OnlineHost: The auditorium consists of two major areas: the audience, where you are right now, and the stage, where the speakers appear. Text which you type onscreen shows only to those in your row, prefaced by the row number in parentheses, such as (2) if: you are in row 2. To interact with the speaker, use the Interact icon on your screen. To send your question to the speaker, click on the Interact icon, then use the Ask a Question option.
CJ Tet: If you don't want to hear what others in your row are chatting about, you can click the Turn Chat Off button under the Chat Rows button.
CJ Tet: Good evening and welcome to Pro's Corner! I'm CJ Tet of the Internet Connection and with me is Rich Wiggins (RichWig), co-host of the Pro's Corner forum here in the IC. Our topic tonight is Copyright and the Internet. The Internet is bringing new complexity to copyright issues. Rich will help us understand what is and isn't legal for those posting on the Internet in various forums like the World Wide Web and Usenet. Feel free to ask questions or make comments using the Interact button.
RichWig: Good evening all!
CJ Tet: Rich, welcome once again to the Main Stage! The floor is yours.
RichWig: Today I did some HTML training in Cleveland, and afterwards headed over to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. There I saw a bunch of nifty multimedia exhibits about who influenced what rockers. It occurred to me "Hey, you could do this all on the Web!" and my second thought was "Hmmm, somebody may be working on it..." then... "But how on Earth would you get permissions from all the copyright holders to put up audio, still shots, and video clips?"
RichWig: Tonight we're going to chat about some of the implications of the multimedia uses of material on the Internet.
RichWig: BIG DISCLAIMER FIRST! I am NOT an attorney (nor do I play one on television) and I am NOT an expert in Internet copyright law. Much of what we talk about tonight will be speculative. Don't take my word for it; ask your legal folks. There.
CJ Tet: JuaBen refers to the event promo, where the example of posting Star Trek stuff was used:
Question: Why can't I post star trek stuff on my web page.
RichWig: Well, you might be able to. In limited amounts, for specific kinds of applications. There's a doctrine of "fair use" in copyright law that allows, for instance, someone writing a magazine article that's reviewing, say, a book, to quote brief passages from the book. But a lot of people stretch fair use to an extreme in trying to justify wholesale copying of copyrighted materials. Let's say you made complete copies of Star Trek episodes and sold the video tapes over the Internet. You'd agree that in that case you probably are going to lose when Paramount's lawyers send you that certified "cease and desist" letter, right? "But wait!" you protest!
RichWig: I'm only putting up short Quicktime clips. Well, you may or may not be infringing the rights of Paramount when you do that. Now, as a practical matter, they may choose to tolerate fan pages, figuring that they promote the show and are actually therefore to their financial benefit. Or, they may think to themselves that if they don't clamp down on this, they'll lose their own rights to their own stuff.
CJ Tet: Rich, MO NOODLE wonders:
Question: What about copyright laws of architectural drawings ?
RichWig: Hmmmm... Well, whether it's a drawing or a photograph or any graphic, it can be copyrighted. I'm not sure what nuance you're aiming at. Please send up another comment.
CJ Tet: MOZZY has a general comment on copyright law --
Comment: It should be noted that all creative work is copyrighted from the moment it is created. This takes in all forms of created work.
RichWig: Yes, that is a very good point.
RichWig: Some people think if it doesn't have Copyright (C) 1996 [and with the (C) enclosed in a circle] then it's not protected, and that's not true.
RichWig: Explicitly showing the copyright statement has the advantage of making it clear to all that you intend to assert your ownership, but it's not necessary. Every page you put on the Web, for instance, is implicitly protected. Now whether it's practically protected may be another question.
CJ Tet: MO NOODLE clarifies, Rich:
Question: I use AutoCad Exclusively, How can I give clients disks without having my copyright rights evaded?
RichWig: Hmmm, refer to Big Disclaimer above.
