I'm very grateful for this: it will be forwarded to various lists
(aagh I _don't_ want to think about the copyright issues!)
 
In message  <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
.uga.edu writes:
> [Having set HISTARCH to NOMAIL for the past week, I am not aware if this
> information has already made the rounds. In any event, a number of
> individuals have expressed that they would like electronic copyright
> information posted to the listserve. I pulled this off of KANSAS-L. Once
> again, it is applicable to anyone utilizing the internet for research
> purposes. BBB]
> --------------------
>
>
>
>                 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
>                         By Brad Templeton
>
... [deletions of the things which need no comment]>
>
>         3) If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain.
>
>         False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
>         owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
>         as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
>         this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
>         much like them.
 
Things also enter the public domain at various [interesting] intervals.
For example, under British copyright laws, fifty years after a photograph
was taken (or rather, fifty years after the end of the year).  Photographs
are unusual in this, usually there is a years-after-the-death-of-the-author
stipuation in the law (and this is not always 50 years - 60 and 70 years
also occur).
 
A question: parody as fair use - is this only a American judgement,
or a world-wide one (from memory, British law only allows for
'review' and 'criticism')
 
One thing that really annoys me: under British law, one can only copy one
article from a given volume of a journal.  (E.g. if Joe Boggs and Joan
Bliggs both write on Early Brick Walls in _Walls International_ Vol. 1.2,
then I can only get one article.  AAAGGH.  It is the best (?only) argument
agaist themed volumes I know.
 
>         other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
>         it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
>         commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
>         E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.
In Britain, the commercial value has nothing to do with it.  What
matters is the theft (i.e. breaking and entry, rather than theft of
goods to the value of ...).   The damages therefore relate to the thief's
ability to pay, rather than directly to the value of the goods taken.
 
One point missed, under British law, at least, it doesn't matter
how hard you tried to find the owner of copyright, (letters to
_The Times_, personal calls to their answering machine,
faxes to their publishers ...) it isn't enough - you have to
have the owner's permission.
 
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]