Re: web site features: fair use? or allowed via contract with freelancers?

On 3/9/00, Colin Goff <colgoff[_at_]worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Julie Cason <julie[_at_]icopyright.com> wrote:
> >
> > * * *
> > Apologies for resending this, but I hadn't received any responses over
> > the last week (which is unusual for this list).
> > * * *
> >
> > I'm wondering if any of you have legal insights into the now-pervasive
> > web site features of "Print This Story" (printer-friendly versions
> > created from content-rich web pages) and "Email to a Friend".
> >
> > It seems that publishers, by providing these tools, are enabling (if not
> > actually authorizing) readers to easily make copies of online works. If
> > the publisher owns the copyright to the works, all seems perfectly fine
> > and within the owner's rights to allow.
> >
> > However, if the works were originally created by freelance authors,
> > there are at least 2 scenarios:
> >
> > 1) the publisher's contract with the writers (photographers, artists,
> > et al) specifies that the Web site publisher retains the right to
> > enable emailing and printing.
> > 2) or the contract is silent on these Web site features/utilities.
> >
> > I would very much appreciate feedback along the following lines:
> >
> > 1) copyright disputes over enabling these features (esp. in light of
> > Tasini v. New York Times)
> > 2) if you haven't heard of any disputes, whether you think there might
> > be merit in some
> > 3) and any of this list's typically insightful, incisive analysis.
>
> I'm not an attorney, but I am a writer and a website designer, so maybe
> the way I handle this situation will be informative for you:
>
> As far as I can tell (although it seems that copyright issues are only
> ever clarified in court, not by the original laws), the copyright for
> Web page content belongs to the designer, unless the designer is working
> specifically under a "for hire" contract.
>
> Because of this, I provide my customers with a letter that transfers
> the copyright to them after finishing the project (and getting paid
> for it). I consider this just a formality, but it's better to make
> everything clear.
>
> Regarding written materials that the site allows people to forward via
> e-mail or print, I would consider this to be a "fair use," just as if
> someone were to tear out a magazine article that I had written and mail
> it to a friend. It still doesn't allow the website visitor to claim the
> work as their own or violate any other copyrights; so I wouldn't expect
> my customers to pay me anything extra or put any clauses in my contract
> with them.

I still have not seen anything dealing with your question on this list-serve, so I will take a stab at something. Note that many issues relating to the Internet will remain unresolved by the US Supreme Court for some time. That said, the "fair use" exception to the owner's right to control copyrighted materials continues to be debated and changed, with further changes likely.

Thus far, unless someone knows something different, the copying that occurs through browsers is likely to be considered fair use as long as it is being done for personal use. I leave to the imagination and court decisions what personal use might be. Certain other privileges apply thus far, such as the right to copy for archival purposes depending on the medium, etc. One thing it is likely to mean is that one cannot email copyrighted materials without permission. This position might be seen to be strengthened by the mechanisms that are available to send hyperlinks rather than copies. On the other hand, if the image downloaded is the same as the image obtained through the hyperlink, "where's the beef" as long as the image is not changed? (However, sometimes all content is not or cannot be downloaded or displayed later, thereby altering the work.)

The copyright owner is likely to be able to preclude any non-statutory exception in the absence of specific statutory or court case support to the contrary. Thus, be wary and proceed at your own risk should you be violating the "shrink-wrap"-type license included in most websites today even if they have software mechanisms that permit certain levels of copying/printing.

Rights of web designers are certainly of growing significance to the Internet palate, and continue to bring with them issues that have existed in the print world since the beginning of time. Few still properly obtain complete and proper licenses for the graphic design and art. Moreover, even if they do, artists and others have certain rights in the US somewhat comparable to the moral rights found in certain foreign countries that permits them some control over their works even if licensed.

These and other laws differ in various countries, some of which have not yet even signed the Bern Convention. Thus, far more detail is possible and probably appropriate. However, this is probably why no one tackled this one yet!

Best wishes.

Cliff Potter

Quarles & Brady
Law Offices
<rcp[_at_]quarles.com>

Intended for recipient only. Please do not read any messages that are incorrectly received and notify me at the numbers below. Interception or review by anyone not authorized to do so is unlawful.

Suite 3700, 500 West Madison St., Chicago, IL 60661 Phone Direct: +1-312-715-5070; Fax: +1-312-715-5155 Received on Sat Mar 11 2000 - 14:54:56 GMT