Question: Are Letters to the Editor copyrighted by the newspaper that reproduces them? Short answer looks like no, and "fair use" rules therefore would not apply unless copyrighted by the author.
 |
| I took the whole thing! |
Pacifica Tribune, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed Policy, 11/18/2010. "The opinions and "factual assertions" expressed by columnists & letter writers are theirs alone and not those of the Pacifica Tribune." Read more.
Compare to somewhat less clear (but still clear enough) Silicon Valley Mercury News.
The "Mercury News reserves the right to publish and republish your submission in any form or medium." Read More. Otherwise, Mercury News Copyright disclosure.
It appears that Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed articles are not considered copyrighted unless the author holds their own copyright. I see nothing to the contrary.
Definition of Op-Ed: "a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, essayists, humorists, etc., of varying viewpoints".
General Letter information
Posted by Kathy Meeh
18 comments:
Kathy,
I'd like to recognize your efforts at looking up further information in an effort to educate yourself, others, and to "get to the bottom of the issue." I think that's a good attitude with which to approach news and (especially!) opinion and I wish more people were inquisitive in this way about what they read, see, and hear.
That being said, please be very, very careful when appearing to offer advice about legal matters. Many people have found themselves in hot water thinking what they did was okay because "they read it somewhere."
You write:
It appears that Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed articles are not considered copyrighted unless the author holds their own copyright. I see nothing to the contrary.
This conclusion is 100% incorrect.
Copyright automatically exists the moment the work is created.
Please refer to the FAQ at the United States Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov) which states:
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.
or their Copyright Basics Circular which reads:
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. [...]
Copyright in each seperate contribution to a periodical or other collective work [i.e. a newspaper letter to the editor] is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.
Your "General Letter information" links all support this notion as well.
Again, I applaud your looking deeper into the issue, but please reconsider dispensing legal opinions based on incorrect conclusions.
Speaking as a former newspaper publisher, I think you're fine as long as you give credit and provide a link to the original letter.
Chris this is all just your opinion. Just because you may be an attorney does not mean you know everything about copyright law. If we got 10 lawyers in the room we would have 10 different answers.
Unless you can show that someone successfully sued over posting a letter to the editor on a not for profit blog then your point is moot.
So can you?
And Chris, you added "[i.e. a newspaper letter to the editor]" to the text you quoted. Here's the original text here http://www.arsny.com/basics.html
Isn't that a journalistic no no?
Chris, absolutely thank you for your initial effort and concern to bring copyright issues to our attention. Clearly we all care about print media compliance. The compliance issue on this article is about Letters, rather than newspaper articles. Anyhow, with your comment, I added 2 general, US government copyright links.
Public information indicates Letters belong to the owner of the Letter. And although anyone (whether registered or not) may file a copyright lawsuit, good luck with that: No applied for copyright, no commercial benefit, text intact with link, intended for community discussion = vindictive, very low to no court expectation. Interestingly enough many of the complaining comments on the recent "let's work together" Letter, 4/12/12 article seem to have disappeared by owner.
Your newspaper article reproduction comments were of particular value, and the compliance disclosure resides with the newspaper "small print" at the bottom of the website. See Mercury News copyright notice and privacy policy/terms of use. So, in viewing legal information available to the public with regard to Letters, we should not live in fear. At the same time we should attempt to comply with news media copyright regulations.
Lovely. Was it the reprinting or the "creative framing" that the letter writer found objectionable?
To my dear Anonymous Gadfly,
You appear to be very confused about a great many things!
1) I am not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be.
2) Brackets used within quotes are intended to show that an editor has inserted his/her own comment within it. So... those brackets were there to show you that, yes, that was my personal commentry and not part of the actual quote. This is basic English usage and grammar.
3) If you're looking for case law involving letters to editors, I'd recommend you head on over to the law library of your choice and consult the premiere secondary source on the topic at hand, Nimmer on Copyright. Any law library will have it.
Check out §5.04 of this treatise which addresses "Letters" and you'll learn that letters remain the property of the author (in substance) whether or not they were ever intended for publication.
Case law which illustrates this?
Baker v. Libbie, 97 N.E. 109
Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer 379
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342
Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319
Meeropol V. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061
So while the newspaper may retain physical custody of the letter or email, only the author of the letter may permit its copying.
Need more case law which illustrates this?
Wright v. Warner Books, 748 F. Supp. 105
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Pearson, 390 F.2d 489
If this isn't enough, I have about a dozen other cites ready to go. Let me know.
* * *
To Kathy,
Right on! and I agree -- we're not talking about the Pentagon Papers after all, I don't think most people care, but I would hope that if someone expressed that they wanted their material taken down that the website would comply.
"reprinting or the "creative framing..objectionable?"
Anon, 129. Both. Possibly 12 comments were removed.
Less is more.
"So while the newspaper may retain physical custody of the letter or email, only the author of the letter may permit its copying."
Chris 134, IF COPYRIGHTED. And, that is information contained in the links provided on the article. BTW, it would be helpful if you provided location links to the information you cite.
The Letter is valuable to the community, an important prelude conversation that needs to happen in this city.
A little knowledge...
You like to sound like you're important Chris Fogel.
I think you're just bloviating. BTW, if you're inserting opinion into a quoted piece you don't italicize it. That's just proper grammar.
You can not provide any links to law suits won in a case pertaining to posting letters to the editor.
Why don't you take your own advice and not give out legal advice since you admit you have no legal expertise.
I don't think you should take down the letter Kathy. Just seems like some are trying to hush the conversation.
"Bloviating"
Haha, that's a great word. I guess you got me on that one.
I never said I didn't have any legal expertise or experience, just that I'm not an attorney.
But you're right -- you should always lawyer-up when you need to and never rely on what someone says on the Internet.
"...seems like some are trying to hush the conversation." (Hutch 412)
Conversation diverted to copyright from why is it that we can't work together for the economic sustainability of this community? Or better, can we work together, and what is it going to take to do that? Classic hamster wheel.
oh yeah, it's all about how you spin it
Ha, I see you on the wheel.
oh stop, you're making me dizzy
As I said on an earlier thread, I don't think there's anything wrong with posting a letter to the editor on a blog.
Thanks to the 1996 law, (Telecommunications Act) speech on the internet is protected to what some consider an unreasonable extent.
I think if you write and/or post your opinions in your own name, they should be public.
Post a Comment