Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    "The personal is the political."
    
    Pat, I decided not too long ago that I enjoyed all of the poetry
    submissions enough that I should do something about it, and I had
    some similar qualms to yours.  The solution was obvious:  I went
    out and purchased volumes of romantic poetry.  Had not Lorna and
    Liesl shared their favorites so freely and so frequently I don't
    think I would have done that.  I'm glad they did.  (Though I'll
    grant you that my two books of poetry will probably last a lifetime
    ;-).
    
    I would hope that some of the discussion from such things as the
    Indigo Girls lyrics posted as poetry a few months ago also resulted
    in some readers making their purchase decisions.
    
    That said, I guess I can't disagree with your recommendation to
    seek permission to republish copyrighted material.  Perhaps people
    who've done such could share their experiences...if we all knew
    it was easy, maybe it would happen more often.
    
    DougO

    I believe this is somewhat along the lines of private video
    taping, as long as you are not doing it for profit it should be OK.
    Besides, many of the poets I quote have been dead long enough
    that even those that publish books don't pay anyone for the use of
    their material. At any rate, I've purchased all the books I quote
    from and hopefully my inclusion of the material will encourage
    others to do the same. If we ever start selling subscriptions to
    =wn= then there is a real issue that would mean we'd have to get
    permission and pay fees. liesl

    re .2:
    
    Copyrights last for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years,
    so I think that it's okay to post any material by a writer
    that's been dead for more than 50 years.  Less than that, and
    there still might be a problem.
    

It's the policy of most other conferences to prohibit the publishing (other than
exerpts) of copyrighted works which haven't reverted to public domain.
The various music conferences (e.g. FOLK_MUSIC) are examples. This conferences
is one of the few exceptions. 

I believe a policy should be instantiated to prohibit notes containing 
substantial quotes (beyond the "fair use" exerpts) from copyrighted materials.
This protects Digital from potential lawsuits (I'm not aware of any actually
resulting from the practice, but do you want to be the first?), and more
generally, is "the right thing" to do. Among other things, it's the law...

    Re .4, I'd certainly be surprised and dissapointed if somebody like
    Marge Piercy, Alice Walker or Mary Oliver were to sue Digital for
    posting one of their poems in a feminist notesfile.  Besides, how
    would they find out that the poems are here?  We're not making any
    money from having their poems here.  In fact, if somebody likes
    the one or two poems they see here they may go out and buy the book
    so they can read more.  It's like advertising in a way.
    
    Well, Liesl, at least Emily can't get us.  She's been dead more
    than 50 yrs.  I don't think Edna has, tho!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I hadn't really given it much thought before, but, Pat probably has a
    good point.  I'm not real conversant with copy right law but suspect we
    may be in violation in some cases.  If that's true we could be
    jeopardizing the conference.  I'm not sure if I have any references
    that I can check (most of my law text books were in the trunk of the
    car when it burned) but I'm willing to research this the next time I'm
    around a Law Library.  (Maybe next week.)
    
    Polly

    In my mind, "do the right thing" relates to the likelihood 
    that the author or publisher is losing money vs gaining 
    publicity.  It is highly unlikely that anyone on Notes is 
    going too buy yesterday's edition of a localdaily newspaper.  
    There is some chance that an interesting article might lead 
    to my buying future copies if the paper is available in my 
    area.  I might even subscribe.  Sharing locally published 
    articles feels ok.
    
    TIME magazine (and others) sell article reprints.  They 
    also print additional copies of editions with cover articles 
    that are expected to be popular.  I imagine (but do not know)
    that the editor and author of a cover article that sells out 
    on the newsstands gets praise, promotion, raise, or whatever 
    other rewards are given there.  
    
    At what point does posting in Womannotes impact possible sales?  
    We have over 300 known members, many occasional or read only
    browsers.  Some of them might rush out and buy a magazine if 
    the message was "great article, here's a sample, you really 
    ought to read the whole thing". 
    
    Reading a few poems by Marge Piercy may inspire me to go out
    and buy her books.  Posting all the poems in one of her books
    would clearly be publishing of "free" copies subsidized by
    Digital (computer resources, paper, time).  How many poems
    does it take to make me uncomfortable??  Not sure. 
     
    I have difficulty classifying Womannotes as private use.  A 
    note with 10 users would feel more like private use to me.  
    When I videotape a TV program, I do not share it with 300+ 
    friends.
    
    Pat
     

    I had a great experience a few years ago when I wrote
    to a relatively unknown woman musician to get
    permission to make copies of two of her songs to
    distribute to a church group.  I actually sent her
    a check for the no-for-profit copyright fee of 
    (I think) $.10 per copy.
    
    I made a friend.  She was pleasantly surprised that
    I had gone to the trouble, since I could easily have
    made the copies without her knowledge.  She remembered
    me at a concert over a year later.
    
    Getting permission can be fun.  Imagine if you got to
    talk with Marge Piercy or Alice Walker!!
    
