Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I know of no documentation, either, but I'd tend to think that you are correct... from my point of view, it's kind of like a blog comment (or even a blog): you put it out there, and unless you specifically say you don't want it to be reproduced, then it's fair game.

I'd have to agree with Erin... I know I receive business emails with taglines like this on a daily basis...

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely or the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Outside of that I'd say it's like a comment or a blog post... if it's not implied that it's not to be shared it's fair game.

You don't own it. The person who wrote it retains all copyright — just as with anything else you write (at least in Western civilizations). I don't have a reference for this, and might possibly be wrong.

A public blog is specifically designed to be accessible by the universe (such as an email is specifically designed to be accessible by the receiver). But the fact that it's meant to be read by someone doesn't relinquish copyright.

Everything you write is by default yours. You have to specifically state that it can be reproduced. Not the other way around.

However, there were (still are?) laws that required the ©<name> to be placed on text written and published in some venues — which is why people place the © emblem on webpage footers. But I believe that most countries don't require that anymore — not sure how it relates to email.

Opposing viewpoints. Exciting. I'd tend to side with hthth, in retrospect, I think. But I'd still like to see some form of written documentation.

im with hthth.

whats wrong in the other arguments is that email is not a comment or a post.. its not meant for the world, its a private conversation and you have no rights to use it in anyway without contacting the other person.

Hurm.
Can't seem to find anything online that isn't written in a style that makes my want to turn off my brain.

Who's our residing lawyer?

The author of the e-mail retains copyright of the e-mail, not the receiver. The author of the e-mail has the rights to reuse and redistribute the e-mail. The only exception is Fair Use.

There are very few sources, publications, articles on individual e-mail and copyright law. But I'm assuming that basic copyright laws would apply to e-mail's as well.

The only thing I could really find that brings up individual e-mail are a couple of listserv discussions.

• Email & Copyright
• Re: Email & Copyright
• Re: Email & copright 2
• Re: is email a copyright?
• Re: is email a copyright? 2
• Re: is email a copyright? 3
• Re: is email a copyright? 4

Everything else I found had to to with listservs and groups of e-mails in that sort of format. Nothing really to do with individual e-mails.

This issue has been discussed before. Opinions went back and forth there, too, but it seems that the conclusion was that you can't reproduce the email in full, but under the fair use doctrine, you may summarize or quote from it.

In Canada, it doesn't appear to matter b/c, as someone states, correspondence isn't covered under copyright law.

Again, though, opinions are all over the place. Who knows who's right?

Who knows who's right?

I am, I'm always right. :P

But in any case, I would think that asking permission to use the e-mail would just be common courtesy anyway.

People quote what other people have said all the time. Are there copyrights on free speech?

I guess I regard email as a conversation that is written down instead of said aloud.

Alisa, free speech has nothing to do with copyrights. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects what you say, not whether or not someone can copy what you say, post it somewhere else, or redistribute it to other people. That's completely different than Copyright Laws.

Google owns all email.
Just like your souls.

I tried to find it on the EFF site with no luck (their search sucks) but email does have ownership just as comments do. There are sites that will try to assume the ownership of comments so they have 100% control over them but that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. That is why I do not edit comments - I would be changing what the original poster said. I delete the entire thing.

Since what is said in a an email can throw you in jail or be used against you in a court of law...yeah, you have ownership of it but you can't always control what happens to it after it's sent. Like the legal notices...is the average person going to sue if their email is sent to someone else when it explicitly says not to? No...but they could.

Josh: You're awesome. But say you're a reporter undercover, and you interview someone, and then you go and print what they said. You didn't ask permission to quote, and you didn't make it known that you were going to quote. Is that legal?

Google's GMail TOS explicitly states that:

Google owns all right, title and interest in and to the Service, including without limitation all intellectual property rights (the "Google Rights"), and such Google Rights are protected by U.S. and international intellectual property laws.

But that:

Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.

So...

Why does copyright apply to correspondence? Does anyone else find that ridiculous?

More importantly. Say you email Joebob at microsoft. He replies to you and has one of those little disclaimer thingies in it like RightOn posted. You didn't agree to those terms before hand, and perhaps don't agree with them now that you've received them. How can that hold up legally? I mean, I realize by replying to an email with that tag that you're giving tacit approval for the terms.

I mean I knew our copyright laws were completely screwed up like the rest of our legal system... but holy crap.

@Ozone - that's why an attorney told me if I use the disclaimer put it at the top of the email. By keeping/responding then you agree to the terms.

To me a person should be held responsible for what they say no matter where they say it. Email can be meticulously tracked back to an individual person. Everything we do online leaves some small footprint.

With comments the most classic blogger case is the blogger that looked up a commenter's IP address (right there in MT), saw the person was responding from work and reported the guy. Why? He politely disagreed with her. Because the company had a no personal surfing rule he was fired but there was no doubt it was him because of the IP address. She ended up closing her blog because the community strongly opposed her actions.

You hear all the time how emails are being used in court cases. It's a conversation except many times there is proof of who said it and exactly what they said (better than hear say) so why not use it? To do that they have to have ownership of the words...as it should be.

I'm all for emails being usable in court as long as it can be determined that they weren't tampered with. What bugs me is the whole "you can't use this, despite me being in direct conversation with you."

That whole confidentiality clause coming at you just seems absurd. If I go and have a meeting with someone in their office and discuss the exact same things I am not bound in any way. I can freely tell anyone I want what was said unless I've signed an NDA of some sort. That's a much more formal situation.

It makes me wonder the precedent for people being able to shove those restrictions on you in an email.

Alisa: That would be unethical, but it doesn't necessarily make it illegal, however, the reporter would face some major consequences. However, that's a whole other issue. Reporters rights with quoting are completely different than some average Joe.

In any case, we aren't talking about a reporter e-mailing leads and such. This is individual e-mail we're talking about. As in, if you and I were to e-mail each other. If I e-mailed you, I'd retain copyrights and you wouldn't be able to use my message someplace else, unless I gave you permission.

Google has already indexed your email.
and this conversation.
and every link it's pointed to.
and every links from those pages.

IWelcome Googlezon

You hear all the time how emails are being used in court cases. It's a conversation except many times there is proof of who said it and exactly what they said (better than hear say) so why not use it? To do that they have to have ownership of the words...as it should be.

I worked in a city attorney's office over the summer, and we had a case of threatening and intimidation via Myspace bulletins. It was a mess.

So who would own the correspondence if it was on paper? Logically, unless you made copies, you would own or at least have in your hand what the other person sent, while they would have your words. Could they publish them? Maybe. Could they get sued? Absolutely. It would be a privacy violation.