With some digging (electronically) and some editing,
here are the copyright and citation issues covered
the list for the pre-Classical Aegean, AEGEANET.
Kenneth Gauck
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------
And yes, AegeaNet is being cited in print: Louise
Hitchcock's Knossos Reconstruction paper cites
AegeaNet several times and I will be citing it in my
Bull-Games paper (to appear in _Aegaeum_); I assume
there are others forthcoming -- AegeaNet is, after all,
young, less than a year old.
John Younger
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Rehak and I presume that opinions and facts
expressed on AegeaNet are just that, opinions and
facts, that they are public and therefore publishable
(if anyone thinks them valuable). We suggest
therefore that should anyone wish to refer to
AegeaNetted items they should carefully distinguish
between opinion and fact and cite them appropriately,
with reference to author and the date when it appeared
on AegeaNet:
"A similar interesting opinion was expressed
by Max the Monster Dog on the e-mail discussion group
AegeaNet on 12 Feb 1994."
OR:
"Goldie the Rippy Pup appropriately drew our
attention to this bibliography on the e-mail discussion
group AegeaNet on 12 Feb 1994."
John Younger & Paul Rehak
------------------------------------------------------
One important aspect of the ongoing discussion about
the citation of information and discussion of new
material is that we as a profession divide into two
groups: those who are in Greece on a regular basis
(and therefore are privy to unpublished info. from
sites), and the vast majority who are not. It seems
to me that one of the purposes of an e-mail network
is to facilitate the dissemination and discussion of
evidence and ideas in order to advance scholarship.
Unfortunately, there is a long archaeological
tradition that treats excavated evidence as a
personal possession rather that as knowledge for us
to work with in common. While I of course respect
the right of an excavator to request that unpublished
material not be cited, I'm continually amazed at the
number of excavators who will show one their new finds
("look what I've got!) in the privacy of the apotheke,
and ask for advice, but who also want to keep their
information secret. And in some cases, the lapse
between "discovery" and "publication" has reached an
absurd state. We can all think of material unearthed
in the 60's (or even earlier) that is still known only
through preliminary reports.
Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Rehak <[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------------------------------
ERIC H. CLINE" <[log in to unmask]> pointed out
"I have also felt it is good form to double-check
with the person concerned if a quotation is involved,
given the "off-the-cuff" nature of many remarks
sent via Email. -- Eric"
There are several reasons why confirming a quote
is a good idea.
1) a typo could have occured
2) the author may have been making a provacative
statement rather than the kind of measured
statement that they have published elsewhere.
3) the author may be able to direct you to a published
source or primary source.
4) the post may have been a joke. The New Republic
published a parody of the Menendez case and in
the following week's letters an instructor wrote
that the magazine's lack of identification of
this piece as a satire led him to trust it was
factual and use it in class. It was on of his
students that identified the piece as fiction.
5) it permits both parties to do the kind of fact-
checking that academic publishing demands.
6) its so easy to do.
Kenneth Gauck
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 12 Sep 1994 22:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Nathan Meyer <[log in to unmask]>
At berkeley, for example, we (interested
archaeologists) are in the process of setting up a
Web server that will carry field reports of the
associated archaeologists. This obviously occasions
much discussion about academic standards, whether
field reports published electronically will carry
the same weight as paper journals, and also
issues of intellectual property laws.
------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 1 Oct 1994 15:32, the Aegeanet listowner, John
Younger <[log in to unmask]> posted the following
SUMMARY of authoritative responses concerning e-mail
citing & copyright
I have down-loaded the previous *AegeaNet* discussions
about citing and copyright and can e-mail these to the
interested. After our discussions over AegeaNet in
September about citing e-mail dicussions and questions
of copyright, etc., I wrote Linda Wright, the list-server
for Classics, and Chuck Jones, the list-server for ANE,
and asked them their opinions; pretty much we all agreed
on the basic principles that Paul Rehak and I had offered
months ago and renewed: that e-mail was public and, since
it is in written form, therefore published; and that one
needed to watch what one writes in that forum as in any
other.
I then found a copyright e-mail discussion group
([log in to unmask]) and an e-mail list-owners
discusion group ([log in to unmask]) and
put the matters to them. The responses are
illuminating and I send them on to you.
First, an abbreviated version of what I sent these two
groups; and Second, the responses (a selection), edited
with credits given.
-----
Friends!
I have a question, which probably your lists have an
already composed answer for. I manage a list on
pre-classical Greek matters, with a subscription of
about 400 members (say 50 communicate regularly, another
100 occasionally, the rest lurkers), mostly professional.
The list is young, barely 9 monsths old.
Some of the professional archaeologists have become
concerned that their comments on the net will be cited
in published (i.e., written in journals, etc.) articles.
And others have become concerned that their comments
will be plagiarized by others without citation, or will
be taken as fact without verifying.
To the last two concerns, I have written, that, as in
life, there's little one can do to protect one's ideas
from being taken literally and from just being taken.
As to the first concern, I (and other list-managers in
this general field of classical studies) have offered a
citation-formula (e.g., "I am indebted for this idea to
So-and-so, LIST, Date).