    Pat
    

    What, then, do we do about the Dave_Barry notes file?

    re .8, Pat, thanks for your response with an actual story of how
    easy it is/what its like to go ask the copyright owner for permission
    to use material.
    
    re .9, Chelsea, my understanding is that Dave Barry has been informed
    many time over the years that his articles are frequently posted
    in usenet newsgroups and other computer networks, and he thinks
    its a gas.  This is hearsay, though; I suggest you ask the moderators
    of the Dave_Barry conference, they're the most likely to have checked.
    "We" don't have to do anything about a problem if there is one;
    they do.
    
    DougO

The Dave_Barry notes file has (or had, when I was an active reader a year
ago) a policy that only articles appearing in weekly columns or similar
things can be posted.  Articles from the books may *not* be posted, so
as to encourage people to buy the books. As someone posted, it is unlikely
that someone would go out an buy yesterday's paper anyway, especially
if it is yesterday's paper from somewhere far away.  If anyone is losing
money on it, it is the newspapers, and not Dave himself.  And the only money
they would be losing is from people who might subscribe to their paper
solely because it has Dave Barry's articles, but don't because they know
they can read them in the notesfile.

D!

    Re .7, I have included only a small percentage of Marge Piercy's
    poetry, even tho it may seem like a lot to people who don't know
    how prolific she is.  The same with Alice Walker.  And, yes, I would
    *love* to talk with either one of them.  They're my idols.  But,
    how does an ordinary person contact somebody that famous?  Do I
    write to them in care of their publisher?
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    Yes, letters sent via publishers are the classic way to do this.
    There are others.
    
    When I sent a fan letter to Samuel Noah Kramer, I sent it directly
    to the university where he was/is a professor (emeritus).  When
    I photocopied _The_Pedant_and_the_Shuffly_ (making seven copies),
    I sent a check for seven times the cover price to John Bellairs
    at his home address.  (One of his more recent books said he lived
    in Haverhill, so I just looked him up in the phone book.)  The next
    time we met, he remembered me alright!
    
    I try to keep in mind the dilemma:  Writers love to write, so you
    could get a long letter back, but writers earn their living by
    writing, so time spent writing to you is taking the bread from
    their mouths.  If I want to do more that say "Thank you", I enclose
    a S.A.S.E., and ask a specific, non-essay question.  "When -- if
    ever -- will you be speaking in the Boston area?" is a good one.
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .11

D!

That's exactly the point. There may be people who might buy the paper for a
bunch of reasons, including Dave Barry, but don't because without Dave Barry
there isn't enough incentive. That's why this is such a sticky issue.

Getting permission from newspapers is usually easy. I know my local papers
will do it with a phone call, and I have the number handy. They're usually
very nice. Copyrighted articles from places like the Washington Post are a
little harder, but still not hard. They want a written request, but will
usually take a FAX. They almost always grant permission with no charge.

If/When we finally get a ClariNet UPI feed, we should (hopefully) also get
permission for unlimited reproduction INTERNAL TO DEC. That will make some
of this easier. ClariNet is also offering to provide us a Dave Barry feed,
but I don't know the copyright status of that.

ClariNet will be a usenet newsgroup distribution, but there exists VMS
software to read usenet news. I hope getting a ClariNet subscription will
increase DEC participation in usenet...

	-- Charles

    re .15, well, Jerry, I *don't* consider the posting of poems in
    womannotes to be unethical.  Just because a certain thing is illegal
    or others consider it unethical doesn't mean that I agree.  I don't
    think the posting of the poems has done any harm whatsoever to anybody,
    and I know that it did do some good.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I guess that some people think posting copyrighted writings 
    is ok because we aren't making a profit.  Actually, non-profit 
    groups do pay copyright fees, though they are usually MUCH 
    lower that the fee for profit.  Every choir I have been in has 
    bought music or paid a fee for the right to make copies from a 
    songbook, if the song was not available separately.
    
    Copyright means that the creator has the right to decide who 
    makes copies.  The copyright holder has the right to decide
    whether to charge a fee.  He or she can also forbid use at any
    price to someone they don't like or for an uncongenial purpose. 
    
    I have in front of me a form titled PERMISSION REQUEST FOR
    NON-PROFIT REPRODUCTION OF _______________________________
    				(name of song)
    It was included in the front of a song book published by
    Sisters Unlimited in Vermont.  It begins " I hereby request 
    permission for non-profit reproduction of __ copies of the 
    above song.  I represent an educational, religious, or political 
    group and therefore qualify for the following special rates:"
    
    It goes on to quote rates for words only or words and music.  
    After the fill-in-the-blanks on the organization, date, signature, 
    is the following statement:
    
    "The only way we can survive to create more music is for people
    like you to pay these nominal fees for use of the songs.  Thank
    you for helping to keep the music alive."
    
    I worry that some of the authors in this file could use the
    royalty fees that we are not paying.
    
    I could also argue that reproduction of these works does help
    Digital to make a profit.  Valuing Differences files exist 
    because they improve communications and contribute to employee
    satisfaction.  Happy, valued employees are more productive and
    more loyal through salary freezes and other stressful times.  So
    Digital profits from the fact that poetry in this file brightens
    my days.
    
