Posted by name on January 18, 2001, at 20:43:31
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by anna78 on January 18, 2001, at 16:16:35
Copyrights are defined by U.S. law as exclusive rights of the author, whether they are registered or not, and whether the author is identified or not. “Unrestricted use” as reserved in the Psycho-Babble copyright FAQ is not defined in the Title 17 chapters on copyright law.
The assertion of a right to unrestricted use likely could mean one of two things; it would either be a parallel exclusive right, which would be an unlimited right to sell the material in its entirety anywhere, or it would mean fair use as defined in U.S. copyright law. Unrestricted use by the first definition would, in effect, dilute the exclusive right of the author. A court might construe that the author and the original publisher with an unrestricted right are business partners, or a court might decide that a right to unrestricted use is nothing more than the uses defined by copyright law as fair use.Fair Use is defined as follows:
_____________________________________107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
_______________________________________It is probably safe to say, the opinions expressed here, i.e. “We like Dr. Bob, so he can do whatever he wants with our posts, and with anybody else’s” would not carry much weight in a copyright case, even as amicus briefs to the court. An argument might be constructed that the site is educational, which could potentially protect his use of archives as fair use should he later decide to collect payments from those who read and post at the site. Whether use of the material in other publications is fair use would be determined by whether the material is used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
It is also probably safe to say that few if any people who post here, without the intervention of an advocacy group, will have the financial where-with-all to retain a qualified attorney to protect whatever exclusive right they might have to their work published here. The real questions are those of perception and reputation.
* Do other licensed mental health practitioners offer on the Internet a supportive and educational forum while at the same time publishing comments, criticisms or research based on the contributions of forum participants?
* Do other universities allow staff members to use electronic forums in such a manner?
* Do Dr. Hsuing’s published articles comprise the product of research, and do they include study of forums in which he is not a participant or moderator?
* Does his preference for publishing material from forums in which he played a guiding role enhance or detract from the credibility of his commentary?
* Does his use of material go beyond use of what is published by users on-line to include private information provided in the registration process?
* If he learned elsewhere of information about a person who posted or was mentioned on-line, would he associate in a publication information from external sources and material posted on-line?
* How does the lack of accurate information beyond the on-line self-reports of contributors effect the study of on-line clinical interaction?
* Is information published on-line about third parties fairly used as source material for secondary publication (This might be the most likely source of libelous violations of privacy, because most people who write at Psycho-Babble are not experienced writers educated in the legal standards that govern when a third party is or is not a public figure available for public discussion. No person may grant use of material about third parties to which they are not entitled in the first place.)Discussion of these questions might be relevant at this site; Dr. Hsuing has volunteered to consult with a research ethics panel at the University where he is employed. This suggests that he is somewhat sensitive to criticisms returned here and is interested in his employer's opinions of his publications that refer to his on-line clinical activity. (He has referred, in another on-line publication, to Psycho-Babble as a clinical setting.) The larger question is not whether staff at the University of Chicago, or the majority of participants at Psycho-Babble approve of Dr. Hsuing’s multiple uses of a clinical on-line forum; he is likely to be treated favorably in his own camp. The larger question is whether the academic, research and clinical communities at large approve of on-line message forums being used by their managers as both clinical settings and as sources for published commentary.
Doctors have historically published case histories based on the intimate details of their patients’ afflictions. Surgical patients at teaching hospitals are likely to find themselves cut open before a gallery of students. The ethics that have evolved governing informed consent in such cases will likely effect the reputation of doctors and institutions that take a leading role in using on-line clinical activity as source material for secondary publication.
An overview of copyright law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.htmlThe law:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.html#chapter1Sec. 106 – copyrights defined as exclusive
Sec. 107 -– fair use defined
Sec. 302 (C ) -– pseudonymous works protectedA listing of other mental health discussion boards:
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/message.htmlThe author of this commentary releases the following rights beyond those implied in the Psycho-Babble FAQ:
This post may be reproduced anywhere in its entirety and excerpts may be reproduced anywhere provided that the content is not distorted and the true identity of the pseudonymous author is not revealed.
poster:name
thread:232
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/260.html