[at-l] Mime-Version: 1.0

[bullard@northnet.org]

>Okay, time for Copyright 101:
>
>Actually, it doesn't matter whether his posts are accessible to the public,
>or not. Copyright still belongs to the originator. When I publish a book, I
>own the copyright, unless I assign it to someone else. Copyright means that
>*I* get to say who can use it, and who can't. That's the law.

Not quite. It is my understanding (any lawyers out there feel free to correct me if wrong) that your copyright is protected on published material only if you include copyright notice (that little 'C' in a circle with your name and date). If you publish your work without such notice it becomes public domain.


There are other exceptions. I recently engaged in a debate with a newspaper columnist over the Zapruder (spelling?) tapes of the Kennedy assasination. He had written an article about the government's settlement with the family and was bemoaning the fact that while the deal gave the government possession of the original tape they conceeded the copyright to the family. I thought, as is stated above, that the copyright was theirs by virtue of creation. NOT! It seems if the average Joe Citizen stumbles upon something of national importance and records it, their creation is the property of the US Government. I questioned why the same didn't apply to the evening national news and the answer was that it was a matter of intent. If you were simply making a home movie (or other record of an event) for your own use and enjoyment you didn't automatically get copyright protection. Reporters 'intend' to publish and publish their material in a copyrighted form.

>>>>
> <that's like letting a magazine publish your article. You still own the
> rights.>
>
>
> Actually, I thought that there was a major hoo-rah going on about this very thing a couple of years ago.  Magazines and newspapers do own the articles they print, whether they buy them from free-lancers or their own writers produce them, because they are copyrighted under the aegis of whatever publication. 
<<<<
This is another exception. If you work for a newspaper or magazine you produce the work under a contract of hire and the result belongs to the publisher. There can be limits to this depending on the contract of hire but they are (or should be) spelled out in the contract. In the software programming business, for example, it is not uncommon for contracts of hire to assign to the employer all rights to anything the employee creates even that done on his/her own time at home and even if totally unrelated to the projects the employee works on at work. 

Bottom line, it's not as simple as 'I created it so I own the rights'. When in doubt, consult a copyright lawyer.

Saunterer * From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *
==============================================================================