RichWig: And that's not strictly an Internet question, so I have 2 excuses to beg off. There is a distinction between measures to prevent people from violating your rights, in terms of physical safeguards versus explicit arrangements. A lot of people who have materials that are extremely expensive to produce will come up with some sort of license agreement, which the viewing parties must sign prior to the disclosure of the material. You might talk to an attorney about that. Depending on who else sees the drawings, you might also look into whether "trade secret" is an appropriate label.
CJ Tet: MOZZY has a suggestion for MO NOODLE:
Comment: A cover letter stating copyright would go a long way.
RichWig: It'd make your feelings clear. If they sign the letter or if you make it a license it'd probably be stronger. Seek counsel. :-)
CJ Tet: DDimondNo wonders about the background on this issue:
Question: Have there been any Internet copyright cases resolved in court? If so, what have the penalties been?
RichWig: Hmmm, I'm not aware of any that have gone to trial; maybe someone in the audience is? Just today I heard of a case where someone put up a Winnie the Pooh home page, and the copyright holder (Disney?) gave them a tap on the shoulder, saying you can't expropriate their copyrighted image. I don't think it ever went to court, but there was a controversy between MTV VJ Adam Curry and MTV over his "mtv.com" site. That was a murky case, involving a trademark, and copyright, and an employer/employee squabble.
RichWig: Aha! One case comes to mind. Someone published a number of internal documents from the Church of Scientology via Usenet. Although those documents were physically available in other court documents, they had not been widely disseminated. A judge recently ruled in favor of the church, stating that the Internet distribution violated their copyright.
CJ Tet: O2Voyager asks:
Question: Who governs the copyright laws of the Internet; will they scout for copyright infringements over the Web?
RichWig: Well, there are criminal sanctions for certain kinds of copyright violations, but it's not something where we have Internet Police looking out for offenders..... The holders of copyright are going to look out for their own interests, and pursue legal action when they think it is necessary. Some trade associations will pay attention to it. For instance, you can bet the Software Publishers Association watches for pirated software sites. And in those cases, where it's a flagrant violation of law, they will push for prosecution.
RichWig: Folks, please ask questions that are somewhat generic and hypothetical.... Let me remind you that I'm NOT an attorney, and we're just exploring some of the issues tonight. I'm not qualified to offer legal advice in response to specific questions.
CJ Tet: We're discussing Copyright and the Internet with Rich Wiggins. Use the "Interact" button to ask a question or make a comment.
CJ Tet: MikeMango makes an excellent comment:
Comment: Intellectual property must be recognized. The creator of a book, movie, music, etc. has to be asked permission for use and/or be paid a fee - or they will not be able to earn a living.
RichWig: Yup, that's the whole theory behind copyright law.
RichWig: Here's a question for y'all to ponder: Is it possible as a Web author to violate copyright without ever physically obtaining a copy of the material in question?
CJ Tet: DJBizMgr has a question:
Question: What are your thoughts about material paraphrased from research sources, the paraphased versions comprising segments of a completely new work?
RichWig: Hmmmm... the devil is in the details... Copyright can't protect ideas per se. Copyright protects particular formulations of ideas -- the specific expression of ideas. There is a concept of a "compilation copyright" though, so that you aren't necessarily safe making wholesale copies of, say, every article in an encyclopedia, and just rephrasing things a tad.
CJ Tet: OdysseyBk brings up a good point:
Question: What is your opinion on the downloading of copyrighted material for wider dissemination on local freenets?
RichWig: Well, my opinion is it is better to err on the side of caution, and get permission of the copyright holder. It's going to be interesting to watch as more and more newspapers put full text of articles up on the Net, to see what sorts of redistribution will be tolerated. If you clip articles from the new New York Times site on the Web (which is wonderful by the way) and redistribute, you are keeping the Times from benefiting from the online ads, which is how they pay for the Web edition.
RichWig: There was a case of an Internet Service Provider taking classified ads from another paper (Washington Post as I recall??) and redistributing. The paper was NOT amused; they said the ads were part of how they made money with their print and online editions, and by taking the ads out of their online context, the copier was impacting their ability to profit from them.
