Re: Netiquette--Is permission required?

Subject: Re: Netiquette--Is permission required?
From: Jan Boomsliter <boom -at- CADENCE -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:29:49 -0800

Let's keep this stuff sorted out. I submit the following for consensus.

The following points have to do with quoting, with and without
permission, and/or attribution (nothing to do with copyright):

- When we speak to an identified news organization or rep thereof, we
give tacit permission to be quoted
- We are not public figures
- Public or not, no one should be quoted without attribution

The following has to do with the rights to what we post to this list:

- The originator owns the words
- If the posting is to the list - not private, tacit permission is
given to reprint to members of the list, with attribution and with
any editing noted.
- Permission to quote away from this list is not implied.
- Eric has spoken: no quoting without permission.

jb
==============================
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." =*=


Previous by Author: Re: Looking for jobs with ads
Next by Author: Re: Reading comprehension tests
Previous by Thread: Re: Netiquette--Is permission required?
Next by Thread: Job Listings: USA-PA-PHILADELPHIA area


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads