Molly - US copyright law says that the act of fixing your expression in a tangible medium invokes copyright protection. Nothing more need be done for the author to own the copyright in the expression. Thus, posting a comment on Minds Eye results in the writer owning a copyright in the posted text. Of course, there is also fair use, about which I've written you earlier. I'm interested in what Google's counsel says about all this. Jim
On Jul 27, 6:11 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, > > As far as I know, posting something to the group doesn't automatically > enshrine it in copyright law. In my experience, some other kind of action > would usually be needed. I don't know this for sure with regards to the > Internet, however. Outside of my expertise. > > As I've said, it's your responsibility to make the decision. > > There may be a complication, however. Given that your blog is Google > Adsense-enabled and carries Amazon AWS advertising -- and hence you are > profiting from content you did not write -- I think Vam and Fran's talk of > wanting to see some kind of return for their contributions may need > addressing, no? :) > > Ian > > 2009/7/27 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > For clarity, can you site us some copyright law that tells us clearly > > that as soon as we post something in this group (no matter what name > > we are posting under, and whether or not we have a legitimate profile > > to match it) we own a copyright to it without actually applying for > > copyright with the office of the country of our citizenship? This > > would certainly be of interest to me and go a long way in clarifying > > the concerns we are all voicing now. Last I checked, copyright was > > something you applied for and were awarded after (in the US) paying > > for the privilege. There is, on the internet, creative commons > > copyright, but as that is not in use here, it does not apply. > > > Do you think that googles terms and conditions were referring to > > material that may actually have a copyright? This is probably the > > case, and reminds me that I should be listing the copyright info when > > I post things from my books in these groups. But it doesn't really > > matter anyway, because copyrights only come in handy if I can prove in > > court that I obtained mine at a date prior to the publication of my > > material under someone else's name, in which case, I might be awarded > > damages if someone made money using my work as theirs. > > > It is all only points of interest. Going forward, I will only use the > > posts from Minds Eye from folks who have given permission, and as I > > said, this won't really change things much. Each post is accredited to > > the author under their fictitious name or, if I can ascertain it, > > their given name on my blog. I do this because I believe that we are > > all adults and prefer to use adult names. I'm glad to clear things up > > and hope for further clarification on the copyright issues. > > > The issue of how far we need to go to control our words has indeed > > become an interesting topic. Neil's image of perusing the internet > > for info on Darwin to formulate a response to the Darwin thread is > > poignant. How many original ideas do we have? How deeply do other > > writers words effect us on levels that we don't recognize as our words > > are coming out of us? In my opinion, it isn't the words, but the > > logos that moves between us as we are exchanging the words that > > expands our awareness. Therein is the true treasure. Can we really > > control that on the internet and why would we want to? I think the > > more we try to hold on to control in these ways, the smaller our world > > becomes. There are lots of groups on the internet. This one is great > > because of the level of exchange between members. The internet is > > great because it gives us immediate access to information and ideas. > > It expands our world - in direct proportion to how we allow. > > > On Jul 27, 5:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Google's terms and conditions are clear: you may not reproduce posts > > without > > > permission of the copyright holder (the author of the post). Legally > > there > > > is no discussion to be had on this point; neither in public nor private. > > > Philosophically, as Francis has alluded to, there's probably quite a lot > > to > > > discuss. > > > > Where there is a legal discussion is on what the moderators do about the > > > fact that one of us has previously given Molly permission to reproduce > > posts > > > made to Mind's Eye on her blog. The question is what we do about this > > (given > > > that this permission was apparently not ours to give). This discussion > > only > > > relates to the indemnity of the Moderators and has nothing to do with the > > > actual group. Ultimately Molly may choose to carry on reproducing posts > > on > > > her blog, but, in my opinion, the Moderators should not be complicit in > > > this. > > > > As a writer I value the protection of copyright laws, even if others do > > not. > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
