Re: Netiquette--Is permission required?

[Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

Bob Lord wrote--

   Sort of!!! The essence of the question I posted is this:
   Does someone  give tacit approval to reuse opinions,
   discussion, etc, by putting these "in the  public domain" on
   the List?  After all, public figures are quoted all the time
   (many times out of context, and much to their dismay) in the
   media, why  shouldn't tech writers? (with reference to where
   the quote came from, of  course.)
==========
My opinion on this is "no." Here's a couple of analogies:

1. Small analogy:  I write a poem that I'd like to share with
others in the building where I work, so I post it on the
bulletin board. Just because I've posted it to the bulletin
board doesn't mean I've given implicit permission for them to
copy it and submit it to some magazine. It is still my original
work for which I retain rights to. All I've done is let them see
my work (by *my* choice), I haven't "given" it to them.

2. Large analogy:  Millions of people subscribe to magazines.
Many of those magazine publishers own the copyrights to the
articles that are printed in them. The magazines are distributed
to their millions of subscribers. Do those articles now become
"public domain." Heck, no.

Someone else on the list described this much better in copyright
terminology--it may have been Arlen(?).

As far as public figures go, their spoken words may be quoted
and their likeness may be used, but I believe their written
words are afforded the same level of protection by copyright law
as any other person.

    =*=  Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil  =*=
   =*=  "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
    =*=   I am not representing my employer in any way."  =*=