    Pat 

    Please see 1.24 for the moderators position on this subject.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Lorna,
    
    I've really enjoyed the poems that you have posted, and I think
    you have fine taste in poetry :-)  I can see how you'd be angry
    that no one said anything about the copyright issue until someone
    else raised it.  I never thought much about it myself until Pat
    posted her note.  After thinking about what Pat has said, though,
    I agree that it would be a good idea for us to stop printing entire
    works without permission.  Who knows, though, maybe the woman-poems
    note will inspire some of us to get together to read and discuss
    our favorite women poets -- wouldn't that be a nice thing to do
    with a bunch of women on a cold, snowy night?  (You bring the Marge
    Piercy, and I'll make the hot chocolate....)
    
    I guess I just wanted to thank you for sharing so much wonderful
    poetry with us, and I hope that you won't feel criticized now
    that there seems to be consensus around the idea that we should
    stop posting works without permission.
                          
    Justine
                                                

    Lorna,
    
    re: .18
    
    I do not believe that posting of one or two poems from a
    larger work violates copyright or deprives anyone of income.
    As 1.24 states, reviewers regularly quote entire poems. Your 
    poems have brightened my days.  DougO says that he bought a 
    book because of that note.  Others have probably done so.
    
    I started the note as a result of seeing transcription of
    an entire cover article from TIME magazine that is still 
    available for sale.  I also remembered how grateful a 
    musician was that I bothered to write and pay the nominal
    no-for-profit copyright fee. 
    
    I want to encourage people to try for permission, or even
    to pay a small fee.  It could be fun explaining Womannotes
    to a woman poet.    
    
    Pat
      

    re past few - 
    
    Gee, I'm getting a real complex here!
    
    I too think the poems that have been posted are really fine, and
    I'm glad people like them and I hope it continues and we haven't
    stepped out of line...(oops! does that rhyme?) Sharing women's poetry 
    on a cold snowy evening, with chocolate, sounds wonderful.
    
    Dorian

    Well, feeling the heat of several flames, I have posed the question (in
    general terms, without reference to womannotes or specific instances)
    to Digital's Law Department.  When I get an answer, I will post it here
    (assuming that any legal person to whom I might speak gives her
    permission).
    
    
    				A warm and toasty Nigel

    The workaround that I have been using lately for large articles is to
    paraphrase and summarize their contents, using my own words, but also
    including occasional quotes from what I feel are particularly elegant
    or interesting passages.  This is the approach that I tried to use in
    another conference when I cited a controversial article about Joseph
    Campbell.  Not being an expert on copyright law, I hoped that this
    method would not violate anybody's copyright, and that those small
    quotations could be justified as "fair use".  Perhaps I was wrong,
    though.

    The thing I was guessing on was what constituted a "small quotation." 
    You could leave it up to the poster's best judgment, but I admit that
    in my case I sometimes find myself quoting as much as three or four
    paragraphs.  In another topic in this conference, I wanted to cite an
    article that I thought was interesting.  Out of concern over the
    copyright issue, I quoted just the concluding paragraphs, rather than
    typing in the entire article.  Perhaps several paragraphs is stretching
    the boundary of "fair use".  Again, since I am not a copyright lawyer,
    I just don't know.  In any case, perhaps summarizing and paraphrasing
    might have been a valid approach for the Time Magazine article.

    Another thing to consider is that while it is possible to paraphrase
    prose, paraphrasing poetry would seem kind of pointless.  Also, another
    problem with paraphrasing prose is that summarizing large articles
    requires spending additional time, maybe a lot of time, thinking about
    what the article says, and picking and choosing occasional quotes,
    rather than just typing away without thought, which can be done quickly
    if you are a fast typist.

    -- Mike

	Well, seeing as how I was one of the culprits who typed in the
	TIME article, I feel compelled to reply.  I must admit I agree
	with others who think it may be better to paraphrase.  Believe
	me, I'll do that in the future!  (involves much less typing ;^)

	But I did want to say that I bought the Indigo Girls CD solely
	based on the quotes of their lyrics which I read here!

	Sue

As a playwright I have done everything in my power to protect my copywrighted
work, even though it goes unpublished.  Copywrighting is the only control I have
over potential misuse.  Example:  My first play dealt with abortion and contained
a significant amount of profanity.  A high school teacher wanted to use the play
as a catalyst for class discussion of the issues involved.  However, she wanted to 
cut out some parts of the play to fit her own needs/wants.  In part, she wanted to
eliminte the profanity.  I didn't bother to find out what else she wanted to 
eliminate.  The piece was meant to be used as a whole, just the way it was written.
I did not want it to be censored.

