Question for Jaws or other lawyers

[dragonjax]

Apologies in advance for posting here, but I wasn't quite sure where to post this message. This is one for Jaws or any other lawyers here at the Cooler.

If someone posts part of an e-mail message publically on a blog, with all identifying marks from the e-mail message removed although without the permission of the original sender, is that in violation of US (or other country) copyright laws?

:Shrug:

Many thanks in advance!

[MarkEsq]

it depends. How much of the email? There is something called "fair use" which allows people to sample, or use, small pieces of another's work without penalty. There is also the question of damages - while I'm not an expert on copywright law I believe the same "no harm no foul" rule applies to this area of the law as to tort law, contract law etc. I.e., if you haven't suffered some harm as a result of the taking, you ain't got no case.

After all, look at any thread here - people cut and past other's posting all the time into their own. I can't imagine that would amount to infringement.

Just my thoughts plus a disclaimer:

I am not your attorney. This is not legal advice. If you think you have, or want to bring, a case, consult an attorney with experience in this area of the law. Do not base any action or inaction on this posting. :)

[dragonjax]

Thanks, Mark. This came up on one editor's blog, in the comments portion. Some readers have been claiming that for the editor to post an excerpt of one e-mail message to her (again, with identifying info stripped), as a way to show what writers should not be sending her/doing, was illegal and unethical. The "unethical" part is debatable, I suppose (I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with it), but I had no idea about the legality. It didn't seem to be illegal, but I'm not a lawyer. That's why I posted here, to see if I could get some clarity.

Again, many thanks. :)

[Jaws]

Now, repeat after me:

It depends.

Mark has identified several of the possibilities. There are others. Consider not just how much was quoted, but what proportion of the quoting work consisted of the quotation. Etc.

And that's not all. Depending upon the exact circumstances, what was described might also be a reverse-passing-off problem (a trademark issue in which the actual origin of goods or services gets removed, obscured, or replaced).

:Soapbox: There's a reason that this answer is so vague: The description of what happened is so vague. From that description, I can't even be sure that US law applies! For all I know, the writer of that letter was from France, or the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Luxembourg… in which case droit d'auteur comes into play, which essentially prohibits republication of material without accurate designation of origin. And so on. Please, people, understand that I'm not being evasive: I'm merely not prejudging on the basis of incomplete descriptions. There is no substitute for the actual evidence… regardless of the misimpressions nonlawyers get from seeing The Paper Chase. /:Soapbox:

Hmm. I obviously need more caffeine. And chocolate.

[dragonjax]

Thanks, Jaws. I am passing you a box of virtual chocolate.

Given that the Internet is global, are individual country copyrights applicable?

And, if you have any time, if you send me a PM, I will give you more information about this particular instance.

Many thanks!