Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr
Fri Feb 4 19:40:02 PST 2005

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:

TM> If you post on a public forum, by implication you are giving that
TM> forum permission to publish your copyrighted material.

No, you're not.  If you post to a public forum, you're giving implicit
permission for your posts to be visible _within that forum_.  You are
not giving implicit permission for any other type of publication
external to the forum ... and that includes mirroring on a Web site

The only way to get around this is to require agreement to licensing of
posts as a condition of joining the forum.

TM> Since at the time of publication of that post, the FreeBSD mailing
TM> list was being archived, you also by implication gave your
TM> permission for FreeBSD to put it into their archives.

No, you didn't, unless joining the forum required you to _explicitly_
agree to these terms.

TM> These are first publication rights and once you give them out you
TM> cannot get them back, because after publication they don't exist any
TM> longer.

Nobody gives out these rights by posting to a forum.

If what you say were true, you could walk into a photography museum,
take pictures of the photos, and publish those pictures.  In fact, this
is normally an infringement of copyright.

TM> The only thing that Valerie Andrewlevich, as a copyright holder
TM> of her posts, can do is block 3rd parties such as Google or other
TM> search engines from re-publishing her copyrighted material - ie:
TM> her post - becase in her initial post back in 2003 she never gave
TM> permission for Google to republish her material, and Google and other
TM> search engines all republish under Fair Use doctrine.

The applicability of fair use to Google's republication has not been
established by jurisprudence, AFAIK.

In any case, authors of individual posts can require that they be
removed from the archive.

TM> And of course, all of this goes out the window if the use of the
TM> copyright is for satire - as the courts have held that satire is
TM> constitutionally protected, and that it's reasonable to assume that
TM> a satirist would never be able to get permission from a copyright
TM> holder to publish their work.

It's difficult to imagine a legitimate satirical use of posts in most
public forums.

TM> Which means I can say Valerie sounds like her kids aren't keeping
TM> her busy enough as she has so much time for looking at search
TM> engines, followed by an excerpt of her original post, and I
TM> have legal right to do it and she has no right to stop me, because
TM> such a statement is satire and thus protected.

That depends on the context in which it appears.  It may be defamatory.

TM> He is a She, unless Valerie has suddenly become a boy's name, and
TM> she quite obviously shows a shocking lack of knowledge about how
TM> much effort that she is asking the archive manager to go to, just
TM> to satisfy her ego.

The amount of effort required to cease or reverse an infringing activity
is not a defense against copyright infringement.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list