In general, I agree with the moderators' guidelines in 1.24, but I do feel some
clarification is needed.  First, a work may be quoted in part, in the context of a 
review or similar discussion.  But quoting the *full* text of, for example, a poem
which is contained in a larger (also copywrighted) collection is probably an
infringement of copywright law.  Single pieces are usually copywrighted 
individually as well being as part of a copywrighted book.  Also, there is more
at stake for the author than just possible loss of income when material is used
without permission (read: artistic integrity).   

I agree with others that entries here ought to be limited to 1) copywrighted
material for which permission has been obtained (with or without exchange of 
money), 2) discussions/reviews of copywrighted work which may include a few lines
qouted here and there (with appropriate references) for the purpose of description,
and 3) non-copywrighted material.  If you really want to do something for 
professional writers you can encourage others to read/buy their work or even 
organize a community event in which the author comes and reads/discusses his/her
work.

Nancy

    re:.16
    
    To clarify things a tad (or perhaps even muddy them a tad), I
    wasn't "ruling" on whether posting copyrighted poems here was
    unethical or not. I was merely pointing out that your rationale
    wasn't kosher. Which do you think is the proper reason for not
    committing crimes: because not committing crimes is *right* or
    because you might get caught if you do?
    
    The idea of "doing harm" is simply a matter of degree. For all
    practical purposes, Digital would not harmed if, say, I said, "Gee,
    I could use that desk lamp that's sitting over there in the corner
    not being used; no one will miss it if I take it home."  But, I
    won't do such a thing, not because the company won't miss it, or
    DEC Security will never find out that it's sitting on my desk at
    home. I won't do it because it's wrong.
    
    Posting one or two short poems by someone, I have no qualms about.
    I'd say that was probably "fair use". But, as more and more notes
    contained more and more poems by some of the same poets, I started
    to get more uncomfortable about it.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .29, Jerry, take the lamp home.  Just don't steal any money out of
    anybody's desk.  I guess to me "a matter of degree" makes a big
    difference.  See, I think it's wrong to murder another person even
    if you never get caught because you still hurt the person you killed
    even if you never got caught.  But, if nobody wants the lamp, and
    nobody will miss the lamp, and you could use the lamp, and the lamp
    doesn't paricularly care if it's in your house or at a DEC facility,
    then I don't think it's wrong to take the lamp.
    
    I put in a lot of poems by Marge Piercy.  I don't even know if Marge
    Piercy has ever heard of DEC.  Fortunately for her, she lives outside
    the realm of industry.  But, I do know that she has had several
    best selling novels, and I do know that she owns a home in Wellfleet,
    Mass.  This would suggest to me that she is probably getting by
    financially, so I honestly can't feel that I am depriving her of
    any income by typing in a few of her poems, and I've bought just
    about everything of hers that's ever been published.  I think everyone
    who reads this should, too.  You might learn something.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.30
    
    I think it's safe to say that a lot of us do things that may be
    wrong, whether we know it or not. And that some of us do things
    that we know to be wrong, but continue to do them, because we feel
    the effect is negligible.
    
    The point I'm making is that something is either right or not right.
    Whether the effect is large or small is irrelevant.
    
    --- jerry
    
    P.S.  Regarding Marge Piercy and her poems. Personally, I haven't
    been reading the poems that you -- or anyone else -- has been posting,
    for no other reason than that poetry as an art form does absolutely
    nothing for me. I just have no compulsion to read it. As for Marge
    Piercy, I have one of her novels (WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME) that's
    been sitting on my shelves for years waiting to be picked up and
    read (along with a few thousand others). Sigh. One of these days...

    re .31, Steve, since you feel so strongly about this, why haven't
    you brought the matter up before?
    
    The only reason I mentioned whether or not Marge Piercy needed the
    money is because Pat WHite stated that she was afraid we might be
    depriving these poets of their livelihood.  I was only indicating
    that if Marge Piercy was living near poverty, working as a waitress,
    I would be more concerned.  But, I happen to know that's not the
    case.
    
    What annoys me the most about this issue is that *I* have taken
    the time to write in  a number of poems over the past few months,
    only to be told now that I shouldn't have done it, by people who
    all seem to have known this from the beginning.  I only wish someone
    had told me the copyright laws before I had spent so much time engaged
    in this illegal activity.  Now, I've broken the law so many times
    I'm worried I may never get to heaven.
    
    Lorna
    

    Given the rules in note 1 I feel I am still able to enter poems
    since I am not even close to entering the entire works of any given
    poet. I will, from now on, enter all the bibilographical information
    also so that those who so desire will be able to find the books I
    quote from. My intent is not to keep people from buying these books
    but rather to encourage them to do so. liesl

>              <<< Note 885.33 by DZIGN::STHILAIRE "Imagine...." >>>

>    depriving these poets of their livelihood.  I was only indicating
>    that if Marge Piercy was living near poverty, working as a waitress,
>    I would be more concerned.  But, I happen to know that's not the
>    case.

	 I'm confused here.  Isn't it her money by law, whether she is
	 dirt poor or emmensely rich?

	 Whether it was justifiable or not for Robin Hood to steal
	 from the rich and give to the poor, wasn't he still a
	 criminal?

