RE: letters

RE: letters (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RCdc -> RE: letters (6/21/2009 3:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR There is an old saying that holds a lot of truth in this situation....."Possession is Nine Tenths of the Law." It's like this, if you send the letter to someone you are in effect giving it to that person. Thus, that person is now the owner of said letter and theirs to do with as they please. This is totally incorrect from a copyright POV - even from a letter standpoint. You cannot print the letter without the writers consent. You can try and duck under percentage loopholes, so you can discuss the content within the letter, and form conversations surrounding the content without specifics, but you are not permitted to use the words of another and claim them as yours or that you own them. But hey, Master is a writer and I am a photographer. We know these things. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Of course you can - it's not a crime. Yes it is. the.dark.

ranja -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 1:59:09 AM)
Thank you all so much for your input...ok letters are sent (lookie) sorry English is not my first language, thank you for pointing out my mistake...i make many...no spell check here...even so i am capable of writing very lovely letters if i say so myself and i am happy to understand that the copyright is mine and i am still the owner of the letters that i already have sent. Sometimes when i write a letter i write it more for myself than the person i sent it to...sometimes i would like it if it was read by other people too. This is not so much about letters i receive as i am way more inclined to keep any info given to me private, I am good at keeping other peoples secrets, but not my own about my own writing indeed i am not so cagey... So if something beautiful happens or something i struggle with, often i like to write about it and sometimes direct it at one person in particular to give me a proper aim to write to (for me it writes better when i write to someone than when i journal) and then i might sent the letter to share with them... but maybe i get nothing back...i feel maybe my efforts were a bit wasted...and i consider sharing it with others to see what they make of it...but then i was told the letter is private and i should not share it any further... I respect the limit put on me, but i do not really agree...i feel it is still MY piece of writing and i would be entirely in my right to publish it. I mean i would not slander anybody it is more a case of talking about my own experiences....i feel i let myself be censored and gagged (and that sounds way more dramatic than it really is...but just to give you all an idea)

HatesParisHilton -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 2:25:41 AM)
If this site is under a Creative Commons LIscence of any sort, like The ABC in Australia, then the statements of Darcy and the Dark are more than up for debate, since anything created/generated/sent/received on this site falls under the purview of the SITE'S intellectual property rights and technically anyone posting here is merely an unpaid contributor. And since I've been published in Oz, been reprinted and exported to the UK, and mostly fr parent companies owning publication companies that hired me as both an illustrator and writer, and I had to know the LEGAL diff between copyright and trademark as of 1989 due to a 52 page contract I had to sign from the WB, I reckon I have as much right to state that as Darcy and the Dark, and tell the OP that the odds are no-one but the legal owners of the Int Prop rights of THIS SITE have the final say in regards to "fair use". See, if anyone actually knows shit-all about int prop, they know to ask about fair use. Someone like youtube can say "you are the copright owner" but if by signing up you grant them "fair use" rights to sell your clip to an airline, with no obligation topay you a dime? And you think that's unfair? Guess who wins? Due to "fair use" you signed away in the fine print versus PRESUMED Intellectual Property Rights Reserved en toto?

purepleasure -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 4:50:00 AM)
ok, this is probably a good place to ask this... If you come into possession of a collection of love letters and other correspondence between your parents, some of which include important family information(in your parent's handwriting and both are deceased), should they be destroyed, or kept? I haven't read all of them. There are about 50, I read 4 or 5. Sorry about the temporary hijack. As far as the OP's question, I agree with .thedark. The words belong to the writer, but the actual letter belongs to the recipient.

sirsholly -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 4:59:12 AM)
quote: f you come into possession of a collection of love letters and other correspondence between your parents, some of which include important family information(in your parent's handwriting and both are deceased), should they be destroyed, or kept? I haven't read all of them. There are about 50, I read 4 or 5. Those letters are a part of your history, Peaches. They are priceless!! If your parents did not want you to see them, they would have been destroyed long ago

ranja -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 6:25:22 AM)
Bad hijack, Bad...start yer own thread ....but i would keep all the letters and if they were really good i would like to have them read by others aswell... sirsholly; shame on you for ignoring my question but encouraging a hijack

ranja -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 6:35:24 AM)
HatesParisHilton Does that mean that CollarMe can use all the emails sent through this site as it sees fit? Could CM forinstance publish a book full of dirrrty emails without even asking the writers of these emails if they are ok with this? And mail i have sent through this site is that still mine aswell then, or could CM sue me for mails that now belong to them?

