May I freely copy, print, and email things I find on the Web?
© Copyright 1996 Oppedahl & Larson.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Click for information on the purpose of this page.
The Internet is the sort of place where it is extraordinarily easy to copy things, although it must not be forgotten that ease of copying did not start with the Internet. The cassette recorder made it easy to copy record albums. The photocopier made it easy to copy printed works. The videocassette recorder made it easy to copy movies. Floppy disks made it easy to copy computer software. In any of these media, the fact that something is physically easy to copy something does not mean that it is legal to copy it, or morally acceptable to copy it. Absence of a copyright notice does not mean it is okay to copy something. Under US copyright law, for example, any original work fixed in a tangible medium is automatically protected by copyright regardless of whether any copyright formalities are done.
Under the Berne Convention the absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work is not protected by copyright. Clearly one way to solve the problem is the simple step of obtaining the permission of the copyright owner. Yet another way is to confine one's copying to items that are in the public domain, for example because they were created hundreds of years ago. Obtaining permission is a more difficult task than one might think. Suppose you see a web site that contains something you wish to copy, and suppose you obtain permission from the webmaster of that site to copy it. Does this mean you may post it on your web site without fear of liability? The answer is no, unless it happens that the webmaster is in fact the owner of all rights in the work you wish to copy.
Can you be sure the work was not copied (in an unauthorized manner) from someplace else? If not, then permission from the webmaster does not put you in the clear. The legal system does, however, permit some kinds of copying if it is done without the permission of the copyright owner. Under US law, for example, even if the copyright owner has not given permission, it is still okay to copy something so long as the copying falls within what is called "fair use". Regrettably for those who are eager to copy things, it is not easy to say for sure what is or is not fair use. Legal factors that are taken into account include: the portion of a work being copied (copying a small portion is more likely to be fair use than copying a large portion); the effect of the copying on the market for the item being copied (if the copying activity makes people less likely to buy the item, then the copying is unlikely to be fair use); and the use to which the copied matter is put (quoting for use in literary criticism or for educational purposes is more likely to be fair use than some other uses). If you see something on the Web and are tempted to copy it, why not just put in a link to it? For example, Internic has a policy according to which domain names are registered, and the policies are posted on Internic's web site.
If I am tempted to copy the policy into my web site, why not just put in a link to the place where the policy may be found? It is clear that the law will evolve in this area. Perhaps after some years of experience with the Web, courts will decide some cases that will provide guidance as to what is fair use and what is not. No discussion of copyright and the Web would be complete without at least a mention of the notion of "implied license". For example, when I use my web browser to view a site, I am necessarily copying information from that site to the screen of my computer. Many web browsers have "cache" capabilities, in which case I am also necessarily copying the information into the cache as well.
Most browsers have the capability to print what is on the screen, so if I print it I am automatically making a copy of it on paper. As years go on the courts will develop the notion of implied license in connection with the Web, but it is clear that there is some sort of implied license that is automatically granted by anyone who sets up a web site and makes it open to the public. The implied license surely includes those things we think of as "normal" web activity -- viewing web pages, clicking on links, seeing the web text on the computer screen. What must not be forgotten, though, is that such an implied license is by no means a grant that permits members of the public to do whatever they may please with the material found on a web site. To draw analogies, the person who publishes a book is not granting to the public the right (via implied license) to photocopy the entirety of the book and to sell the copies.
The musician who releases a compact disk is not granting an implied license to set up a facility for copying the CD's and selling the copies. Common sense suggests that if a webmaster has placed a copyright notice so that it is seen by visitors to a web site, then the webmaster probably is trying to communicate to the public that the contents of the site are not to be freely copied in all ways. Of course, as mentioned above, the absence of a copyright notice does not mean a site is not protected by copyright. As will be appreciated from the above discussion it is impossible, of course, to answer the "may I copy this?" question in general. If you care about copying some particular item you should consult competent counsel for advice.
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht
Last revised March 6, 1996. |
|
