4 ms·

Ownership of data is not the same as ownership of publication rights. However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed. If

Ownership of data is not the same as ownership of publication rights. However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed. If transferring ownership of a physical data storage device does not constitute transferring ownership of the data stored therein, then I don't know what does. When it comes to the cloud, that sounds more to me like leasing storage rights, but I'm no lawyer.

nkurz 6y ago
However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed. I think you misunderstand US copyright law. With few exceptions, almost all pictures and emails are copyright by whoever took the picture or wrote the email. Is there some reason that these would not qualify?
- CivBase 6y ago
  > I think you misunderstand US copyright law. I probably do. This is the first I've heard of that. Regardless, the NY Post article in question did not publish any of the pictures and I doubt the same copyright law applies to emails.
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    It looks like copyright does apply to the vast majority of emails based on the text of applicable laws. "Northeastern University Law Review: Do Not Forward: Why Passing Along an Email May Constitute Copyright Infringement" http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-passing-along-an-email-may-constitute-copyright-infringement http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-p... However, the issue has not been well tested in courts. The piece ends by saying "Congress should act to clarify whether and when forwarding an email infringes the author’s reproduction right in the work."
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      Since when has any news outlet considered copyright when publishing information of public interest? That is core fair use.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      If copyright applied in cases like this, any politician who said or wrote something embarrassing could block reporting it.
      - philipkglass 6y ago
        Usually the embarrassing information is published before the embarrassed party is aware that their dirty laundry is about to go public. Once the information is out there, a copyright infringement suit is usually an irrelevant or losing move for managing the politician's image. I would rate this story worse for Biden if he filed a copyright infringement suit against the computer repair guy or the Post, for example. Using copyright could prevail legally yet lose in the more politically important court of public opinion.
- panny 6y ago
  >Is there some reason that these would not qualify? I believe excerpts of pictures or emails taken for news reporting qualifies as fair use. It's not like they showed the whole picture, they just cropped his face with the crack pipe in his mouth. Likewise, the full emails where they discuss illegally peddling influence and pay for play with all the headers wasn't published. Just select emails with enough metadata to give context. Copyright doesn't supersede the first amendment right of free press. At worst, the NYPost is on the hook for $150,000 per violation. They can probably make that much and then some on the scoop. It may be worth it to them, even if they lose on a fair use argument. It's a huge scoop in October of an election year.
  - nkurz 6y ago
    All true, in my not-a-lawyer opinion. The important addition is that "fair use" is a defense that allows the use of copyrighted material in certain circumstances. Like a book review that includes an excerpt from a novel, the underlying material is still protected by copyright. It doesn't mean the material is "not copyrighted"---the whole reason fair use applies is because it is protected by copyright. Practically all emails and photos that contain any element of originality are protected by copyright.
zaroth 6y ago
US news publishers are not prohibited from publishing copyrighted information for the purpose of making the news. That’s part of the First Amendment. Whether the repair shop owner had copyright to the content is totally irrelevant. He had legal possession of the drive, and handed it to a journalist who found something newsworthy on it. Almost every single major story every told in modern history will contain essentially the same type of information transfer, and it is not illegal for the journalist to use this information or publish it if it’s newsworthy. Sometimes a source can go to jail for sharing the information. But almost certainly that won’t happen in this case, because there is no evidence that the repair shop owner did anything wrong. In fact, he was the one who called the FBI!
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Whether the repair shop owner had copyright to the content is totally irrelevant. He had legal possession of the drive, and handed it to a journalist who found something newsworthy on it. No. He handed it to a lawyer working for the President of the US' personal lawyer (Rudy Guiliani), not a journalist. Guiliani handed it to the NY Post and then worked with them.

nkurz 6y ago

However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed. I think you misunderstand US copyright law. With few exceptions, almost all pictures and emails are copyright by whoever took the picture or wrote the email. Is there some reason that these would not qualify?

CivBase 6y ago
> I think you misunderstand US copyright law. I probably do. This is the first I've heard of that. Regardless, the NY Post article in question did not publish any of the pictures and I doubt the same copyright law applies to emails.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  It looks like copyright does apply to the vast majority of emails based on the text of applicable laws. "Northeastern University Law Review: Do Not Forward: Why Passing Along an Email May Constitute Copyright Infringement" http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-passing-along-an-email-may-constitute-copyright-infringement http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-p... However, the issue has not been well tested in courts. The piece ends by saying "Congress should act to clarify whether and when forwarding an email infringes the author’s reproduction right in the work."
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Since when has any news outlet considered copyright when publishing information of public interest? That is core fair use.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    If copyright applied in cases like this, any politician who said or wrote something embarrassing could block reporting it.
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      Usually the embarrassing information is published before the embarrassed party is aware that their dirty laundry is about to go public. Once the information is out there, a copyright infringement suit is usually an irrelevant or losing move for managing the politician's image. I would rate this story worse for Biden if he filed a copyright infringement suit against the computer repair guy or the Post, for example. Using copyright could prevail legally yet lose in the more politically important court of public opinion.
panny 6y ago
>Is there some reason that these would not qualify? I believe excerpts of pictures or emails taken for news reporting qualifies as fair use. It's not like they showed the whole picture, they just cropped his face with the crack pipe in his mouth. Likewise, the full emails where they discuss illegally peddling influence and pay for play with all the headers wasn't published. Just select emails with enough metadata to give context. Copyright doesn't supersede the first amendment right of free press. At worst, the NYPost is on the hook for $150,000 per violation. They can probably make that much and then some on the scoop. It may be worth it to them, even if they lose on a fair use argument. It's a huge scoop in October of an election year.
- nkurz 6y ago
  All true, in my not-a-lawyer opinion. The important addition is that "fair use" is a defense that allows the use of copyrighted material in certain circumstances. Like a book review that includes an excerpt from a novel, the underlying material is still protected by copyright. It doesn't mean the material is "not copyrighted"---the whole reason fair use applies is because it is protected by copyright. Practically all emails and photos that contain any element of originality are protected by copyright.

zaroth 6y ago

US news publishers are not prohibited from publishing copyrighted information for the purpose of making the news. That’s part of the First Amendment. Whether the repair shop owner had copyright to the content is totally irrelevant. He had legal possession of the drive, and handed it to a journalist who found something newsworthy on it. Almost every single major story every told in modern history will contain essentially the same type of information transfer, and it is not illegal for the journalist to use this information or publish it if it’s newsworthy. Sometimes a source can go to jail for sharing the information. But almost certainly that won’t happen in this case, because there is no evidence that the repair shop owner did anything wrong. In fact, he was the one who called the FBI!

nobody9999 6y ago
>Whether the repair shop owner had copyright to the content is totally irrelevant. He had legal possession of the drive, and handed it to a journalist who found something newsworthy on it. No. He handed it to a lawyer working for the President of the US' personal lawyer (Rudy Guiliani), not a journalist. Guiliani handed it to the NY Post and then worked with them.