4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSince when has any news outlet considered copyright when publishing information of public interest? That is core fair use.
- leereeves 6y agoIf copyright applied in cases like this, any politician who said or wrote something embarrassing could block reporting it.
- philipkglass 6y agoUsually 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.