| |
VK3API > SYSOP 29.12.12 07:03l 76 Lines 3226 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 120010VK3API
Read: GUEST
Subj: re bbs lock down issues
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<VE3UIL<VK2DOT<VK3API
Sent: 121229/0624Z @:VK3API.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC #:54429 [Lilydale] FBB7.00g
From: VK3API@VK3API.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC
To : SYSOP@WW
Hi Dave and other readers,
Under Australian copyright law they probably are breaking the rules and
leaving themselves open to prosecution.
In Australia and some other countries any "work of art" has an automatic
copyright applied and publishing it in the public domain by the author
does not relinquish any of the protection against unauthorised copying and
public broadcasting. The work of art does not need to be registered in any
way to be copyright.
The author and heirs retain all ownership of the "work of art", I
understand, until 75 years after the authors death.
That said......
The sites offending could possibly argue that they are just forwarding on
the work of art in the same manner as every other BBS and it is just to a
different set of readers therefore they are not assuming any extra or
other rights over the material than those already authorised by the
author.
. They could probably argue that as the packet network is in the main
carried on the internet and stored on internet connected computers, then
what they are doing is not assuming any extra "use" rights over the work
of art other than those authorised by the original author releasing the
bulletin on the packet network...
The real problem is that as far as I know this particular situation has
never been tested in court. Therefore there is no case law to follow.
To get the material removed from any given site could require the
launching and funding of an international legal battle in which neither
party has any obvious advantage.
To ensure a slight chance of success every bulletin should carry a
specific statement as to the extent of the "right of use" authorised by
the person writing and releasing the bulletin on the packet network.
Angela has done this on occasion and it would certainly increase her
chances of success in any legal battle over unauthorised use.
However you need to ask what you would gain as the result of any court
case. Because the works of art, i.e. bulletins in question, appear to
have no intrinsic value, determination of a sum for compensation would
probably only be very very small, possibly only tens of dollars.
The best result that I expect could be achieved would be an order forcing
the site to remove any of your postings. Not a good result for an outgoing
cost of solicitors and barristers who never ever come cheap.
The only realistic solution would be to assume, as Tubby VK4TUB said, that
anything you send out in bulletin form you are effectively relinquishing
all rights of ownership. It might not be the legal situation but it is
certainly the only practical solution.
Of course if the offending station altered the content of the message in
such a way as to bring the author into disrepute or ridicule then you may
have a case for damages but that would be under the laws of defamation in
the area where the material was published.
Disclaimer..
Please don't assume this is legal advice to be followed. It is only
information I have gathered in relation to copyright infringement in
relation to commercial "video works of art" but the definition of work of
art is very broad and includes documents
Regards Tony VK3API
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