	    
>    I only wish someone
>    had told me the copyright laws before I had spent so much time engaged
>    in this illegal activity.  Now, I've broken the law so many times
>    I'm worried I may never get to heaven.

	 Lorna, I'm sorry you were not aware of the copyright laws,
	 they are usually summarized in every work (ie, "this work
	 cannot be reprinted in part or in whole without the express
	 written permission of the author.")

	 I for one, don't know the first thing about poets and poetry,
	 so I have no idea if what you are entering, by copyright
	 laws, is okay or not.

	 Unfortunately it seems the rules have not been stated in the
	 beginning as to what is allowable and what is not.

	 As for 'going to heaven' or not, I think you'll find that
	 most Gods are forgiving Gods...especially if you were
	 unintentially ignorant of the copyright laws.  Look at it
	 this way, you learn something new everyday.

	 kath

    It's my opinion--untrained in the law though I be--that there's NOTHING
    wrong with entering complete poems. As someone [I can't remember who]
    in this string pointed out, it's usually meaningless to quote *less*
    than a whole poem; to argue that that's all the law allows seems as
    strange to me as if someone were to say that one cannot quote whole
    paragraphs of prose but must only do first lines or something equally
    devoid of coherent sense.
    
    But in any event, there are two questions in to Legal about it, so we
    should soon have a definitive answer.  In the meanwhile, I do hope
    everyone will quit making Lorna uneasy:  she acted in perfectly good
    faith and if anyone should take heat it should be me, not her.
    
    						=maggie

    

>    Steve (shooting for a starter condo in Purgatory, myself)


	 Moving to Colorado in the near future, Steve??  ;-)



	 kat

re: .36

That's what I like; a co-mod who'll take all the blame :-).
	Mez

    The mean spirited tone of some of the replies in this topic has
    made me lose my enthusiasm for posting any more poems in womannotes,
    so the final outcome of this debate is not as important to me as
    it originally was.  For example, I find it a bit extreme for Jerry
    Boyajian to have compared the posting of poetry without permission
    with the perfect crime.  After I joked about not making it to heaven
    because of the poems, Steve Mallett came in without a smiley face
    to state that as far as he's concerned, I wouldn't have made it
    to heaven anyway.  Well, I'm really not concerned at this point
    about heaven since I'm not even sure if there is a heaven, but I
    really don't think Steve knows me well enough to make a judgement
    as to whether, if there is, I'll get there.  Whether I get to heaven
    or not, I don't think it will have anything to do with notes.
    
    Also, Kath, your reply confuses me, too.  First, you state
    (sarcastically perhaps?) that you are "sorry" I don't know anything
    about copyright laws, and then state that I should because it's
    stated in every book that it's not to be reprinted without permission,
    etc.  Then, you go on to claim that you know nothing about copyright
    law yourself.  
    
    The poetry topic was started in April, and over 150 poems have been
    added.  I don't understand why, now, 8 months later, so many people
    have chosen to come into notes to vehemently state how wrong it
    is.  If it was so wrong, why didn't you say so at the beginning?
    
    I certainly don't blame the moderators because Maggie has stated
    that *she* thought it was okay.  But, all of you people, such as
    Jerry and Steve and Kath, should have spoken up sooner, and let
    Liesl, Dorian, myself and others know how you felt?  Why all the
    fuss at this late date?
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, tho' I'm a firm believer in copyright laws, I've
    enjoyed some of the poems you've entered. I suspect that
    by entering them here you've given the authors a much
    wider audience than they would have found otherwise.
    This could lead to better sales for their work in the
    long run. Enough, probably to compensate for any loss of 
    income they might have suffered. 

    Dana

    Thank you, Lorna, for the poems you've posted to date.  You got me
    reading poetry again at a time when I was having trouble expressing
    myself in writing (I'm still having problems, but now I can look to
    other's words to help me along).
    
                                    cathy 
                                    
    ps:  I can think of 3 books I've purchased as a direct result
    of reading the entries here.

     I must admit (and this must be the lawless part of me) that I can't
    really see what the big deal is here. It seems like Lorna et al should
    be charging the authors for free advertising rather than being whipped
    with copyright laws. But this isn't the first area in which I disagree
    with the LAW. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    I love the poetry you entered.  It was great.  Enter more.  I'm
    sure there are enough books so you can pluck the flowers from the
    fields and leave the fields replete, and not exhaust any one book.
    You are encouraging people to read more of these poets, and that
    can't be bad.  Also, according to the guidelines of posting, as
    long as you don't write exhaustively from a single book, there is
    no problem.
    
    I have posted poetry of my own, and poetry from two authors my mother
    had way-out-of-print-books-of.  Poetry is nothing if it is not read.
    And I have learned so much from so many new voices since the poetry
    topic started.  I am keen for more.  
    
    I applaud the time and energy that the people who entered the poetry
    devoted - particularly Lorna and Liesl.  *I* appreciate the effort,
    in a workworld that doesn't always appreciate effort and attention
    above and beyond the call of duty (note I didn't say NEVER I said
    DOESN'T ALWAYS).
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	re: .40
    
    	Lorna, to answer your final question, perhaps it's because there
    	are some people who feel justified jumping on the bandwagon when 
    	it comes to picking on others.
    