But many subscribers have assumed that e-mail discussion
groups were like casual conversations. I reminded the
subscribers, however, that each posting went to over 400
people, most of whom were 'lurkers'.
I repeat my four questions:
So, my questions are:
* are e-mail discussions like published comments?
* what is an accepted way to cite them?
* are they automatically copyrighted or can they
be copyrighted?
* is there such a thing as being liable for what
one says on the net?
And here are some of the answers (with authors cited):
1) ARE E-MAIL DISCUSSIONS LIKE PUBLISHED COMMENTS?
The rule of thumb is that you should not post anything
to mailing lists or Usenet that you don't want your
mother to know (or have posted on a billboard in your
home town).
[log in to unmask]
The question should be:
can something I say/write be cited
Arguably yes. For example I can cite personnel letters
(email or US mail) sent to me in articles. I can also
cite discussions (whether they be in a bar or not). Also,
I can cite talks/presentations in my papers. I think all
aspects of citing email list traffic are covered under
one of the above citation issues.
John Rouillard
Senior Systems Administrator
IDD Information Services
University of Massachusetts at Boston
[log in to unmask]
2) WHAT IS AN ACCEPTED WAY TO CITE THEM?
I'd rather the user verified the statement to be quoted
with the author and then cited personal communication.
Carl Drott <[log in to unmask]>
College of Information Studies
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Citation is a little difficult: who, date and Message-ID
are the most reliable pieces of information after a context.
Alan Thew
[log in to unmask]
University of Liverpool, Computing Services
One that I have seen looks like:
Rouillard, John P., "Re: citations/copyrights of ...",
via electronic mail on the <list> mailing list, 16:44EDT,
September 26, 1994.
John Rouillard
Senior Systems Administrator
IDD Information Services
University of Massachusetts at Boston
[log in to unmask]
I would tend to encourage using a Message-ID as well,
as that field is known to be unique for each mailer.
David Casti <[log in to unmask]>
3) ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY COPYRIGHTED
OR CAN THEY BE COPYRIGHTED?
The truth of the matter is that *no one* knows. There
are a lot of people who have shared a lot of
speculation on this topic, but until a case arrives in
front of a judge somewhere -- there is no case law on
this matter.
David Casti <[log in to unmask]>
Per the Berne Convention, all writings are
automatically copyrighted. No special notices are
necessary. However, keep in mind that it has not
yet been tested in court.
Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers
[log in to unmask]
Anything in print (paper or electronically coded
letters...) is copyrighted. If a person has an IDEA and
gets it into PRINT of any sort, that print, which is
the visible cloak of the idea is copyrighted. Only
text can be copyrighted. Vocalized ideas need to be
written down (song into scored music; speech into text).
Copyright does not mean that material is not liftable,
it means only that you can go to court over theft!
[log in to unmask]
Yes, everything you write is covered automatically by
copyright. The question is: by posting do you give
permission to repeat? Also remember that copyright
protects utterances NOT ideas. If you don't want your
ideas taken, don't utter them.
Carl Drott <[log in to unmask]>
College of Information Studies
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104
4) IS THERE SUCH A THING AS BEING LIABLE
FOR WHAT ONE SAYS ON THE NET?
There was a case just about three years ago that
settled part of this issue, specifically that the
service provider [i.e., [log in to unmask], and
presumably the list-owner as well] was not legally
liable for content. I do not recall hearing the
outcome of the rest of the case, which would have
established liability for electronically-disseminated
publications. However, the safest route is to assume
that, yes, you can be held liable for anything you say.
Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers
[log in to unmask]
USENET news is in a similar situation. There have
already been libel cases sucessfully brought which
relied on electronic comments. It will probably
vary form country to country. I personally would
regard them as being in the public domain.
Alan Thew
[log in to unmask]
University of Liverpool, Computing Services
Yes, you can be liable, but most likely the penalty
is being thought a fool by others.
Carl Drott <[log in to unmask]>
College of Information Studies
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104
--------------------------
Ken:
In the interest of anyone printing or saving this post
I have included Anita's "last word" post:
From ELECTRONIC STYLE: A GUIDE TO CITING ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION by Xia Li and Nancy B. Crane
(Westport: Meckler, 1993), pp.49-50:
Cite a Message: Basic form
Author of message (year, month, day). Subject of
message. Electronic Conference or BBS [Online].
Available email: LISTSERV@email address.
Example:
Hurst, J.A. (1992, September 10). International
finance questions. Business Libraries Discussion
List [Online]. Avaiable e-mail:
[log in to unmask]
Capitalize the names of discussion groups, and lists as they are proper
names. [Also, put the name of the discussion list in italics (I can't
reproduce that here).]
Cite a discussion or Conference: One Topic, Several
Discussants Basic form
Author of message. (year, month, day). Topic of
discussion [Discussion].
LISTSERV [Online]. Available e-mail:
LISTSERV@e-mail address.
Example:
CHRISTIN. (1992, September 22). HRAF/Librarian
spouses [Discussion]. General Anthropology
Bulletin Board [Online]. Available e-mail:
[log in to unmask]
[If author's name is not available, use the author's login name in
uppercase letters.]
The book does not have anything on WWW as the technology was not yet
widely available when this edition came out. I strongly advise people to get a
copy of this book.
|
