lineland

[mglosup at randomc.com]

On 24 Apr 97 at 15:23, KENNETH HOUGHTON wrote:

> (1)  You hold copyright over your words

Yes, and if Jules had plagiarized my words, I could seek relief in
the courts. This is not an issue because he has presumably
attributed my words to me in his work.  He can accomplish that
simply by leaving the header attached to the body of the message.

> (2)  IAM/Seagull, despite their copyrighting of the book and its contents, does 
>      not hold copyright over your words--but they aren't infringing on your     
>      copyright by using them without permission.

They don't have to seek permission for the use that they are putting
my words to i.e journalistic--see Fair Use.  This has been hashed out
in the courts. You don't have to agree, and you may question Jules'
motives, you may question his credentials as a journalist but you
should consider the consequences of *requiring* journalists to seek
permission to quote the words of others.

> Since you're stating both of the above as true, either
 
> a)      You don't hold copyright on your words (since you can't prevent IAM from
>         using them),
>         or,
> b)      IAM's copyright on the book =and its contents= must be invalid, since   
>         they don't have permission(s) from the author(s) who hold copyrights.

Who owns the copyright isn't even the issue, May IAM use copyrighted
material without permission in this particular case is the issue and
they may. If they do the particular physical image of the
copyrighted material in their book  is copyrighted by IAM.  IAM gains no
pariticular exclusivity to the use of  the material by being first to
"publish" on paper and register the larger work with the USG and I
have lost no rights of ownership.  They have a right to use the
material for the purposes they have stated.  If I  were to publish a
rebuttal version of Jules' story, I would have license to quote
extensively Jules' words from the copyrighted _Lineland_without
Jules' or IAM's permission.  

> a), of course, goes completely contrary to your argument, so b)
> must be true.

 see above

> Though, of course, accepting the "free copy of the book" may well
> be considered compensation, and therefore binding in court. 

The court case would never get to consider what constitutes 
compensation because they would rule that I don't have to be 
compensated.  

 > But, of course, we should consider that Mr. Larson's "generous offer" is only 
> that. Certainly, I wouldn't want to impunge on his motivations, which are 
> clearly pure of heart, mind, and spirit (as he himself noted).
 
> As for the rights of those who (1) hold copyright on their words (as you claim),
> and (2) don't accept the book, well, that's for Mr. Larson and Mr. Seagull, in 
> their infinite generosity, to decide.

Please take any further discussion of these issues to your lawyer.  
If you find one who will take the case of p-list v. Seigel,  I suggest 
you work out a contingency fee arrangement  instead of a retainer.


Thanks,

Michael Glosup