    	I think it's typical that no one complained for 8 months and now
    	there are so many "concerned" parties.
    
    	I love the poetry.  As a poet myself, I'd be honored to have my
    	poems (yes, even published ones) posted in here and I would have
    	a hard time believing other poets would not.
    
    	Carla
    

>     RE: .40 (Lorna)

    
>    Also, Kath, your reply confuses me, too.  First, you state
>    (sarcastically perhaps?) that you are "sorry" I don't know anything
>    about copyright laws, and then state that I should because it's
>    stated in every book that it's not to be reprinted without permission,
>    etc.  Then, you go on to claim that you know nothing about copyright
>    law yourself.  

	 Let me be a little more detailed in what I mean.  Copyright
	 laws are VERY intricate and involved.  It's not as simple as
	 just the disclaimer in the front of every book.  They are
	 very involved and very lengthy.  I have no idea about each
	 and every guideline in the copyright laws and hope never to
	 have to know them.

	 Fact is that it is stated in every publication that is
	 copyrighted.  If I have any doubt about whether or not I
	 should reproduce something, I don't.

	 I don't really believe you've violated any laws here (but I
	 don't read the poetry note so, I'm not sure) because you
	 haven't reproduced an entire collection have you?  Then you
	 really don't have anything to worry about.

	 The point is, that if in doubt, don't.

	    
>    But, all of you people, such as
>    Jerry and Steve and Kath, should have spoken up sooner, and let
>    Liesl, Dorian, myself and others know how you felt?  Why all the
>    fuss at this late date?

	 Lorna, I don't have TIME to read the poetry note, so I don't
	 have TIME to see whether the poetry entered therein violates
	 Copyright laws.  I feel it is up to the individual who enters
	 the poetry to be aware of what they are doing.  I had no
	 reason to believe, before this, that anyone was violating
	 anything.

	 I entered some music quotes into FRIENDS before they dropped
	 the note due to this exact reason.  I was not aware that
	 copyright laws extended to sing songs (I assumed that I could
	 enter a single song off an album and be safe, evidently that
	 was not the case with music).

	 Live and learn.  You're responsible for your actions, Lorna,
	 not I, nor Steve, nor Jerry, nor anyone.  I'm not reading the
	 Poetry note so I do not have divine knowledge that you are
	 violating copyright laws (if you even did).  Understand?

	 I feel you're pushing the blame off on us, when in fact,
	 you're the one responsible for your actions.....(ie,
	 "officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 35, not 45", will
	 still get you the ticket)

	 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unfortunately.


	 kath    

	 RE: .45 (Carla)

>    	Lorna, to answer your final question, perhaps it's because there
>    	are some people who feel justified jumping on the bandwagon when 
>    	it comes to picking on others.
>    
>    	I think it's typical that no one complained for 8 months and now
>    	there are so many "concerned" parties.


         Or, perhaps we just didn't think to bring the subject up?  Or
         perhaps some of the people talking about it now, don't READ
         the poetry note and were never aware that it was an issue?

         I'm upset by your "typical" comment and your implication that
         many of us are just out to pick on Lorna.

	 The point is, I'm not "picking on poor Lorna" (even though
	 every time I seem to address her someone things I am).  I have
	 NEVER made a comment that I thought anything Lorna had
	 entered violated any laws, because, quite plainly, I don't
	 read the Poetry Note and I have no idea.  

	 I've stated what I believe to be true about the Copyright
	 laws.  Whether Lorna decides she has violated them or not is
	 her business.

	 Since it seems be construed as "picking on Lorna", I'll
	 attempt to refrain from stating facts anymore.  Especially
	 the one about ignorance of the law is no excuse.

	 This is not a sugar-candy-coated world.  And stating facts
	 that are contrary to someone else does NOT mean that that
	 person is being picked on.

	 kath

    I'm not sure so don't blast me but I think song lyrics are VERY
    different from poetry.  One problem with posting/sharing/duplicating
    song lyrics is that someone could go out and, with said free lyrics,
    PERFORM the song in public for MONEY or something and not have paid
    even to buy the song book or for the album or anything.  VERY few
    people perform poetry for money.  Shoot, very few people WRITE poetry
    for money (although money for poetry is seldom sniggered at).  Most
    write for the love of it, rather than to make a bloody fortune.
    I'm not saying don't buy poetry, I'm just saying poetry is differnt
    from song lyrics in many ways.
    
    -Jody
    

	 RE: .49 (jody)
	 
>    I'm not sure so don't blast me but I think song lyrics are VERY
>    different from poetry.

	 Blast, Blast, Blast!!!  ;-)  (Where did that Uzi water gun
	 go?)  ;-)

	 I think the copyright difference between song lyrics and
	 poetry is that songs are copyrighted individually, and poetry
	 is usually copyrighted as a collection.  (But what do I
	 know?)