HatesParisHilton -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 6:50:03 AM)
It's upto CM to answer that. However, on another non sexual site, a person started and answered hundreds of threads, and later, used them in a book that is still up for sale on Amazon. I was told by someone that some of the private correspondence from private messages (such as we have here) were used in the book. Permission had not been asked. Shares in royalties were not, well, shared. I stand firmly against that. I also stand against a LOT of what Creative Commons stands for and many tenured academics that want everything to be public domain for them to use as they see fit without them compensating anyone at all. Yet they do not offer to teach their courses that they use these materials for, for free. Bit of a double-standard. Also, copyright only extends as far as your ability to make thinks "owwie" for anyone whom wrongfully uses your stuff. Personally, I don;t believe that any letters from anyone (including e-mails or messages) should be even glanced at wiithout the express written permission of both the author and the person to whom the letters were written. But the Letter of the Law rarely upholds the spirit, especially in the real of Intellectual Property.

ranja -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 7:07:05 AM)
Thank you, do you know the title of this book and the 'author'? I understand your point of view about privacy, but i am altogether more infavour of sharing and more transparancy than secrecy and censorship really...although i do think it is important to know who wrote what and give credit where credit is due... and also innocent parties should be protected by changing names and places and such.

RCdc -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 7:41:30 AM)
Of course a internet site has the whole 'fair use' issue when it comes to the 'sign your life away' contacts that you tick the box to when you sign up. Most people don't read terms though. My 'arguement' was about a letter. The OP asked about a letter - not an email or blog writings. The letter belongs to whom it is given. The words belong to the owner. If ranja is talking specifically about CM mails then it's in the terms that you agreed to when you signed up. They pretty much state that reproduction of intellectual, trademark and copyright blah isn't permitted. It's up to you to find out the local state/country laws of both the sender and reciever. the.dark.

HatesParisHilton -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 7:44:18 AM)
I know the title and the author but they've taken enough flak as it is, and I've had more than one round with them in public arenas over other issues as well. The work is not fiction, at best it's "instructional" and a self described "insider's view of --- industry".

RCdc -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 7:45:57 AM)
quote: I understand your point of view about privacy, but i am altogether more infavour of sharing and more transparancy than secrecy and censorship really...although i do think it is important to know who wrote what and give credit where credit is due... and also innocent parties should be protected by changing names and places and such. Look at it this way ranja. If you get a letter that has content you want to discuss, you can discuss the content and ask for brainstorming ideas about the subject matter or how it affects you etc. You could even say 'Person (named X) said this blhblahblah. But you cannot put 'Looking what Person (named properly) sent me - then post it in it's entire form without permission. Not without putting yourself at risk. the.dark.

HatesParisHilton -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:05:48 AM)
D&D just hit your major issue on the head, albeit a bit amorphously (but as an image artist, such is allowed, especially by myself, one of the biggest fans of mega-grainy B/W photography and high speed film on the planet). See, "risk" here is likely more than you think. In Australia, defamation is handled a bit diff to the States (and I imagine, the UK, but D&D would be better suited to say). Here, if the person who wrote the letters was uber vanilla, and who's business life depended on being perceived as uber vanilla (say, a mid level producer or editor for a news programme or The Footy Show), then merely publishing the jist of the content of the letters on a site like this could easily be argued by our barristers to be harmful to their professional standing and ability to maintain said standing. If the person who wrote the letter was, say, a PhD Therapist (the DMV still lists Kink as deviant, btw), then essentially it would be argued that you narwhaled their practice, clientbase, etc., even if that takes ten years, slowly, after posting anything about the letters that could in anyway be traced back to the authour. Here, you would be well and truly fucked for that. In terms of fines, court costs (if you lose in a defam case here you'll pay those) and even hard time. I don't care if your DAD wrote the letters, from the little you're telling us here, seems wisest to just stick tthem in a Capt.Jack Sparrow chest and hoard the little treasure to yourself or burn the fuckers.

