Chris and FML Readers,
 
Since my name has been invoked here on "the list" as my wife
and I refer to it, here goes ...
 
The question of copyright on various items that are published
electronically across the networks will undoubtedly get fully
hashed out in courts of law. I think our goal here is to avoid
being the hashee. And since I have been publishing various print
and video items for a number of years without being sliced or
diced by said attorneys, I offer this unsolicited advice
[keeping in mind that I am not an attorney, you have the right to
counsel before questioning, your milage may vary and so forth]:
 
Reprinting a posting from another online service WITH the author's
permission appears to be safe. If the author sends a copy to
another service, we can assume she or he is giving permission to
be "reprinted." [A "posting" here is defined as a single message,
written by one person.]
 
Electronic press releases, Health Alerts, etc. which are clearly labelled
as "handouts" to the public and which may even have a copyright and
permission line at the bottom are safe to reprint.
 
Short quotations from books or magazines may safely be included in a
review of said material. Now comes the less safe area. If one complete
issue of the FML were to consist of one complete chapter of someone
else's book, that would be what lawyers might call "ill advised."
 
Reprinting a string of 10 messages from another online service with
identifying headers, message numbers, etc. intact seems to be the
same thing as reprinting several pages from someone's book. Others may
have written paragraphs in the book and have given permission for THOSE
paragraphs to be reprinted. However, the publisher, who wants the public
to buy the book from hir, won't be happy to see those pages appear in
another place.
 
You could be tricky and, after quoting the 10 messages, say:
"It's obvious that the iambic pentameter of these medical messages is
obtuse. And look at the ragged line endings ..." But would a lawyer on
40% commission of recovered damages buy that as "fair use"?
 
The overall discussion of messaging legalities is important, especially
when applied to volunteer activities. Chris Lewis doesn't have a legal
staff waiting to bail him out of trouble. General Electric, owner of
the GEnie service, does have staff to protect what THEY view as their
intellectual property.
 
And now back to Living With Weasels, already in progress ...
 
[Thank you for the concise summary.  I am not a lawyer either,
but I am a long-time practitioner in a field where IP and copyright
are extremely important, and I have spent some considerable time
becoming knowledgeable about the subject.  I was being lazy.  I should
have known better.  No excuses.  Thanks for knocking me on the head.
And my apologies to GEnie.]
 
<Chip>
 
<Chip Gallo * Action Comm Research * Rockville, MD USA  >
<[log in to unmask] * CIS: 76376,3147 * Ferret Owner>
<OS/2 2.1 User * Laser Disc Potato * LAN Man * NetAware >
 
[Posted in FML issue 0454]