Uechi-Ryu.com

Sifu Mooney wants a letter he requested to be published, pulled from the "Articles" section. He called my home yesterday when I wasn't home and demanded that the letter be "pulled". He followed up the call with the following email:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dear Mr. Mattson and Mr. Skeffington;
I have previously withdrawn my permission for you to use copyrighted materials of mine at your website (Mr. Mattson). The ISP who serves that URL has also been notified (Mr. Skeffington). A Cease and Desist Order will be issued if you do not remove my copyrighted material from your website. You are in violation of copyright regulations. Please remove my copyrighted materials from your website. Thank you.

Mr. Richard Mooney <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since Sifu Mooney requested that I publish his letter, can he now, after the letter was published, demand that it be removed?

The question of whether the letter's contents is relevent to the whole topic of "empty energy" is being discussed on Bill's forum. What I'd like to know from our legal experts, is what their thoughts are regarding my rights as a publisher and the rights of the author:

1. Does the author retain copyrights to "letters to the editor" type material?

2. How does the copyright laws relating to the Internet compare with print copyright laws?



------------------
GEM

To: GEM

I saw your posts on Bill's forum and perhaps this response is moot, but since Sifu Mooney requested the publication he had no right to object to its posting in the Article's section.

I am no authority on copyright law as it applies to the Web; it is a rapidly developing area of the law and would require extensive research so my opinon is not a strict legal opinon.

However, since you have agreed to delete it, the point is moot.

The responses published in these forums have copyright protection to which you or Eastern
are entitled; sifu would certainly have no control over published responses to his requested publication. Custom and usage in these forums implicitly invite response to any reader. I doubt that any court would enforce an injunction for violation of copyright laws where the publication was in fact, at the request of the Plaintiff.

Your actions were responsive and most cordial to sifu in my opinion.


Alan K

The same regualtiosn that govern copyrighted material inthe print and broadcast media do indeed apply to the internet as well.

It is a commom misconcenption that if information is somewhere on the internet, it's in the public domain, and freely available to all and the original author has no copyright protections. This is very wrong.

The only information or work that is in the public domain is that which the author EXPLICITLY allows to be. This is all governed under Title 21.

However, there are exceptions to this. Non-profits and educational establishments may copy and distribute copyrighted material under the doctrine of "fair use". It is unknown if GEM would be protected under this doctrine if push came to shove. This is in Section 107, Title 21 of the US Code.

Interesting question as to whether a copyright holder may later rescind previously granted permission to disseminate copyrighted material.

Gene

Thanks for the citation, Gene

Our office library is limited in the area of federal law, but I can obtain this info in many court libraries.

Even if the copyright protection is ongoing, it appears to be a contradiction in purpose to require material published by permission to be retracted by the whim or caprice of the copyrighted author who had extended and in fact requested the publication.

If this were the case, all publisher's would cower in fear of retraction and financial disaster if the author changed his mind after a widespread permitted publication.

Ido find the subject interesting and will delve into it as time permits.

Alan K

Sifu Mooney sent me a link to another commentary he's written, which I've used to replace the one he wanted removed. Of course, this gives control over the content to the author instead of the publisher.

Interesting situation with the internet. Content is always "live", unlike the printed media or television/cable. I suspect that the copyright laws will have to be modified, unless the internet will use the same standards and print and television.

------------------
GEM

I saw an interview on TV a couple of days ago, of the managing partner of Goodwin & Proctor, a Boston Corporate specialty law firm founded in 1912 and which represents major corporations and has many offices, etc.

The interview asked what were the strongest and fastest growing areas of the law.

She responded by stating that they were in corporate restructuring and planing; financial institutions, and last but not least, intellectual property laws and rights.

Needless to say the latter was the fasest developing with reference to constant changes and innovations.

The next time I am in Worcester I will check the extensive library at the court house complex.

regards to all

Alan K

Just for the record, I try to always include a copyright notice on behalf of the author of anything I use in the "Articles" section. This notice was included on Sifu Mooney's article.

I think the main area of confusion over anything placed on the internet, is that the material is in a "changeable" condition, whereas once something is printed in a magazine or newspaper, it is "unchangeable".

Obviously the existing law does not address the differences in the media.

------------------
GEM

GEM-Shihan, Counsellors, et al.,

Not having seen Sifu Mooney's original post, this may be an uninformed response, but what the heck.

When one posts material to a public forum, for public view without a copyright statement attached, isn't there an assumption of relinquishment of ownership of the statements re copyright?

While out of context quotation of said material could result in a false light defamation, so long as the original post is used as posted by the person placing it originally, is there really any copyright claim possible inasmuch as the material was posted to a public forum in the first place, especially when done by the person doing the copyright complaining?

One would think that, when one posts any of their own material to the net, whether to a USEnet forum, this forum or other generally accessable public forums, that such material becomes part of the public domain simply because it was posted in a public forum and control over the dissemination of said material ends the instant that said material is posted? (presuming that the material was not posted with a copyright statement, of course)

This would especially apply to quotations from books and manuals that fall under either a review or those posted to invite comment and criticism and discussion, when posted by the person complaining, would it not?

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV OR the internet, but it would seem to me that, using a reasonable man standard, that if one posts material to the net on a public forum, the claim to copyright protection for that specific material goes right down the drain except as it might be protected as part of a larger work under separate conditions. What the author posts becomes part of the public's legacy - or so it would seem.

I'm asking here, folks, so be gentle.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

I agree with your reasoning Lee, and as GEM, sensei states, he was careful to protect the Article by including the copyright information supplied by sifu Mooney.

However some major changes were made in recent years to intectual rights prompted by strong lobying by cinema media, artists and their rights, and expiration extensions.

It was all money dictated by artists, authors and other areas where protection of income from the publication or production had a lot of loop holes which could defeat income.

Logic then becomes less relevant as loop holes are pluged, e.g. IRS Regulations.

I want to review these changes in Title 21 of the U.S. Code. I do not expect a clear cut answer but I will report anything of interest that I do find.

Best to all,

Alan K