Re: copyrighting of an email

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 May 1997, Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Post <postd[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > But isn't 'printing a copy' also 'expressly impermissible' under
> > > the copyright law?
> >
> > Well, it is the making of a copy. So, from that point of view, yes.
> > However, this is a place that implied license and the like would
> > come into the analysis.
>
> I thought about the implied license angle. It's interesting how
> computers have changed the meaning of copy. For example, someone
> sends me a computer image file, and I display it. I have a copy of
> the image file. If I print the display, I now have two copies.
> Does the sending of the file or the sending of the e-mail impliedly
> license me to print it? Some might say that it is more convenient
> to have the paper copy rather than the computer copy, that if I had
> a paper copy sent to me, I would have more flexibility in my rights.
> For example, with a paper copy I could take it with me to someone
> else's house and show it to them. The computer copy also gives me
> certain capabilities that the paper copy does not, like searching
> the e-mail, or displaying the image from my computer onto a large
> screen, but I can't carry around the copy unless I take the hard
> drive out of the computer and take it with me to my friend's.

Well, you obviously have made a copy by printing it. One of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is reproduction. And thus either the copy just made is either infringing or allowed, and if allowed, is either allowed by law, or by contract.

I am not quite sure what you are arguing, you seem to be arguing that maybe the implied license doesn't extend to a paper copy. This is obviously a question of fact, depending on the intent of the parties. However, enough people still print their email to read it, that one may be able to argue that such is expected, at least at a low level. I certainly expect that at least some posts to this lists are printed. And so, I impliedly license such by so posting.

> Ultimately, I think that if one is going to print a copy of a sent
> computer file, one should then destroy the computer file. I don't
> know of anything in the Copyright Act that gives me the right to
> substitute a lawful copy with another copy, but it doesn't seem
> unreasonable from a common sense point of view.

If not implied license, then possibly some bizarre permutation of fair use then.  

> If you think about it the other way, would the sending of a paper
> image or a paper mail give you the right to scan that image or mail
> into your computer? I don't think so, even under implied license.

But the primary question of implied license is the extent of the reasonable expectations of the parties (in particular in this case the sender).

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1997 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden                      bhayden[_at_]acm.org               
Austin, Texas                        bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com