[snip]
> This has prompted karen to decide to declare my Mirror as an "approved"
> mirror in her copyright, and to specificaly disallow other web site mirrors
>
> The "case law" get deeper - what say ye judges... Please copy karen at
> the kbryden@lois.dgim.doc.ca or at karen@cyberus.ca as she is the one who
> gets e-mail during the day.
This does not exactly pertain to a commercial site using portions of a FAQ,
but please bear with me.
A few months ago a similar situation arose concerning a list of web links. Is
such information copyrightable? Probably not, but the web page (not the whole
site) on which the links were provided was copied almost verbatim, slightly
edited, and then reposted without credit to the original author.
Well, she found out and complained to her university, which in turn complained
to the violator's university, and all parties (except, perhaps, the poor
overwhelmed miscreant) agreed that copyright had been violated and down came
the unauthorized duplicate page.
I was peripherally involved in this situation as someone who confirmed that
the second site indeed had copied the first site's content (by comparing the
HTML source files), although I was of the position (based on some court cases
I'd read about) that a directory cannot be copyrighted.
However, for that group of web sites (devoted to the show XENA: WARRIOR
PRINCESS), I maintain the largest, most complete list of URLs (on a site
called XENA ONLINE RESOURCES), and I was persuaded to institute a simple rule:
If a site or page appears to be an unauthorized duplicate of another, I won't
carry it.
To be considered authorized (by me), a copied web site/page must acknowledge
the original (with full name and link) and have some statement saying, "Used
by permission." I maintain over 280 URLs on XOR -- I can't be the policeman
for the Xenites. But this precedent may spread as similar situations arise
and people like me, who collect and maintain lists of resources, are
confronted with the ethical/legal debates presented by the site authors.
I think it's fair to consider a FAQ in the same light. I recently turned over
ownership of the alt.tv.xena FAQ to someone else. Because I was not the
original FAQ owner, she has been reluctant to radically change the FAQ even
though I've given my blessing. But the principle of who owns the original
content and who may use it (as opposed to who may cite from it) has probably
risen numerous times since the FAQs and resource lists were first distributed
on the Internet, Web, and Usenet.
I also have a web site dedicated to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. This site
has, with my permission, been mirrored (or, translated) into Polish (several
other online resources were collected on that Polish site as well). I've
received numerous polite requests for permission to make hard-copies of the
site. I suppose that means a lot of people are printing it out anyway. But I
inserted a copyright notice into several of my FAQs and most of my web sites
and have found that people respect these notices. School children
occasionally even ask for my permission to use my Tolkien site as a source (I
tell them to ask their teachers :).
Another situation relating to Tolkien sites arose a few months ago when
several of us discussed (on the Usenet) use of scanned images. Someone who
knows one of the more popular artists posted an article saying that this
artist resented the use of his images on the web without anyone asking his
permission. The owner of one of the most popular sites immediately took down
his images from that artist.
In preparing my own site, I looked around for resources that were freely
available (i.e., the owners put up notices saying, "You may use this art work
on your web site, etc."). I found plenty. However, I also found one artist
who would give me permission to use only one of his images. He was firm
against unauthorized use of his art on other sites and implied he had pursued
some people for using his work without permission. I didn't ask for details.
So, based on my limited experience, I would say it's appropriate, and perhaps
even enforceable, for Karen to assert her rights in this way. The courts tend
to favor the author's rights and take a hard, close look at any claims of fair
usage. And people in general (for now) seem to respect notices of copyright.
But if she puts in the notice, and the commercial site uses extensive portions
of her FAQ without her permission, then she may have an enforceable violation.
At the very least, I think the question has really been settled. The incident
with the two universities leads me to believe this the most.
-- ++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?" ||\ /|| --fbaggins@mid.earth.com || v ||ichael Martinez (mmartin@basis.com) ++ ++------------------------------------------------------
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved