| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Permission isue with e-mail |
Topic: Permission isue with e-mail
| Author | Message |
| BlueSparkler | Posted – 3/28/2006 5:27:44 PM | show profile Hello, I am freelance editing an autobiographical book. The author wants to put sections of a personal e-mail she recieved in the book, and has asked me to look into copyright issues. Does anyone have a clue on this? My gut says it is wrong. |
| activeverb | Posted – 3/28/2006 8:06:10 PM | show profile I am not lawyer, but I would guess an email is covered by the same laws as a paper letter. In that case, the writer of the letter owns the letter, not the recipient. There was a celebrated case where a person quoted too expensively from letters from J.D. Salinger in a book and had to take the book off the market. Now, fair use probably allows the person to quote a certain amount of the emails. How much is fair use is a matter of interpretation. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 3/28/2006 9:07:47 PM | show profile Yes, your gut is correct, on many levels. The options are: 1)contact the person who originally sent the email, and obtain a WRITTEN PERMISSION to use the material in a book. 2)use the material only if the author of the email is absolutely anonymous, and only use a very, very small part, say 3-4 lines of text at most. 3)tell the author of the bookthat you checked it out, and she'd be liable for not only copyright infringement but perhaps libel as well, and the publisher will not back her up, so it's probably better not to print the email, but just allude to it in prose. This would be best practice even in the material shines favorably on the original writer of the email. Hope this helps. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/29/2006 12:21:01 PM | show profile I'm talking off the top of my head here and I will go check this out but I think active verb and westside are only giving part of the story. It seems to me that if someone sends me a letter or an e-mail, I can do whatever the hell I want with it -- unless certain specific conditions apply. will check this out and return. |
| kellysmithreed | Posted – 3/29/2006 1:01:17 PM | show profile What do you mean by personal? I think that if there was correspondence between two people and one person is simply telling a story and wants to include it, it's their right. Did they sign something saying all correspondence was privileged? If not, and it was addressed to the recipient, I would think that it belongs to the recipient and he can do what he likes with it. These days anyone should know better. E-mail is like a giant billboard and should be treated as such. I am not a lawyer though... would be interested to hear one weigh in... |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/29/2006 1:12:13 PM | show profile OK, so I checked it out and this is a gray situation where considerations like newsworthiness, public interest, etc. come into it. Before you go to the senders and seek permission (which in many cases you don't even need), you should consult a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. There are many cases where you are indeed completely entitled to quote from letters sent to you without getting anyone's permission. although even in these cases, you might want to do a ''courtesy'' alert. |
| BlueSparkler | Posted – 3/29/2006 1:40:30 PM | show profile Thanks so much, everyone. I think the bottom line here is that if this book finds a publisher, the publisher will probably not want to have any sticky permissions issues, especially since (in my opinion) this e-mail will not make/break the story. It's an interesting issue though. |
| activeverb | Posted – 3/29/2006 6:58:18 PM | show profile Actually, I'd say it's just the opposite, even-newer. The person who creates a piece of writing owns the copyright on that writing, including a letter, unless he specifically transfers that copyright t another. So you can't use an email unless specific conditions apply, such as the fair use law. Now whether the courts have ruled specifically on email, I don't know, but I don't know why they'd say an email has different rules than a letter <<even_newer-id Posted ? 3/29/2006 12:21:01 PM | show profile I'm talking off the top of my head here and I will go check this out but I think active verb and westside are only giving part of the story. It seems to me that if someone sends me a letter or an e-mail, I can do whatever the hell I want with it -- unless certain specific conditions apply. >> |
| flipflap | Posted – 3/29/2006 7:08:49 PM | show profile j.d. salinger's letters I couldn't quite remember what the situtation was, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Very instructive: ''On learning of the intent of British writer Ian Hamilton to publish J.D. Salinger: A Writing Life, a biography including letters Salinger had written to other authors and friends, Salinger sued to stop the book's publication. The book was finally published with the letters' contents paraphrased; the court ruled that though a person may own a letter physically, the language within it belongs to the author.'' Also: ''A year-long affair in 1972 with 18-year old aspiring writer Joyce Maynard became the source of controversy years later when Maynard put Salinger's letters to her up for auction. In 1999, software developer Peter Norton bought the letters for $156,000 and announced his intention to return them to Salinger.'' |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/29/2006 8:18:07 PM | show profile Active, you're right. they do own the copyright but you can quote and fair use applies. Remember with fair use, you don't have to seek permission. If you want to go beyond fair use, that's when you need permission or if you work for a publisher who's gun shy. I know someone who wrote a story based on an e-mail sent to her. she was able to do so and name the sender because it was newsworthy. Not sure this case here constitutes fair use which is why recommended a lawyer. And it is a lot grayer than I initially thought. |
| arewrites | Posted – 3/29/2006 10:30:57 PM | show profile Even_Newer is wrong on this one. I've had this discussion before with an attorney who specializes in copyright issues, and it is a direct violation of copyright to reproduce an e-mail someone else has written to you if you do so as part of a profit-making venture, which this is. Ultimately, this would be something that the publishers (presumably) would catch anyway, and Even_Newer is absolutely right in suggesting that you ask an attorney and not a bunch of anonymous writers on an anonymous bulletin board. But this anonymous writer on this anonymous bulletin board will say that according to the legal information she's received on this matter from an attorney specialized in this issue, you can't do it. Does that help?(!) |
| activeverb | Posted – 3/30/2006 3:49:15 AM | show profile Yup, this is all true. It's no different than quoting from a book or any other printed material, really. <<Active, you're right. they do own the copyright but you can quote and fair use applies. Remember with fair use, you don't have to seek permission. If you want to go beyond fair use, that's when you need permission or if you work for a publisher who's gun shy. I know someone who wrote a story based on an e-mail sent to her. she was able to do so and name the sender because it was newsworthy. Not sure this case here constitutes fair use which is why recommended a lawyer. And it is a lot grayer than I initially thought.>> |
| activeverb | Posted – 3/30/2006 3:56:13 AM | show profile All this really depends on the nature of the material and how it's going to be used. Even if the person denies permission, you can probably quote from some of the email, and perhaps all of it. You can probably use the person's name without their permission. Whether it's worth the trouble depends again on the details. But counseling timidry as a matter of course isn't a good idea. If you've ever done in-depth or investigative pieces, you know there are times you will use material that will piss sources off, but that's OK. If you are inexperienced in these types of situations, you should tread carefully. <<Yes, your gut is correct, on many levels. The options are: 1)contact the person who originally sent the email, and obtain a WRITTEN PERMISSION to use the material in a book. 2)use the material only if the author of the email is absolutely anonymous, and only use a very, very small part, say 3-4 lines of text at most. 3)tell the author of the bookthat you checked it out, and she'd be liable for not only copyright infringement but perhaps libel as well, and the publisher will not back her up, so it's probably better not to print the email, but just allude to it in prose. >> |
| activeverb | Posted – 3/30/2006 4:01:49 AM | show profile As I recalled, the author quoted a huge amount from the letters, which was the problem. According to copyright law, the moment you write something down it is copyrighted. Registering the material gives you the potential for larger damages, but that isn't even necessary. But just because someone sends you a letter doesn't mean you own the words in the letter, just as you don't own the words in a book that someone gives to you. In both cases, you simply own the physical book and letter, but not the contents per se. <<.d. salinger's letters I couldn't quite remember what the situtation was, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Very instructive: ''On learning of the intent of British writer Ian Hamilton to publish J.D. Salinger: A Writing Life, a biography including letters Salinger had written to other authors and friends, Salinger sued to stop the book's publication. The book was finally published with the letters' contents paraphrased; the court ruled that though a person may own a letter physically, the language within it belongs to the author.'' Also: ''A year-long affair in 1972 with 18-year old aspiring writer Joyce Maynard became the source of controversy years later when Maynard put Salinger's letters to her up for auction. In 1999, software developer Peter Norton bought the letters for $156,000 and announced his intention to return them to Salinger.'' >> |
| runner | Posted – 3/30/2006 9:42:51 AM | show profile | email poster Fair Use Fair use is a defense to an infringement claim, not permission to use the work in question. There are 4 factors evaluated when determining whether or not use of someone else's copyrighted material (whether or not registered): i) the purpose and character of the intended use (e.g., commercial or not); ii) the nature of the copyrighted work; iii) the amount and substantiality of the material used; and iv) the effect of the infringing use on the value of the copyrighted material. If the e-mail was a short one and the author of the message intended it to be the basis of a book of his/her own, the person quoting his/her work would be infringing the copyright and fair use would not apply. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/30/2006 10:14:40 AM | show profile Active verb is right. Fair use allows me to quote from a novel for a book review, to cite a passage in an e-mail for a news story, etc., etc. It is irrelevant that the newspaper is a profit-making venture. If we weren,t allowed to quote other people's copyrighted words without their permission, we would be in one VERY BIG MESS. And as both Active verb and I have made clear, we understand the limitations of fair use, but it is dispiriting to see journalists so scared of quoting ANYTHING without permission. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/30/2006 10:20:51 AM | show profile A fair use posting air use under fire A new report examines the changing effects of copyright control on free expression. Q & A with one of the report's authors. By Diana Day Posted: 2006-02-23 How Internet publishers and copyright owners are negotiating the murky waters of fair use rights in our world of hyper-fluid technological boundaries is an increasingly common news topic. Last week, for example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted news that the Recording Industry Association of America does not consider it fair use to copy one's own CDs to an MP3 player. And just this week, a Los Angeles federal judge ruled that Google's use of thumbnail images is not fair use and infringes on an adult website's copyrights. Marjorie Heins, founder and coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU's School of Law, explained that it is ''very difficult to predict'' how judges will rule in fair use cases, making it important for journalists to educate themselves. Because fair use principles form a cornerstone of free expression, in 2004 the Brennan Center started researching the health of fair use among people involved in cultural or democratic exchanges of ideas. The result of the research is contained in the recently-released public policy report Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control, written by Heins and Tricia Beckles, a former research associate at the Brennan Center. As mounds of snow in the New York City streets turned gray and slushy, Heins spoke with Online Journalism Review at length about the report and about the state of fair use as it pertains to online journalists. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/30/2006 10:35:14 AM | show profile http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/060223day/ In the fair use spiirit, URL for above quote. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 3/30/2006 11:12:43 AM | show profile The issue here was not the fair use aspect of the letter, but the fact that the ''content'' was a personal communication - not something that had been published. Perhaps something the email writer would never, in a million years, want published, or would get in a snit about. Book publishers protect themselves from angry lawsuits by forcing book authors to indemnify them against claims made against a book. The OP felt queasy enough about the content to ask a question here. The steps I outlined above are meant to protect the poster, and the poster' client. Ownership is not the question -- covering your butt is. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/30/2006 11:54:13 AM | show profile Westside, there's a lot of things people don't want published. that doesn't mean you have to get their permission to publish it. Remember that guy who sent a very nasty e-mail to an NYT reporter. The reader,s editor published it in his column despite the fact the sender asked him not to. Book publishers often seek permission not because they're legally obliged to but because it makes their lives easier and they believe it minimizes nuisance legal actions. But the fact remains if you send me an e-mail, I can quote from it unless there are good reasons for me not to. Just the fact that you don't want me to quote it is not good enough. |
| runner | Posted – 3/30/2006 2:28:15 PM | show profile Copyright My work IS copyrights and permissions and I studied IP in law school. The fair use information I posted is important information, especially in this day and age when people seem to think that just because it's on the internet, it's in the public domain. Fair use is a defense, not a right. If you use someone else's copyrighted material and the court decides that you used too much of the material and materially affected the owner's ability to use it for their own purposes and you did it to increase your own bottom line, then the fair use defense won't help you. I suspect, in this case, that privacy laws are also a factor. |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/30/2006 3:51:16 PM | show profile ''Fair use is a defense, not a right.'' Unless I'm missing something here, this seems like a meaningless shibboleth of circular (un)reasoning If I'm sued for copyright violation, and DEFEND myself, and win by pleading fair use, then it was indeed my right to use the material. My defense proved I had that right. If I lose and my DEFENSE isn't accepted, then I didn't have the right. It would seem that legal precedents do indeed give people ''the right'' to quote as long as it's fair use. The question is whether any given usage constitutes fair use or not. |
| BlueSparkler | Posted – 3/31/2006 1:33:49 AM | show profile funny, I thought, ''a defense, not a right,'' was quite elegant. In my own permissions experience, (different project, different permission sissue) my publisher said the same, in about one thousand more words. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 3/31/2006 2:15:35 AM | show profile I found it a little circular in logic too. ''Fair use'' is a legal right, but rights are never absolute and they are subject to interpretation. So in a sense every right can be a defense of some action. But this is all a circular discussion around a really simple concept. Fair use allows a writer to quote from copyrighted material without permission. What constitutes fair use is a manner of interpretation of a given situations. Different publishers have different levels of risk, so some will interpret fair use very conservative in most situations. <<funny, I thought, ''a defense, not a right,'' was quite elegant. In my own permissions experience, (different project, different permission sissue) my publisher said the same, in about one thousand more words. << |
| even_newer-id | Posted – 3/31/2006 7:06:47 AM | show profile Wow, dribbledrive that's a pretty elegant summation. thanks. |