	 Aren't songs just poetry to music?!  ;-)

	 kat    

    Lorna,
    
    I read and loved some of the poetry you posted in the poetry note.  
    
    Since it's against the law to post them in Womannotes would you be so
    kind as to mail me a few every now and then?  My address is
    PACKER::WHARTON.  Some people may object to our using DEC's resources
    for our own personal enrichment/gain.  Mail me them anyway. :-) 
    
    _Karen

    re: .52
    
    AHEM.  I'll say this LOUD AND CLEAR.
    
    NOBODY has OFFICIALLY proclaimed in THIS FILE that it is AGAINST
    THE LAW to post poetry in WOMANNOTES.  
    
    OKAY???!!!!!
    
    Sorry I'm shouting, but it's REALLY important to get this across.
    There are some GUIDELINES applying to copyrighted material, which
    should be followed, but I REALLY don't think many things in this
    file have violated them.  The guidelines are in 1.*, with all the
    rest of the guidelines.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    just to add my two cents, the legal question is what constitutes
    'fair use'. this is is principal which allows teachers to photocopy
    sections of text books for use in classes, etc. i'm not a lawyer,
    but as a musician i have a fair amount of knowledge of the copyright
    laws. as has been mentioned, simply quoting one or two poems out of
    a collection is 99% certain to be considered 'fair use'. and i
    personally would bet a lobster dinner that the entire 'time'
    magazine article is also 'fair use'.
    

    re .53
    
    Thanks Jody, I heard you.  It took a while but I eventually heard.  :-) 
    
    

    re:.40
    
    Lorna, as far as concerns me, you are somewhat right. My analogy
    to "the perfect crime" is, I think, a valid one because the
    *principle* involved is the same. However, it is a bit of overkill,
    and I can see how someone could infer that I'm suggesting that the
    posting of copyrighted poetry here is on the same level as pulling
    the Brinks job. And for that, I apologize.
    
    (In fact, this occurred to me before you brought it up, and I'd
    planned on apologizing to you in person at the party -- I couldn't
    remember you'd said whether you were going or not -- but you weren't
    there, and I hadn't gotten around to posting an apology here in
    the meantime.)
    
    As for why I didn't bring it up before, three reasons:
    
    (a) I'd been ignoring the poetry topic for the most part for reasons
    stated previously. It wasn't until someone else brought up the subject,
    that I jumped in. And it wasn't, as Carla implied, because I wanted
    to pick on you or anyone else.
    
    (b) I'm uncomfortable about the amount of copyrighted poetry you've
    been putting in the topic, but I'm not trying to force you to stop.
    My input into this discussion has been solely to objectively point
    out what the problem is with posting all that poetry. I'm not trying
    to figuratively slap you on the wrist, but if that's what you perceive
    my notes to be, then perhaps you've gotten (understandably) too
    sensitive on the subject or I haven't written my notes well enough
    to make my point clear, or both.
    
    (c) To be perfectly frank, I felt that if I brought the subject
    up, I'd get flack for being a man trying to dictate what should
    or shouldn't be put in this conference. An unfortunate situation,
    but reality doesn't always follow fortune. I suppose that I could've
    simply written to the mods directly about my discomfort, but it
    didn't occur to me at the time.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .56
    What he said.
    
    re: .40
    It doesn't really matter when the "fuss" happens--what *is* pertinent
    is that there *is* a fuss.
    
    re: 1.24
    The guidelines are clear on the Time article.  As it was a recent
    issue, it did not meet the criteria for entry in =wn=.  As for the
    poetry,  individually-copywrighted poems are not appropriate either
    unless permission is granted by the author.  If someone has a book 
    of poems handy, could you please check and see what it says about
    copying the material and enter it here.  
    
    1.24 also says something to the effect that we may change the 
    guidelines by vote, which seems to be what we're doing here.  If 
    Legal's response doesn't clarify the matter, may I suggest we take
    a formal vote.
    
    Nancy  

    Re .57, I disagree with you that it doesn't "matter" when the "fuss"
    occurred.  I matters to *me.*  It explains why this situation has
    upset me as much as it has.  Therefore, please do not just state
    that it doesn't "matter" - as though that were a fact chisled in
    granite.  It matters to *me.*  It doesn't to *you.*
    
    I really don't care to "take a vote" on the matter.  I appreciate
    the kind words of some of the other noters who enjoyed the poetry
    topic.  I accept Jerry B's apology.  (Yes, I was feeling understandably
    oversensitive.)  And, I apologize to Steve M. for getting upset
    at his comment about heaven.  I should have known that, although
    some people might, Steve wouldn't be that mean.
    
    It was fun putting in the poems I put in and reading the ones the
    other people put in.  But, now I'm sick of the whole business. 
    Conflict bores the hell out of me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, I also hope you won't cease from putting them in...certainly not
    if the legal opinion is, as I think it will be, accepting of the
    practice.  I think many members of the community enjoy them, not least
    the r/o members who never write to say so.
    
