Fw: [-empyre-] ' moral rights' re: permission to quote

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>]

..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)

melinda




> 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
> trade
> - 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
> vindication.
> *********
> 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
>
> /
> Antoanetta
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyrean/empyre
>
>