On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:12:59 +1100 Troy Rollo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 09:59:37 [email protected] wrote: > > > I am not a lawyer, but structly speaking, I believe that copyright > > in the individual members' posts resides with the poster. So > > theoritcally you';d have to ask all the people who post to all the > > mailing lists. > > > > In practice though it doesn;t matter --- in sending something > > to a mailing list one implcitly gives permission to all the > > consumers of that list, including third party archive sites, to > > reproduce the message. > > Peter's comments on the key principles that apply are mostly correct. > The only thing I would add is be careful in relying on implied > consent. The scope of implied consent in the case of mailing list > traffic is not something that is entirely certain. Implying consent > for a person to quote a message in reply (such as in the quote above, > for example), or for the list owner to keep an archive, is likely to > be easier than implying consent for third party archiving. If > somebody whose posts on a mailing list were to go and sue a third > party archiver the answer would likely only be determined after some > disproportionately expensive litigation that would end in tears for > everybody except the lawyers. Real lawyers don't cry :-). I add my support to this caution. The Courts are recognising increased expectations of privacy and pulling back on "implied consent". Cheers, Alan > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
