rather that the author have the
name changed on them to a pseudonym than have the stories disappear.
3. That people maintain a sense of humor about the whole thing. I'd be
rather flattered if someone took the time to spoof something I wrote. In
fact, I actually encouraged someone to "badfic" a story I invested a
huge amount of time in.. it provided comic relief and a much needed
break from the seriousness of the writing. If we can't laugh at
ourselves....
4. That people post with respect, dignity and good humor, remembering
that each of us is human, and that words can hurt or heal.
5. That people be willing to admit mistakes with grace and humility,
rather than falling into unproductive defensiveness and hostility.
6. Likewise, that people be willing to give the benefit of the doubt,
rather than becoming self-righteous and closed off.
7. That each person who is involved in conflict take a few minutes to
attempt to comprehend the other side.
A few years ago, someone called me to task for failing to learn from
people whose perspectives were different from my own. I immediately
started talking about why my position was right.
She put up a hand, stopped me, and, shaking her head slowly, said, "The
fact that you are still arguing with me means you didn't hear me at
all."
She was absolutely correct. I shut up then and there, and took the
moment of silence to actually think about what *she* had been saying
rather than all the reasons I was right.
When I took those few minutes to think about what she'd been telling me,
I learned several of the most important lessons of my professional life,
and the most important single lesson of my adult life.
I learned how to listen to ideas beyond the scope of my world view and
learn from them.
So I guess what each of us gets to decide is how much we're going to
learn from the whole process of these boards... how much we're going to
let ourselves grow and mature and change from our virtual interactions.
Many people choose not to be changed at all. Others may seize the
opportunity to grow, mature, and learn. Usenet and the WWW offer an
incredible opportunity to broaden one's perspectives.
Like everything, it's a choice.
JenRose - Haven
Queen of my domain!
http://www.jenrose.com
X-Phile T-shirts, Storytelling forum, Fanfiction, and more!
_________________________________________________________________
"Complex systems thrive at the thin edge of chaos."
__________________________________________________________________
Any discussion of conversational tactics can be elaborated at:
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
Thompson
Fanfic is not a copyright violation!!! I did some asking around.
Fanfic is copyrighted as a parody to the writer of the fanfic story.
Which means, if CC and the 1013 goons wanted to sue, they couldn't.
As long as you're not making any money off of your stories, you're
completely safe. Which is why it's the sites containing audio and
video clips, pics, and scripts that are being shutdown by FOX, not
fanfic archives. And proof of this is Gossamer. If fanfic was
illegal, everybody involved in the Gossamer Project would be knee-deep
in the brown smelly stuff. As long as people put disclaimers on the
stuff and give credit to those who should get it, everything's legal
and we're all one big crazy happy world.
Brandon Ray wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Having said that, my
> understanding of "fair use" is that it is a legal doctrine which allows
> very limited use of copyrighted material without permission of the
> copyright holder.
>
> For example, if you write a story, I believe it falls under the fair use
> doctrine if you have your characters discuss the fact that they watched The
> X-Files last night, and have them talk about whether they likedthe episode
> and why. It would also be fair use (I think) for one character to accuse
> another one of "acting just like Cancerman".
>
> However, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have seen posted on this newsgroup or
> archived on the web goes far, far beyond "fair use". In fact, we are ALL,
> every single one of us, commiting massive copyright violation everytime we
> post a story, and the only reason nobody is getting sued or prosecuted is
> because, apparently, neither Fox nor 1013 feels it is worth doing, for
> whatever reason. Note that a number of web sites HAVE received legal
> warnings from the copyright owners when they posted unauthorized images
> from the show. Now, to my mind posting a picture of Gillian Anderson as
> Dana Scully is far less intrusive than most if not all of the fan fic I've
> seen...but apparently Carter and/or his lawyers feel otherwise.
>
> The bottom line is, getting back to your question, I don't think you have a
> leg to stand on, legally, if someone copies a story you wrote and MST's it
> -- or even if they just post it verbatim and claim that they wrote it.
> Remember the disclaimer that appears at the top of virtually every story
> that gets posted: WE DO NOT OWN THESE CHARACTERS. We have no standing to
> sue anyone, or ask that anyone be prosecuted. Fox does; 1013 does. But
> apparently they don't care about fan fic.
