TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
FWD: Re: A Question of TECHWR-L Netiquette---Is permission required to forward responses to posts??...
Subject:FWD: Re: A Question of TECHWR-L Netiquette---Is permission required to forward responses to posts??... From:"Bob Lord, DTN 522-6614," <lord -at- CXCAD -dot- ENET -dot- DEC -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:01:29 PST
Richard,
Seems to me that when you offer your opinions to a 700-person LISTSERV on the
net, you've placed them in the public domain. If someone later says
"Throckmorton, on the TECHWR-L discussion list, said '.daerht enani na si
siht'," he or she's doing nothing but stating a fact. Seems like this should be
handled in a manner similar to the way the media handles the opinions a public
figure. Sending out a copy of a one-on-one network "conversation" is a
little different from an etiquette standpoint, but is either information really
protected by copyright?
The real issue is that publicly distributed, _written_ information has been
treated in our society in a legally different way from publicly distributed,
_verbal_ information. IMHO, "public" discussion on the net, although written in
form, should take on some of the legal attributes of verbal information.
In my own dealings, I always try to get the originator's permission to reuse
information. I do it out of courtesy, if for no other reason. Legally/ethically,
however, I really wonder if I really have to.
Bob Lord
Contract Information Designer
Digital Equipment Corporation "Kindly practice random acts
LORD -at- CXCAD -dot- ENET -dot- DEC -dot- COM of senselessness!" b.l.
719.548.6614
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:09:30 -0800
From: Richard Mateosian <srm -at- C2 -dot- ORG>
Subject: Reissuing private email
>I don't think you should quote anyone publicly unless you have their
>permission; I think whether you attribute the quote is up to the
>originator; e.g., it is polite to name the source, but the source may
>not want to be named.
We're all familiar with the practice of posting a question with a commitment
to post a summary of responses to the list.
When I do this, I do not identify the responders, and I really do summarize.
Nonetheless, I reproduce many of the responders' words verbatim.
At the other extreme, some people simply concatenate the replies and post
the aggregate to the list without editing it.
I think that either of these approaches is legally and ethically acceptable.
The responder understands that one of these things, or something in between,
will happen to their posting. They implicitly authorize this treatment.
I have some incomplete opinions about where the copyrights lie in these cases.
Does anyone disagree with my analysis or wish to enlighten us about
copyright? ...RM
Richard Mateosian Technical Writer in Berkeley CA srm -at- c2 -dot- org
