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that we as a profession divide into two groups: those who are in Greece on a regular basis (and therefore are privy to unpublished info.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 While I of course respect the right of an excavator to request that unpublished material not be cited, I'm continually amazed at the number of excavators who will show one their new finds ("look what I've got!)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.