Re: [-empyre-] ' moral rights' re: permission to quote
on 30/4/02 5:58 PM, Melinda Rackham at email@example.com wrote:
> ..its interrsting..because i first went online i did have a feeling that
> some lists and muds and moos were semi-private and i was horrified to see
> throw away lines and frankly embarrasssing spur of the moment crap i'd
> written archived for posterity when i did a search for myself .
> and ive seen some very nasty flames, peopel refuse to speak on lists, people
> leave lists etc etc..sometimes it seems like the primary school playground..
> the surveliiance thing (remote bar conversations) is interrsting to,,. i
> guess that what computers are actually designed to do ..make it easy to
> keep track of you, to keep records.
> reminds me of all those enterprising girls who made money from thier webcams
> early on.. it is really all about context isn't it.. while soemthing seesm
> quiet ok in one place, somewhere else it would be in appropriate. like
> multiuser VRML web spaces..they seem failry private, but there is logg kept
> of every inteaction.. michael heim publishes in HTML the loggs from his
> forums he has in his 3d activeworld space as educational. i know ive used
> texts from chat rooms in my early net work, emails from people became part
> of a work, list postings.. etc but seeking permission from those involved..
> but that invasion of privacy stuff that antiorp/mindfuk/nn used to do of
> forwarding a posting from one list to another with nasty personal and often
> libelous comments attached.., or sending a private email from a third party
> to a list seemed to have secured thier media status in europe at least.. (or
> maye it was the Max thing)
>> ethos.... I am yet, to meet a person who has not
>> been subjected to electronic bullying ie. received
>> written verbal abuse, been seriously
>> misunderstood or quoted out of context as a result
>> of a statement made public via an list by a
>> cyber-bully or a list-junkie.
>> So here a reminder in relation to Common Law
>> regulations, that can be useful, unless all users /
>> list contributors agree on a mass electronic abuse!
>> This goes for both the information contributed
>> electronically, in print or spoken form.
>> - DEFAMATION
>> Material is Defamatory if it is:
>> - likely to injure a person's reputation
>> - likely to injure a person in his/her profession or
>> - likely to induce other to shun or avoid or ridicule
>> or despise the person
>> - material may be defamatory even when it is not a
>> direct statement. Insinuations and innuendo are
>> defamatory if the person or the people to whom
>> they are addressed are likely, in the view of the
>> community, to think less of the person discussed
>> A photograph that causes a person to be ridiculed
>> can be defamatory)
>> - LIBEL is the publication of defamatory matter in
>> permanent form including email. SLANDER is the
>> publication of defamatory matter in non-permanent
>> form, such as spoken word.
>> - Accidental Defamation - information circulated
>> without ill-will to the person defamed. It is normally
>> followed by (immediate) APOLOGY.
>> - PRIVACY - You are most likely to have received as
>> well as signed emails with privacy disclaimers, so
>> I won't go into further detail.
>> - most of the time participant exhibit high degree of
>> curtesy towards one another and even if opinions
>> substantially differ the expression is in the context
>> of having an open discussion rather then
>> In relation to the use of electronically posted,
>> discussion groups material for printed
>> publications with commercial application, this can
>> potentially be perceived / regarded as an
>> exploitation of the list's contributors ideas, time
>> and professional knowledge.
>> If an ideas discussed in a list context, is taken up
>> by an artist and developed into an independent
>> project -that is fine, for if there are a 100 artists
>> interpreting that idea, there will be at least a 100
>> original works. But if an original, already created
>> project/ text/ research has been quoted and/or
>> used in a new project then there can be an issue
>> of infringement or plagiarism, which is a legal
>> offence. (And I don't think artists would openly
>> share their original ideas, anyway!)
>> In the discussed book example.
>> To avoid misunderstandings re: copyright it is best
>> to define the purpose/ use of the publication. If the
>> author expects to gain revenue from it, then the
>> contributors need to be paid a fee for their
>> submissions to the book's content.
>> If it is for educational, research purposes, a
>> permission is still needed but it is more likely that
>> the contributors may waive their copyright and
>> support the author in principle. Either way, it is best
>> to contact each person [to be] involved in the
>> publication, so there is a process of transparency
>> and clarity re: the terms and conditions of use of
>> their material.
>> Moral rights - is the right of integrity and the right of
>> attribution, meaning that even if there isn't a fee for
>> a copyright use, the material will remain quoted/
>> 'translated'/printer, referred to... in the context it
>> was submitted and the authors/contributors'
>> names credited.
>> Melinda, [fiberculture] published last December a
>> book based on the discussion list, they also
>> published some of your text, perhaps you can use
>> that as a model if you think it was successful.
>> And fromprevious conversation I know you are on
>> the right track - good luck with it, it is an important
>> step in your research!
>> There are few other matters in relation to earlier
>> postings, but will reply to them in a separate email.
>> Hope all is well with everyone.
>> Nova best
>> Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au
>> empyre forum
> empyre forum
what is the group about, www, is a publishing medium,its up to us to turn it
into a new democratic forum, this means one step at a time, the IP providers
will be richer than tv moguls if we let them. A Network is a network it has
to have focus and an objective, say one world government ?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and