who do letters belong to?

Can the content of the letters be considered libellous?

You own the physical letter, but the letter writer still "owns" the words on the page. You must get permission from the letter writer or the letter writer's estate if they are dead to publish the letter, otherwise it is a violation of the letter writer's copyright.

Generally letters are covered by copyright; the person who writes the letter unless the letter was work for hire and contracted for as such, owns the copyright.

pollykahl said:

"the person who writes the letter unless the letter was work for hire and contracted for as such, owns the copyright"

What can I do, and not do, with the contents of the letter? Can I describe it but not quote it? Like could I write: "Then I got a letter in which he said he'd like to ...," but I could not write: "I opened the letter from him and in his handwriting it said, 'I'd like to ...'" ?

Click to expand...

I think you're going to need an IP/publishing attorney, frankly.

I believe modern-day letters are like books and most other written material. You can use them for study and your own personal purposes, but you can't reproduce them in another work without the permission of the writer.

There is the "fair use" exemption from copyright which allows you to quote passages from the letters without permission. You'd want to consult a copyright lawyer to get an idea of how much and what you can quote in your particular context.

johnrobison said:

There is the "fair use" exemption from copyright which allows you to quote passages from the letters without permission. You'd want to consult a copyright lawyer to get an idea of how much and what you can quote in your particular context.

Click to expand...

Hold on there; fair use is emphatically not an exemption from copyright. It's a potential defense if a rights holder asserts violation of copyright and you got to court -- fair use is determined by the court/jury. It's not inherent in the law itself and it has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Fair use

Medievalist is right. Never assume fair use allows you to use anything. The times and places when fair use applies are reasonably specific, but there are so many exceptions, and the court can rule so many different ways, that a writer should always get written permission before using anything.

Good questions--I've wondered about it myself.

At what point would you deal with the "permissions" issue with a letter? Before or after you get a publisher?

In my memoir I quote at length from a letter I wrote to someone. He's a prominent musician/folklorist in the style of regional music that's the focus of my book. (I assume it is my right legally, since I "own" the words.)

I also quote three sentences from his response. I figured I would ask his permission, when the time comes. But this would be in the larger context of letting this man know I have written about him (all in very positive terms, by the way) and probably giving him an early copy of the ms, asking if he'e want to review it or comment.



Susan

Unless you can get permission from the writer of the letter, you will have to summarize and put into your own words what so-and-so said. It is the same thing you do with information you collect.

It is good to keep said letters in case an agent/publisher would need 'proof' as mentioned about Frey.

This would be the only way to relieve the worry about it, unless you wanted to get more specific and in which case you would need a lawyer to help.

As Button said, summarize or paraphrase, but definitely hang on to your source material.

My book- Woman condemned: Conversations From Death Row, is almost entirely letters. I have had to get a release from each one.

Truth be damned!

Per Stijn: Libel is difficult to prove and more difficult to win damages. I just asked this question on another Board when I found a story using my real name in a porn story that did not happen. I was told I'd have to prove the writer had the intent to damage my rep, and that the damage had a real impact on me financially, socially or otherwise. Since I can't disprove a negative, (that the story did not happen), and since I can't prove the writer intended to hurt me in some way, and can't prove I was damaged, the chance of winning such a case is virtually impossible. Remember the Falwell vs Hustler case when the cartoon Larry Flint published was horrific and obviously false.

Per pollykahl: There's no law that says memoirs have to be true to the n'th degree, is there? In fact, It's almost a 'given' that most biographies are a glossy version of reality and some, if not most, play fast and loose with the facts.

Even those people who have been in the public eye and therefore subject to the memories of the public, take liberties using 'spin' or outright changes in the 'facts.' Is it absolutely crucial to the point of the story that you must quote a specific person exactly?

I don't see any reason why you can't enhance the story as we all do when we're telling 'a whopper' to our friends.

You are a writer, right? So write.