Re: TotalNEWS & Derivative Works

Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Unlike a traditional bulletin board, it is not Phil who displays
> his web pages, rather it is the user. Phil merely makes his pages
> available in a context where the only possible intent could have been
> for a user to display those pages.

I think this is another nub of the several in the ongoing discussion.

May I impose on you to let me change "user" to "viewer/reader" so that I am clear in my understanding that you mean someone who views/reads my page? User seems more generic, and I'm not certain that you mean, with that word, to limit user to those who view/read my pages; a user could include the author and it could include someone who incorporates my text and images in their own work.

I think that may be the area of contention. I do _publish_ my Web pages on the WWW, and the only possible way to view/read my work is by displaying them on a computer monitor. However, the only way to read a book is by publishing it and making it publicly available for display before the eyes of the viewer/reader. I don't understand that publication on the Web in any way makes my pages less protected by copyright than publication by printing press and distribution to bookstores.

The questions gets back to "the only possible intent could have been for a user to display those pages." The issue is, who is the "user." _My_ perception of my intent is that the viewer/reader is my intended audience and is the person that has the license to view/read my Web pages. If someone made a copy of my source markup and incorporated it into her page (even with credit), I would expect that to be considered a violation of my copyright. People don't seem to have a problem when something is copied. Or if someone made an <img> link to my photograhs so that they appeared in that person's Web page everytime that person's page was viewed by a viewer/reader, I would expect that to be considered an infringement of my copyright.

But when we get to frames and a link which displays my page and its images as part of a frameset, we get a different answer. It appears to be acceptable to several people on this list to incorporate my work as part of a framed Web page, when my page is caused to be displayed by a company that uses frames to provide menus and advertising, along with displaying the content of other authors. Now we get back to my only possible intent and who is a user.

We can get into areas of public display and derivative works. If I self- publish a book, it is my intent that people buy it and read it. It is not my intent that people make a movie from it, write a song using my characters, and make a statue based on one of my photographs. I have the impression that a copyright covers those issues. If I provide a notice of copyright, I think it is sufficient if it meets the statutory requirements, to provide notice to the world that my rights are reserved and that deriviative works are an infringement. No?

If I self-publish a Web page, I have the same expectations. I don't understand how the Web suddenly gives implied licenses for _users_ other than viewers/readers to incorporate my original work into theirs and to sell advertising to vendors for viewers/readers to see when they are drawn to the site to view/read my content.

If I want to know what the laws are concerning copyright in the print world, I go read the statutes, cases, and treatises. If I want to know what the laws are concerning copyright in the Web world, I get people posting statements (not you, Timothy -- I am not singling out anyone for an attack) purporting to state the law of the Web, the purpose of the Web, and so on. If the law is different, I'd really appreciate more. Where in the statute do I look? What cases can I read? Where in CCH is this law explained?

I thank you, Timothy, for your comment. I think you've stated clearly in one sentence what I've been unable to pick out of the several posts on this issue by others. I keep saying they're way over my head; you finally caught on to that, I guess. :-)

Phil Stripling
philip[_at_]crl.com Received on Mon Jun 09 1997 - 17:12:48 GMT