Re: Why? (was: A request for permission to use copyrighted FAQ's)

---------

Mark Eckenwiler (eck@panix.com)
Fri, 18 Mar 1994 16:09:56 -0500 (EST)

Thomas A. Baker sez:
+
+ | So I ask myself: Why ask for permission to use FAQs at all ?
+ |
+ | Why not just go ahead, use them (saving LOTS of work spent asking for
+ | permissions and sending release forms back and forth), and prophylactically
+ | defend against lawsuits by
+
+ The thrust of the above was that a poor, sole, FAQ maintainer would
+ have no practical say over a violation of copyright. No resources,
+ no law suit.
+ ....
+ Furthermore, I think it would be so cut and dry that an attorney
+ would love to take this on pro bonum.

If the FAQ author/compiler has the sense to include a copyright
notice, there's no reason that resources (read "attorneys' fees")
would be an issue, even for a poor, sole maintainer. The reason for
including the notice is that it entitles a copyright owner to recover
a) guaranteed statutory damages (instead of actual damages, which
might be nil), and b) *attorneys' fees*.

-- 
		"'[M]ovant would not beable . . . .'"
	  _Kilgore v. State_, 791 S.W.2d 393, 394 (Mo. 1990)


		   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved