It has always been my interpretation that if you write it you own it.
Reproduction in any way requires permission of the author.  Reproduction
without permission is theft of intellectual property.  In part this
explains my insistence that quoting of previously posted material be kept
to a minimum.

Mind you, I am not a lawyer and I never played one on TV.  However I am
certain that one can make a case for copyright infringements when a post is
lifted verbatim from BEE-L and published  it elsewhere as a source for bee
related banter.

Reproducing written word requires permission of the author.  I miss Andy
Nachbar who ended his contributions with:

(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in any form, or to print for any personal use.
(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.

Aaron Morris - thinking the problem with lawyers is they're never lacking
for clients!

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Jerry Bromenshenk <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Careful about confusing copyright with plagiarism and professional
> courtesy.  I've had not only my writings but even experiments and methods
> lifted - I will  refrain from naming the people, but I don't have a lot of
> respect for them.
>
> Oe worked in my favor when I read a major review of sentinel animals and
> found my own words, without attribution, used by the Federal Agency.  I
> didn't bother to tell them that they were quoting me , since the statement
> was used to endorse the concept.
>
>
>
> I can imagine that a Beekeeping Association, selling subscriptions or
> bundling with membership, may have actually copyrighted their Newsletter.
> Bee-L seems to me to be a different story - I doubt that Bee-L can
> copyright any of it's members comments without the members approval.  That
> said, Bee-L is an open source, freely shared Forum, so anything posted is
> being placed into the Public Domain - the moderators can chime in and
> correct me if I'm wrong.   I suppose a member could copyright every
> comment, but then he/she would have to inform Bee-L, and I'm not sure but
> that runs counter to the concept of an Informed Discussion Group.
>
> Word for word lifting without attribution - that's Plagiarism.  It's not a
> copyright issue.
>
> Quoting or summarizing someone's else's comment with attribution - done
> all the time.  In the old days, authors citing other authors in scientific
> articles, asked permission.  I haven't had anyone do that in years.  I do
> check to see if they got it right, if I'm cited.  I am pleased and
> surprised when someone asks, we've a distinct lack of professional courtesy
> these days.
>
> Also, beware of the revolving door articles.  I'm amazed at how many
> journalist's and bloggers quote me without ever talking to me.  They find
> some article, lift and reprint it as their own. Editors of magazines and
> newspapers freely grab articles, slice/dice, and re-work.  If you doubt
> this, just ask yourself how many news stories on the Internet and on TV use
> word for word descriptions, taken not only from their own networks, but
> from those of their competitors.
>
>              ***********************************************
> The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
> LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
> http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
>
>

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html