    						=maggie

    I think that copywrite laws are violated, and Digital is liable
    for the publication of poems and songs.  I also believe that no
    one who entered any of them knowingly broke the law, and I would
    be surprised if anyone else here thought so.  I hope that those
    of you who posted them for the common good still feel good about
    what you did.
    
    The right thing to do, getting direction from Legal, is being done.
    If legal says there is no problem, I don't think there is a need
    to ask for a vote.  If anyone really thought you should stop
    regardless of the legal issues, I can't imagine them saying so.
     I really don't believe there are any such people here.
    
    On the other hand, if publishing these poems is a violation of 
    copywrite law, I don't expect that anyone here would want to 
    break this law putting Digital in jeapordy and injuring the owner
    of the copywrite.
    
    I did take a seminar on copywrite law a year ago to understand my
    rights under this law and what I should do to invoke its protection.
    My unprofessional opinion is that we can't publish without permission.
    
    A somewhat similar case occured several years ago with the Catholic
    diocese of Chicago.  The publisher of a book of religious songs
    successfully sued the diocese for photocopying several songs to
    be passed out among the congregation for use in their services.
    this has been a common practice by many churches over time, and
    the publisher wanted to serve notice that they expected to be 
    notified and compensated for any songs so copied.  The congregations
    and their leaders said that they thought it was OK and that "every-
    one does it".  The diocese was forced to pay damages.
    
    Since this is a civil, and not a criminal matter, it would be up
    to the owner of the copywrite to bring charges in order to invoke
    the protection of this law, and it would be unlikely that they 
    would be able to find out without help.  But they would be hurt
    because they had stated the intention to keep the right of copy.
    (Didn't they?)  One of the interesting things I learned in the seminar
    is that you, or the organization you are working for, have a copyright
    even if you don't put a copyright statement in the document.  It's
    just harder to prove and defend.
    
    Our lawyers will tell us.  Meanwhile, I hope you will all share
    my belief that no one intended to hurt anyone over this.
    
    Happy holidays to you all,
    Bud

    The following article from Usnet is offered as merely an anecdote
    to show why asking for permission is a good idea. The background
    on this is that someone was posting David Letterman's nightly
    "Top 10" lists to rec.arts.tv and rec.humor. The impression I
    get is that the Letterman people wouldn't have minded if they
    didn't have a book planned.
    
    --- jerry
    
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.humor,rec.humor.d
Subject: No more Top Ten Lists posted to rec.arts.tv or rec.humor
Summary: ...not by me, anyway
Date: 19 Dec 89 08:48:44 GMT
 
I was just informed by Brad Templeton, moderator of rec.humor.funny, that he
talked to a Steve O'Donnel of the Letterman show some time ago, asking
permission to reprint the Top 10 lists on the net.  They thanked him for
asking, but mentioned that a collection of Top 10 Lists in book form was in
the planning stages, and had to say no.  Brad informed me of the situation,
and I, not wanting to go against the wishes of the show (especially the
writers who dream up these gems), am hereforeto refraining from posting any
more of them.
 
I would like confirmation of the whole situation at the Letterman show, but
am a) too cheap and b) too busy and c) not really looking forward to getting
embroiled in Something Nasty over an activity that I was getting some (not a
huge amount) of fun from.  And besides, this is the kind of thing that might
mean I have to talk to a lawyer, even over the phone just for a
question-and-answer, and frankly I'd sooner interview Pia Zadora for PEOPLE
than have to deal with one of those gents.
 
Thanks to Brad for informing me of the situation; guess you'll all have to
set your VCRs and watch it in the morning.  (Hint: record on SLP so you can
scoot to the Top 10 List real quickly...)
 
                           "Xerox sue someone for copying?"
                                           -- David Letterman
 
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>

          In response to concerns expressed in this topic, I wrote Time
          magazine on Jan 1 to request permission to reprent their "Onward,
          Women" cover story.  The following is the response I received
          yesterday:


                                             Time & Life Building
                                             Rockefeller Center
                                             New York  10020
                                             522-1212

                                             January 23, 1990

          Dear Ms. Bittle:


          Before giving you permission to reprint the TIME material listed
          below, we would like you to be aware of the costs and other
          restrictions involved for the reuse of our editorial material.


               December 4, 1989 cover story "Onward, Women!" - $300


          This permission would only be for Digital Equipment Corporation
          employees for their persoal use.

          We would appreciate your acceptance of the above by signing below
          and returning a copy to me.  At such time, a permissions
          agreement will be sent to you.

          Best wishes.

                                             Sincerely,


                                             Marian Powers,
                                             Editorial Rights

          Ms. Nancy Bittle
          P.O. Box 510
          Maynard, MA 01754-0510


          Agreed to:

          _____________

          Date_________

    Nancy, did you get permission to post that letter?
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist... :-)
    
                                 Roak

    They certainly seemed grateful for your having the decency to ask
    their permission. ;^)
    
    ...if you don't want to know the answer don't ask.

    Gail