CJ Tet: CraigJ281 asks about potential change on the legal front, Rich:
Question: What's your views on the pending amendments to the Copyright Act, and the White Paper which proposed them?
RichWig: Unfortunately my opinions are colored by some of the red flags raised by those who are worried about the White Paper proposals. The feeling seems to be that the revisions will go overboard, potentially chilling our ability to in fact make any use of online materials, without letters of release and/or payments for the smallest snippets.
CJ Tet: SCENE101 inquires about the necessity of registering to protect one's rights:
Question: If someone puts "copyright" on his/her work, but does not send in form, is it copyrighted?
RichWig: Yes, it's copyrighted under current law when you create it. Registering it is a way establish clearly that you composed it when you later claim. By the way, these are excellent questions, folks, and I would like to do a following forum sometime with a copyright lawyer.
CJ Tet: MystMrQ asks:
Question: My company recently asked a professional, graphic designer to help create a web site. We now have our own graphic artist but the original artist says that only he can change any of our files. We've already paid this person
more that $13k. Is he right?
RichWig: Oohh! That is a nasty one! And it is pretty ironic, because it's a possibility I raised in the Web design class I taught today. There's a concept of a "work for hire". The question is what were the terms between you and the designer, and my advice is Get Thee to an Attorney. I personally would never hire that person again to do anything, including sweeping the floor, but there may be some subtleties to your interactions that I don't know about.
RichWig: Good luck with that one, and congratulations with your status as a pioneer on the digital copyright frontier!
CJ Tet: DMWhisnan asks about whether certain things are free of copyright:
Question: Can you assemble and distribute a list of businesses (names, addresses, phone, etc.) to a mailing list or newsgroup without obtaining permission from each business?
RichWig: Hmmmm... insert disclaimers... Depending on what the list purports to be, and where and how you post it, there may be considerations besides copyright... like libel. Are you saying derogatory things about these businesses? Portraying them in a false light? There has been a Supreme Court case on pure directory information vis-a-vis copyright, and they ruled that a phone book, per se, can't be protected. But a specialized list presented in a unique way can be. No blanket answer, sorry.
CJ Tet: Footco asks:
Question: Is it safe to assume everything posted on Web and in Newsgroups is copyrighted?
RichWig: It is safe to assume that all writings (and other original works) are copyrighted. Posting something to the Web or to Usenet does not relinquish ownership. Consider Dr. Fun, the comic strip that was born on the Web, or Dilbert, which has a Web archive. You can download comics for personal use, but you couldn't repackage them into a book and sell 'em.
CJ Tet: Dave Barry's column was published on a private Newsgroup channel for a while, but it got pulled because of repeated copyright infringement...so infringing copyright can hurt the broader community of Internet users if we're not careful.
RichWig: Hey, no takers on my earlier challenge?
RichWig: Remember I asked if a Web author could infringe copyright without ever copying the files in question? Suppose I set up a Web site that, let's say, charges to view Dilbert cartoons. Suppose I figure out the official Dilbert page's naming conventions for their archives. Suppose I could inline image references to each of those cartoons, without ever downloading them to my server. You, as the reader, will do the physical infringing, without even knowing that you did it! But, according to an article I read recently, the owner could prevail in action against me, because it was my actions that knowingly led to the infringement.
RichWig: Well folks that's about all the time we've got for this subject, one we will want to revisit no doubt.
CJ Tet: Friends, we've had a lot of great questions, and not all of them can get used on the stage, so we'll look forward to another discussion of this topic!
RichWig: Come join us Thursday when we discuss privacy issues on the Internet. Thanks for coming! 'Night!
CJ Tet: Be sure to check out the NEW Pro's Corner, now available with keyword Pro's. Information about upcoming events, transcripts of past discussions and links to a lot of useful Internet tools are there in a great new format. Thanks, Rich, and audience members! Good night!