>
> Having said THAT, I will add that I think appropriating someone else's idea
> in the way you described is a pretty shitty thing to do. I would never,
> ever dream of doing that. The only copying of stories I do is for my own
> personal use, or to forward them to a couple of close friends who also
> enjoy reading them, and I ALWAYS preserve all the headers, credits, etc.
> If I start an online archive (which I am thinking about doing), I will only
> include stories whose authors have given appropriate permission.
>
> Oh, the other thing this person may be thinking of is that there is a right
> of commentary under American law. You can write a review of someone else's
> copyrighted work, and you can publish that review, including limited quotes
> from the work under review, without the copyright owner's consent. But you
> can't quote large chunks, and MSTing a story would seem to me to be across
> the line into infringement. You might try pointing out to this individual
> that Best Brains (the people who produce MST3K) do get permission from
> copyright holders for every film they do.
Teddi Litman
the.sue*@pobox.com (The SUe) wrote:
>
> It has been a long-held tradition (well, I'm kinda stretching the
>definition of "long-held" to something like 30-odd years, but...) that
>those involved in fanfic avoid shoving it in the faces of the folks
>involved in production. You see, fanfic exists in a sort of a limbo;
>as long as it is not drawing undue attention to itself and causing
>legal problems (i.e. fanfic writers are not suing because they think
>their ideas were stolen--which is the reason that most production
>companies don't read unsolicited scripts...they are worried about just
>that type of lawsuit), those involved in it are generally left alone.
>This is the reason for the creation of a.t.x.c in the first place: it
>allows those involved in the show's production read the general
>newsgroup without fear of someone claiming their idea was stolen. (As
>an aside, btw, you can't have an "idea" copyrighted, so therefore it
>can't be "stolen," just for general information.) Newbies really need
>to understand this.
Now perhaps *this* is an idea that should be propagated with regards to the
legality of fanfic, rather than trying to convince people certain genres of
fanfic will cause trouble. My feeling is fanfic will likely remain in its
legal limbo forever until some fanfic writer goes off the beam about seeing
plot points from one of his/her stories in either an episode or one of the
official novels. People should be reminded that previous fanfic ideas
*will* frequently turn up on the actual show. It isn't that anyone is
copying from fanfic; it's just that some fanfic writers are really great
educated guessers.:) If you turn out to be one these fanfic writers; you
should only feel flattered that you picked up enough of the forshadowing to
figure out what was going to happen. Gloat to your friends that you were
right<G>; please, don't accuse 1013 of stealing from you. First of all, they
didn't. Secondly, such accusations could ruin things for all of us.
Teddi
Parrotfish
I AM pasting below a wonderful, straightforward FAQ on the subject of
copyright. I found it on the Net a couple of years ago, and I keep it on
my hard drive for occasions such as this. It doesn't address the issue
of fanfic directly, but it does address certain common misconceptions,
like, "If I don't profit by it, it's not a copyright violation." It also
points out that the principle of "fair use" which one often hears cited
as a defense for fanfic really has nothing to do with it.
Also, note that there are trademark issues involved as well. The name
"The X-Files" is trademarked, and there are a whole set of rules and
regs regarding damaging a trademark.
A pet peeve of mine: stating in fanfic that an original character is
"copyrighted." And just where did we all find Mulder and Scully --
rolling around in the gutter outside our houses? :-)
[This is a draft FAQ, proposed for inclusion in news.announce.newusers.
It
has not yet been sent to news.answers for approval, so the Archive-name
above is just a proposal. After a few rounds of posting this as a
draft,
it'll be added to news.answers. - netan...@deshaw.com]
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
By Brad Templeton
1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
copyrighted.
This was true in the past, but today almost all major
nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example,
after April 1, 1989, almost everything created privately in the
USA is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
The default you must assume for other people's works is that
they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks
copyrighted, you must assume it is. This applies to pictures,
too. You can't scan pictures from magazines and post them
to the net, and if you come upon something unknown,
you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>"
You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)"
has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights
Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now
not needed.
2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
court, but that's essentially the only difference. It's still a
violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
property.
3) If it's posted to USENET it's in the public domain.
False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very
much like them.
Some argue that posting to USENET implicitly grants
permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
wide bounds, and others feel that USENET is an automatic store and
forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
when one posts to USENET" and in no case is this a placement
of material into the public domain. Furthermore it is very
difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all
the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) It's also usually in the public domain if the creator has
been dead for 50 years. If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
to the net, let me know. There are some other fine points
to this issue -- check more detailed documents for info.
