On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Trelstad, Derek wrote:

> On 17 August the Keeper of the Political Graveyard wrote: "Probably a larger
> part is the realization that under our new and more stringent copyright
> laws, the author of a letter, not the recipient, holds all the rights."
>
> When was this change put in to effect? Imagine the implications!! If I were
> to write a letter to the Times (or the Political Graveyard) on a tear about
> one thing or another, some editorial assistant would have to track me down
> and get me to sign a permissions form before they could print my letter?
> That seems excessive. I have always understood that letters to the editor
> were submitted for publication. Whether the author of the letter, in sending
> the letter, agrees to the publication's standard copyright agreement for all
> commissioned works is a point that could be argued.
>
> Writing letters as correspondence, where neither writer had any expection
> that their work was to be published is another matter. And, one in which the
> copyright law has come to protect the author, much to the dismay of many
> biographers. It is sort of the retroactive cell-phone clause; we can only
> here one side of any conversation.
>
> Sign me,
>
> All Rights Reserved.

I'm a lawyer, but not an expert on copyright law, not licensed in your
state, etc., so don't take this as legal advice.

The copyright law was changed in 1978 (retroactive to 1976), and several
times since then, and each change worked to strengthen the hand of
copyright owners and lengthen the terms of copyrights.  Common-law
copyright on unpublished material such as letters was also abolished and
replaced with statutory copyright.

My opinion: Congress abandoned any thoughts of reasonableness, balance,
fair use, or public interest in rewriting these laws.  The copyright law
has gotten so bad that, for example, the Church of Scientology has been
able to use it to harass and silence its critics, seize their computers,
etc.  Notice requirements have been dropped, and it is no longer necessary
to profit from claimed infringement to go to prison.  Yes, the law is
"excessive".  It is GROSSLY excessive.

Ask the American Library Association and the other embattled advocates of
fair use if you want chapter and verse on these points.

I would think that a newspaper would argue that a letter sent "To The
Editor" is intended for publication, and that permission could be implied.
But old assumptions are being demolished by these new laws, and I wouldn't
be surprised if the Times' lawyers are drafting such a permission form
already.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com