Etiquette On Publishing Response Received On Question To CaRT Director

[John Holden]

 

The next letter came from a rather large legal team. I ignored it. They then threatened a suit for breach of copyright, defamation of character and a few other things that I've forgotten. I ignored that.

 

In the end I agreed to have the letter taken down from behind the pub if they donated £1 to a charity of my choice. Which they did.

 

I later found out that their own barristers had told them they didn't have a leg to stand on and would absolutely lose if they persued the matter to court. I have no reason not to believe that as they were so angry, had they thought they had even the remotest chance of winning, they would have gone to court, rather than backing down.

 

 

More likely failed on the defamation of character aspect than the breach of copyright and then in the light of the contents of the letter "fair comment".

I don't think that gives a good insight into the law in general regarding copyright.

[mayalld]

More likely failed on the defamation of character aspect than the breach of copyright and then in the light of the contents of the letter "fair comment".

I don't think that gives a good insight into the law in general regarding copyright.

 

I wasn't even looking at the hopeless case for defamation of character.

[grey wolf]

So when companies append correspondence with the likes of -

 

'This communication is confidential and intended for the original recipient only. Any subsequent distribution is unlawful etc etc'

 

it means nothing?

 

Is every No mooring notice you see on the cut backed by law. I should think that in some cases at least it is merely a scare tactic.

 

If the question you asked was private to you or a person on who's behalf you are acting then it would be wrong to publish it but if it is a matter of policy then it may save BW a lot of time answering lots of similar requests for information as policy should not change from person to person..

[Morat]

So when companies append correspondence with the likes of -

 

'This communication is confidential and intended for the original recipient only. Any subsequent distribution is unlawful etc etc'

 

it means nothing?

 

AFAIK, the use of legal boilerplate in email signatures has never been tested in court. Of course, no-one wants to fatten the lawyers by testing it....

[John Holden]

I wasn't even looking at the hopeless case for defamation of character.

 

Aye, I was reminded of an event many decades ago which I won't go in to detail here but just give a brief overview.

 

I was taken to court by a woman. After much ado, the court declared that she was not seeking justice but revenge and that she was a vexatious litigant. The court refused to hear any more of the case and struck it all off, refusing to hear even the parts that were not vexatious and barred her from ever taking me to court again.

 

I think the case against Gibbo failed on similar grounds and not because there was no breach of copyright.

[wannabe]

The legal position is clear....it's just that individuals don't accept it.

An e-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author and is a legal document that can be used in court as evidence.

Therefore you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately, and you cannot post private e-mails to a website, to a message board or to a blog without the author’s specific permission to do so. Just because an e-mail was sent to you as a private communication does not mean you then own it and can do with it what you like. In addition, an e-mail that is posted to a group of people, on a mailing list or forum does not make the e-mail available for reposting, copying, or any other use – not without the express and written consent of the author. There is also a distinction between a private email sent from a personal, private address and a email sent from a company address. In the case of the latter the copyright may rest with the company.

 

As for ethics....It's "knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do". (Potter Stewart)

 

Does the same apply to a hand written letter? regarding copyright etc

I think the law is actually unclear on the matter of copyright.

But, only being a lay person I bow to anyone with more knowlege than me.

Laws are supposed to be confusing.

How else would lawyers justify their fees lol

[Québec]

 

Does the same apply to a hand written letter? regarding copyright etc

I think the law is actually unclear on the matter of copyright.

But, only being a lay person I bow to anyone with more knowlege than me.

Laws are supposed to be confusing.

How else would lawyers justify their fees lol

 

Yes, the same applies to hand-written letters.

 

I know I said 'the law is clear...', and it is in relation to the artefacts copyright applies to e.g. letters and emails - which were the main focus of the discussion. But the complications and complexities arise - and the lawyers have a field day - as to what constitutes infringement. The law has also been attempting (and not really succeeding very well) to play catchy-up with the digital age.

 

(I should perhaps add that I'm not a lawyer, but have dealt extensively with issues of copyright (images, music, documents, etc.) in my day job.

[grey wolf]

My link

 

moral etiquette are your own but this site seems to suggest that there is no copyright involved and i can see no reason why saving people the time to ask the same question of the authority can be considered in any way underhand and could be seen as an advantage to the sender and sendee

 

As far as actions go it is not a real auction the price is set with a 10% wiggle room.

Edited October 4, 2012 by grey wolf

[Ange]

My link

 

moral etiquette are your own but this site seems to suggest that there is no copyright involved and i can see no reason why saving people the time to ask the same question of the authority can be considered in any way underhand and could be seen as an advantage to the sender and sendee

 

As far as actions go it is not a real auction the price is set with a 10% wiggle room.

 

Thank you grey wolf - that's the document I referred to in my earlier posts but I couldn't figure out how to post a direct link

[carlt]

Thank you grey wolf - that's the document I referred to in my earlier posts but I couldn't figure out how to post a direct link

Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

...

Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.

...

 

So come on Alan...educate us!

[John Holden]

My link

 

moral etiquette are your own but this site seems to suggest that there is no copyright involved and i can see no reason why saving people the time to ask the same question of the authority can be considered in any way underhand and could be seen as an advantage to the sender and sendee

 

As far as actions go it is not a real auction the price is set with a 10% wiggle room.

 

But note, the page you link to is copyright!

[Smelly]

My link

 

moral etiquette are your own but this site seems to suggest that there is no copyright involved and i can see no reason why saving people the time to ask the same question of the authority can be considered in any way underhand and could be seen as an advantage to the sender and sendee

 

As far as actions go it is not a real auction the price is set with a 10% wiggle room.

 

Pretty much what the solicitor we consulted said too but it's a waste of time getting into a Willy waving contest...

[RLWP]

Pretty much what the solicitor we consulted said too but it's a waste of time getting into a Willy waving contest...

 

Spoilsport. You know you are going to lose, don't you

 

Richard

[boingy]

Woo woo!

 

Oh, sorry. I thought the contest had started...

[Jerra]

A quick search on the internet for copyright on personal letters brought the following up.

 

When attempting to locate the copyright owner of personal letters, keep in mind

that in most cases, the copyright owner is the writer of the letter—not the recipient

or owner of the physical letter. If the letter has not been published, contact the

writer of the letter. If the writer of the letter is deceased, the copyright will have

transferred to his or her estate.

 

That seems fairly clear cut to me.

[jenlyn]

Just word into your request that you will possibly publish any reply to a forum, please be aware of this, by replying, you agree to this condition.

[John V]

Just word into your request that you will possibly publish any reply to a forum, please be aware of this, by replying, you agree to this condition.

 

I wonder if that decreases the chances of receiving a reply at all, somehow that seems more off putting than receiving a request to publish afterwards, or am I just being a cynic.

[jenlyn]

I wonder if that decreases the chances of receiving a reply at all, somehow that seems more off putting than receiving a request to publish afterwards, or am I just being a cynic.

They can always reply stating that they'd not want it published and I will have to accept

[Smelly]

Spoilsport. You know you are going to lose, don't you

 

Richard

 

It"s one of those "never tested"issues and I can't be arsed engaging in useless rhetoric tbh.

[Grace and Favour]

It"s one of those "never tested"issues and I can't be arsed engaging in useless rhetoric tbh.

 

Shurely that should be "never testes'd a willy waving competition"