4) My posting was just fair use!
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
the following in mind:
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow
things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
education about copyrighted works without the permission of the
author. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the
work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an
article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you
couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your
readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the
story or buy a copy of the paper? The former is probably fair
use, the latter probably isn't.
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is
necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the
commercial value of the work (which is another reason why
reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)
Note that most inclusion of text in USENET followups is for
commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial
value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it
is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The
court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright
on an indidvidual basis in each case. There have been cases
that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general
they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
It's a risky defence to attempt.
5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
explicitly given away. You may be thinking of trade marks, which
can be weakened or lost if not defended.
6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!
You can't copyright a name, or anything short like that.
Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
me and my monkey."
However, you can trademark an adjective, when applied to a
generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple"
computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to
computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple
Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the
word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't
mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on
this law for details.
You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
like "mtv." :-)
7) They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright
you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in
copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or
jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based
on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even
be made to self-incriminate.
8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?
Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
violation involving more than 10 copies and value over
$2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get
the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't
think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting
your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do than
that. This is a fairly new, untested statute.
9) It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising.
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past,
ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
large and appreciative USENET audience for a fee, but some
person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or
owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail
you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless
previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly *report* on
what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can
even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody
who sues over an ordinary message might well get no damages,
because the message has no commercial value, but if you want
to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the
other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.
----------------- In Summary ---------------------------
These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they
are written, and no copyright notice is required.
Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not,
only damages are affected by that.
Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
*perhaps* the sort of copying the poster might have expected
in the ordinary flow of the net.
Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable
social purposes. As yourself why you are republishing what
you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it
in your own words.
Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is
also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name
copyrighted.
Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights
of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply.
Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright
violation into the criminal realm.
Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder;
often it's not that hard to ask permission.
Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing
facts from E-mail isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail,
nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to freely copy this
document in electronic form, or to print for
personal use. If you had not seen a notice
like this on the document, you would have to
assume you did not have permission to copy it.
This document is still protected by you-know-
what even though it has no copyright notice.
It should be noted that the author, as publisher of an
electronic newspaper on the net, makes his living by
publishing copyrighted material in electronic form and has
the associated biases. However, DO NOT E-MAIL HIM FOR LEGAL
ADVICE; for that use other resources or consult a lawyer.
Also note that while most of these principles are universal
in Berne copyright signatory nations, some are derived from
Canadian and U.S. law. This document is provided to clear
up some common misconceptions about intellectual properly
law that are often seen on the net. It is not intended to
be a complete treatise on all the nuances of the subject. A
more detailed copyright FAQ, covering other issues including
compilation copyright and more intricacies of fair use is
available in the same places you found this note, or for FTP
on rtfm.mit.edu in pub/usenet-by-group/comp.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ.
Also consider gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright for
actual statutes.
Kipler
Well! That was actually kind of fun for me to read. Who'd have thought I
could get into legalese? Thanks, Parrotfish.
--Kipler
Rebecca Tushnet
service. Unfortunately, this FAQ has a definite anti-fair-use bias, and
asserts as fact some things that are highly contestable if not legally
erroneous as a matter of United States law.
For example, it is simply wrong to say that non-profit-seeking use
doesn't make a difference to the fair use analysis. It's certainly true
that non-profit uses *can* be infringement, for example if you posted
Stephen King's entire new book on your website so others could read it,
but it's equally true that non-profit use has repeatedly been singled
out for favored treatment by the courts and the Congress.
The FAQ's treatment of fair use is, in my opinion, erroneous in other
respects relevant to fan fiction. Fan fiction often resembles
"transformative use," taking aspects of copyrighted work and creating
something very different from the original work. Adding something new to
what you've borrowed -- mixing your intellectual labor with the
copyright owner's -- makes a difference, and U.S. copyright law favors
transformative uses. The FAQ downplays this, perhaps because recent
Supreme Court decisions have made this favoritism clearer than it used
to be.
I could go on (I've written an article on the topic if anyone wants to
email me, but it's written mainly for legal audiences). Just remember
that copyright pronouncements, like the average piece of advice you get
on the net, are worth about what you paid for it -- if you're lucky. And
this is *particularly* true when it comes to legal advice about the U.S.
system, where there's a plausible argument for almost any position you
want to take.
