[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&D letter
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&D letter
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:27:20 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
IANAL but my understanding has been that legal document cannot be
copyrighted since there is a societal need to disseminate them as well as
making them available (and which is why lawyers can cannibalize each
others writings). Furthermore, a newspaper can republish any legal
document with impunity.
"Arnold G. Reinhold" <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
02/28/02 08:46 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&D letter
This case looks like a nasty cat fight and I'm not sure linking is
the biggest issue. But one part of the case may be of interest.
Plaintiffs had previously sent defendants a cease and desist e-mail.
They claim that e-mail included a copyright notice. Defendants posted
the letter to their web site (without the copyright notice, but the
long page it's on http://www.archbishops.org/cjthree.htm includes
their own copyright notice). It their suit, plaintiffs complain that
posting their letter violated their copyright.
Since notices are not required for copyright, this raises the general
question of whether it is permitted under copyright law to post
hostile legal notices you receive, e.g. under section 512.
At 12:22 PM -0500 2/27/02, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:17:43 -0500
>From: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>
>Subject: FC: Churches sue critic for linking; EFF Arriba framing brief
>The relevant excerpt from the complaint alleges that Tony Begonja
>links to the Plaintiffs' registered copyrighted material and
>copyrighted material," and also that he is "publishing deceptively named
>links which misrepresent and cast the target copyrighted material of the
>Plaintiffs into a false light."
>Background on the right to link freely (or not):
>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:31:08 -0600
>From: "The Rev. Tony Begonja" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>
>Subject: FYI: CJ3 finally actually sued me
>CJ3 finally actually sued me.
>See http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/ for info.
>The EFF helped me get a lawyer.