Question for any DU lawyers

[Ashy Larry]

Let's say I just had an email exchange with someone who is in the news this morning. What are the laws about posting such an exchange here on DU? If someone is a public figure, does that make it ok? In my original email to this person, I did say that I wanted to post their response on DU and elsewhere. Any lawyers out there please PM me for more details. Thanks!

[shraby]

1. Don't take my word for it, but I think an

email is covered by copyright laws. If its from an official of the government in an official capacity copyright laws don't apply.

[sharesunited]

2. email is protected by copyright

E-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author. This means you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately. You cannot post private e-mails to your site, to message boards or to your blog without the author’s specific permission to do so.

Just because an e-mail was sent to you as a private communication does not mean you then own it and can do with it what you like. In addition, e-mail that is posted to a group of people, on a mailing list or Newsgroup does not make the e-mail available for reposting, copying, or any other use - not without the express and written consent of the author.

[cynatnite]

3. And enforcing this would be practically impossible...

I can't count the times that emails have been shared here and various other sites across the internets.

[Ashy Larry]

4. Yes, but this person is a lawyer

So thats why I am hesitating.

[sharesunited]

6. Absent monetary damages, the remedy is injunction

against further publishing / republishing.

[Romulox]

16. Statutory damages are also available. nt

[sharesunited]

17. Hey, pretty neat. "Just Because" damages!

[cynatnite]

7. Well, if they want to go after something that makes them look like an ass...

and doing so would only fuel publicity...they'd probably hesitate, too.

It'd probably go no farther than DU and a few blogs.

Small risk, IMO, but I understand your hesitation.

[sharesunited]

5. You're absolutely right. It's a risk decision, and the risk is small.

[Romulox]

9. An email may be *copyrightABLE* but I'm not sure that ends the enquiry...

Who is the email from?
What is being reposted?
What is the purpose of posting the email?
*How much* is being reposted?
Is there any implied consent to reposting?
Was there an expectation of privacy?

[Ashy Larry]

11. Answers

1) Mickey Kantor
2) The entire exchange
3) Just for laughs I suppose.
4) all of it
5) Not sure
6) don't think so.

[Romulox]

12. I think there is broad leeway for posting newsworthy information from public figures

Saying anything more than that would require a more fact-intensive enquiry.

Of course, you should seek the opinion of a lawyer *in your state* (since laws other than copyright may be involved,) if you really anticipate an issue with this.

[DU9598]

8. Two issues

Did the person expect confidentiality?

Is everything in the email truthful? Don't make stuff up is what I am saying.

[Ashy Larry]

10. In my original email,

I stated my intention of re-printing his response. I didn't make anything up. I guess it wouldn't be a problem to at least tell you who the person is. Its Mickey Kantor. I'm just worried because he didn't say something like, 'sure, go ahead and post my response'. But he also didn't tell me not to.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. If all else fails...Wikileaks!

Wikileaks

[Romulox]

14. 17 USC sec. 504(c)(2) is interesting on this point.

My take is that state tort laws are much more of a threat in a situation like this than copyright. So consult with a lawyer in your state first!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

[musiclawyer]

15. Many factors to consider

Copyright is the least important issue here it seems .

Do you or the other person work for government and was the e-mail passing through a government server? If so, depending on whether the e-mail remotely related to the job, it might be a public record.

You would be making a public disclosure of private facts. Therefore most state laws make you ask 1) whether these facts would objectionable to a reasonable person and 2) not a topic of legitimate public concern? Only if the answer to both is yes, would it be risky to disclose.

Other states focus more on the inquiry 1) whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and 2) does the interest in disclosure outweigh the privacy interest? In that same vein, please note that most public officials, "not employees," have a much lower expectation of privacy. This will be a major issue in any risk assessment. If you really want to know the answer, talk to a local lawyer who is grounded in "constitutional torts" and "public records" law. Not one, but both.

[TexasObserver]

18. Of course you can post it. The email contents belong to you, as the recipient.

When someone writes you an email, the contents of the email belong to you, and you are free to republish those contents UNLESS the email contains otherwise copyrighted material.

In this instance, you wrote Mickey Kantor and he wrote you back. You clearly indicated you intended to republish his response. That means at a minimum he acquiesed to your statement that you intended to republish.

Emails, like letters written snail mail, belong to the recipient, not the sender. If you don't want someone to repeat what you say, then don't put it in an email. There is absolutely no restriction at law to your using the email and its contents, not in the circumstance you described. If you had the same conversation with Mickey Kantor in person or on the phone, the same would apply. A person does not own what they say in conversations or letters. To the contrary, they have given away their thoughts and words, unless they have made clear that the materials are copyrighted material over which they maintain ownership rights.