As for the trademark aspects, "Fox" as a network symbol is trademarked,
and Fox is attempting to trademark "The X-Files" -- FYI, the notation
"TM" does not denote a legally registered trademark; it's a sign that
the proprietor is trying to get you to accept their ownership. Only "R"
with a circle around it denotes a legally registered trademark with all
the extra rights that entails. "Dana Scully" and "Fox Mulder" are not,
so far as I am aware, trademarkable though I'm sure Fox will try. As far
as trademark law goes, the case against fan fiction is laughably bad --
to violate a trademark, you have to use it in a way that confuses
potential consumers of your goods. If you're not selling anything and if
there's a disclaimer or your lack of association with Fox is obvious, I
would find it hard to understand an infringement case.
It's *always* okay to discuss trademarked goods -- for example, you can
make as many Kleenex (R) jokes as you want and you will never risk
infringing the trademark. (There's a caveat to all this for "famous"
trademarks, specifically defined in U.S. law, but that law doesn't apply
here.)
The point being, there are other things to worry about. Like retaining
and recruiting good authors.
RT
Parrotfish
to come away with is that the law is very much open to interpretation,
and each individual must decide how safely s/he wants to play it. I know
that most online services and Internet companies I've worked for have
chosen to play things very safely after an initial free-for-all. For
example, in the early days of Compuserve, it was easy to download any
number of games based on Star Trek, many of which used that name. But
when Paramount started to huff and puff, every single one of those games
was pulled.
Still, I find that faq to be very useful in terms of clearing up some
enormous misconceptions. For example, while the courts may show some
favor to non-profit use, it is certainly incorrect to say that you can't
be sued if you don't make any money from the use of copyright material
-- an argument I've heard alarmingly frequently on the Net.
And just to illustrate how unclear the whole area of copyright on the
Net really is: last year, I attended a seminar on the subject held by
one of the top New York law firms in the field. There was serious
discussion about the notion that Internet technology inherently
infringes on copyright whenever any copyright material is accessed
because an actual copy of the material is cached on the server. In
theory, this is the same type of infringement as when someone makes a
photocopy of an article.
You also make an excellent point about not taking any advice you read on
the Internet as gospel. If you're turning to Usenet for legal advice,
you're asking for trouble.
That said, I will now ignore my own advice. I have a couple of questions
about some points you make:
> For example, it is simply wrong to say that non-profit-seeking use
> doesn't make a difference to the fair use analysis. It's certainly true
> that non-profit uses *can* be infringement, for example if you posted
> Stephen King's entire new book on your website so others could read it,
> but it's equally true that non-profit use has repeatedly been singled
> out for favored treatment by the courts and the Congress.
Whenever I've had occasion to consult lawyers on the question of fair
use, I've been cautioned again and again to be very conservative in my
interpretation. Fair use, I've been told, is pretty much restricted to
educational and journalistic contexts. Of course, this advice came to me
in for-profit situations. Do you know more about the specifics of the
situations in which the courts have interpreted fair use more broadly
because of not-for-profit use?
> As for the trademark aspects, "Fox" as a network symbol is trademarked,
> and Fox is attempting to trademark "The X-Files"
It's not trademarked yet???!!! What, are the Fox lawyers too busy
surfing the Web for Simpsons images?
>"Dana Scully" and "Fox Mulder" are not,
> so far as I am aware, trademarkable though I'm sure Fox will try.
NB: I read that Paramount has trademarked the phrase, "Make it so."
Really.
>As far
> as trademark law goes, the case against fan fiction is laughably bad --
> to violate a trademark, you have to use it in a way that confuses
> potential consumers of your goods. If you're not selling anything and if
> there's a disclaimer or your lack of association with Fox is obvious, I
> would find it hard to understand an infringement case.
What about, for example, sexually explicit fanfic? Couldn't that be said
to damage the value of the mark? For example, if I wrote a story in
which Mickey Mouse does Goofy, might not Disney sue my ass? (leaving the
whole question of parody out of it, for argument's sake.)
Phew. Enough already. That last image hurt my brain. :-)
Parrotfish
bliss
lot of muddy points in an easy to understand fashion.
kip...@aol.com (Kipler) wrote:
"I am not an angry girl/but it seems like I've got everyone fooled/everytime I say something they find hard to hear/they chalk it up to my anger/and never to their own fear- Ani DiFranco