beargonewild -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton If this site is under a Creative Commons LIscence of any sort, like The ABC in Australia, then the statements of Darcy and the Dark are more than up for debate, since anything created/generated/sent/received on this site falls under the purview of the SITE'S intellectual property rights and technically anyone posting here is merely an unpaid contributor. And since I've been published in Oz, been reprinted and exported to the UK, and mostly fr parent companies owning publication companies that hired me as both an illustrator and writer, and I had to know the LEGAL diff between copyright and trademark as of 1989 due to a 52 page contract I had to sign from the WB, I reckon I have as much right to state that as Darcy and the Dark, and tell the OP that the odds are no-one but the legal owners of the Int Prop rights of THIS SITE have the final say in regards to "fair use". See, if anyone actually knows shit-all about int prop, they know to ask about fair use. Someone like youtube can say "you are the copright owner" but if by signing up you grant them "fair use" rights to sell your clip to an airline, with no obligation topay you a dime? And you think that's unfair? Guess who wins? Due to "fair use" you signed away in the fine print versus PRESUMED Intellectual Property Rights Reserved en toto? Which is why you should sign an agreement giving another ONE TIME publishing rights to any intellectual property, which includes print, photographs and electronic words. The basic copyright laws are applicable though each individual country will have specific usage spelled out that is valid for that country. As .dark had mentioned, as soon as a person writes something on paper, they automatically own all copyrights to that work. If I recall correctly, a person is legally allowed to use 5 or 10% of another's work and not violate the copyright laws. Anything more, then you legally bound to seek permission from the copyright holder for written permission, which may entail paying a fee for royalties and acknowledging the original creator.

RCdc -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:16:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton D&D just hit your major issue on the head, albeit a bit amorphously. And that* is why, Darcy is the writer.[;)]* It really does come down to how much are you willing to pay out if it all goes tits up.[:D] the.dark.

beargonewild -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:19:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: purepleasure ok, this is probably a good place to ask this... If you come into possession of a collection of love letters and other correspondence between your parents, some of which include important family information(in your parent's handwriting and both are deceased), should they be destroyed, or kept? I haven't read all of them. There are about 50, I read 4 or 5. Sorry about the temporary hijack. As far as the OP's question, I agree with .thedark. The words belong to the writer, but the actual letter belongs to the recipient. pure.....I may be wrong on this but I believe that upon a writer's death the legal ownership is null and void.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:20:58 AM)
OMG it would be awful to destroy them!

HatesParisHilton -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:26:00 AM)
He may be the writer but you communicate well, and his camera and your face are an exquisite couple. as for what bear said, "5 or 10% of another's work", it is SO easy to swipe 30% of someone's work and be a total fuckstick doing it in a way that the average litigation will see as merely 4.95% use and therefore unactionable. Also, what if this letter affects someone's holdings, inheritance or estate? Or would nullify payments owed to them by an INsurance Company or royalties from a publisher? Also, copyright laws are not universal. The estate of James Joyce and the rights to his work are not public domain in Ireland, but they are in Australia, so 2 (!#$@!!'s) in Australia decided to just use Joyce's material against the will of his estate here, where the Joyce family could not say squat. Personally I hope those 2 (!!@48&$1!!)'s catch herpes and anal warts.

RCdc -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:27:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild quote: ORIGINAL: purepleasure ok, this is probably a good place to ask this... If you come into possession of a collection of love letters and other correspondence between your parents, some of which include important family information(in your parent's handwriting and both are deceased), should they be destroyed, or kept? I haven't read all of them. There are about 50, I read 4 or 5. Sorry about the temporary hijack. As far as the OP's question, I agree with .thedark. The words belong to the writer, but the actual letter belongs to the recipient. pure.....I may be wrong on this but I believe that upon a writer's death the legal ownership is null and void. I missed this the first time around. I cannot speak for world wide - remembering I am british based - but usually, stuff like that is considered part of the 'estate' and then onwards for the next 70 years(or so - I think the states is 75? Not sure). So whoever manages the estate or whom it is passed onto. the.dark.

sirsholly -> RE: letters (6/22/2009 8:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch OMG it would be awful to destroy them! i agree!!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125