A/C
WebWorks
We Are Not Alone C. S. Lewis comments: "We write to know we are not alone." Most of us write for the Net because of a desire to share knowledge, and sharing has never been more fruitful. But most languages have two words for "know", and they mean quite different things. French, for example, has both savoir and connaitre. One word suggests an understanding, and the other implies a revelation. It's revelations we're concerned with here because few "Netizens" (Net citizens) fully comprehend the sweeping changes in and responsibilities toward copyright and intellectual property rights that have resulted from the Internet knowledge revolution Who owns the Internet materials? The Internet world is binary, and questions regarding creation and the use of Internet materials might seem to have binary, yes/no answers. Is what I am doing responsible? Ethical? Legal? But the consequences of transgressions often have a more analog answer span. You may be admonished, stopped, or even sued. Read on! Are materials on the Internet Protected by Copyright? Yes! Since 1989 there has been no necessity to place either a copyright symbol (©) or notice on materials distributed publicly to ensure an ability to pursue legal remedy for infringement resulting from another's improper use of materials. Authors can apply for their official copyright after they decide to sue. Just because material is on the Internet does not mean it is in the public domain or is free for you to use. But I'm not going to charge for my work! This decision might affect any damages assessed against you in court, but you're still violating the law. The author is dead. Isn't the work in the public domain? Copyright of most current tangible forms runs from the moment of creation, enduring the author's life plus 50 years. In other cases,
such as works for hire, copyright endures for 75 years. Materials created before 1978, when the covered period was 28 years with a renewal option of an additional 28 years, are now automatically extended to 75 years. Can't I just place " " around the material and acknowledge the source? Unwise! The author might not wish you to use the material in a particular context. It's prudent to write and ask for permission. Then I'll put a live link in my material to the source! Although most authors of home pages will not object, others have; and they have successfully sought injunctions against such practices. Pfizer may be quite sensitive to links to its Viagra page, for example. But pubiishing on the WWW doesn't count as real distribution! Putting a printed copy of a thesis or dissertation on the shelves of a university is considered restricted distribution, but Web mounting is another matter. Many journals, including Analytical Chemistry, consider the latter act a prior publication. Because there are only so many ways to lay out a home page, can I copy style and HTML code to generate my own page? There are numerous examples in which home page layout has been treated as a trademark (denoted as ® if it is registered and as ™ if a trademark is being sought). It is possible to view the HTML source code for a page as a learning experience, but many authors treat the coding itself as a copyrightable item. Determination of what is a derivative work one clearly derived from a previous effort is a gray area. A legal decision would depend on such factors as amount of direct duplication, financial motivation loss to the author and the whims of a court and jury. But I can't infringe myself by using materials I've already pub-
lished! Yes, you can. If someone else holds copyright to your work, you can infringe it by using too great a part or likeness in a subsequent personal distribution or in a "work for hire" effort on behalf of another. The phrase "too great a part or likeness" has considerable latitude. Art and entertainment works are very sensitive to this issue, with technology areas next and basic science being the least restrictive. Even so, it's good to be careful because being a test case can be a character-building and fiscally deflating experience. I can always invoke "fair use"! Fair use arose because the original mandate for copyright was to encourage the development of new knowledge by sharing creations in ways that also provided reasonable incentives for the developer. Over the years, fair use has come to imply a permission—not a right—to use published materials for scholarly, educational, and personal use. Case-law precedents for fair use accrete slowly, and the term's legal definition is still hazy. The rapid development of the Internet is exacerbating the fuzziness. But the Internet is encouraging
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, September 1, 1998 6 1 1 A
A/C WebWorks a world in which no one "owns" anything! That depends on your viewpoint. This might be desirable and some users believe it—but "it ain't necessarily so"(l). On one hand, the 1991 judgment in Feist v. Rural Telephone established that the form of a fact-based database might be copyrighted but not its contents. On the other hand, some vendors, particularly in entertainment and technical/legal databases, wish for tighter control on intellectual property and copyright matters because of the "unbridled" transmission the Internet affords The point is so contentious that the World Intellectual Property Organization had to table a December 1996 treaty that dealt with several database issues Some of the impetus for such a treaty, and for accompanying legislation, arises because the European Union may withdraw copyright protection from U.S. works in 1999 if America does not have equivalent intellectual property rights legislation in place. Congressional action will determine the forms of the new copyright law. Inappropriate actions may endanger fair-use practices and even overthrow the Feist decision. Those interested should follow Congressional Bill H.R. 2652 (The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act) Have technology and society outstripped the ability of aging legislators to understand and control the Internet? Interesting position papers and Internetmounted speech texts reveal some of the issues the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is grappling with. The URLs listed below will give you some exposure to both sides. Consider the following questions. Can they be simply adjudicated? When is a copy over the Internet made? Is it during transmission? When it is placed in RAM? When it is stored on disk? When it is viewed on the screen? When it is printed? When it is shared with others? It is almost a theological problem. Legal trends and fiscal interests tend to push the "bright line" dividing fair use from transgression upstream. How can the copyright owner be protected? Should digital watermarks, digital fingerprints, and Cryptolope technologies track the use of documents and drawings? Digital watermarks manipulate the least significant bits of an image's map, in places where the changes won't affect our perception. Even if you cut and paste a small fragment of the image, the 612 A
watermark will still be readable. Digital fingerprints leave a copy of identifying elements, such as your IP address, on a document as it transits your workstation, making tracking simple. Cryptolopes allow a distributor to send a closed envelope to you, describing what it contains in an accompanying abstract. You don't pay anything until the Cryptolope is opened. Then a micropayment plan assures the author and the distributor of proper recompense via e-cash. You can even forward the Cryptolope to a friend where the process is repeated This implements what is called "superdistribution" Originally developed for software distribution it is now a proposed model for document distribution in an information society in which clearer intellectual property rights are es^pntial Can I give away software or edocuments I purchased? For physical works, the doctrine of first sale gives the original vendor the control of what, who, and how much was involved in the first transaction. After that, it is yours to give, sell, or barter away. But the rules are different for electronic formats. Shrink-wrap contracts on durable goods, and their electronic equivalents for online distributions, have eroded first-sale positions. Increasingly, contracts control subsequent dispositions. In many cases, you will find that the material has merely been loaned and that it is still the property of the creator/vendor. What about material sent to me vie
e-mail.
T l i e JOYWClYil DUIXOn IS Q3.Il"
gerous to use. Most e-mail users don i seem concerned about privacy as they forward messages to other parties and even post such material to a discussion forum. But the copyright belongs to the originator. In some cases there may be an implied consent to distribute; in others, the situation is more ambiguous. It is simpler to ask than to repent. Do I lose firs-" or secona* serial* ization righss by Web posting? Firstsenalization involves segments of a work published before trie full work. Secondserialization refers to rights to publish excerpts or adaptations after publishing of the full work. Since Web distribution can be seen as publication, the answer to the question is a firm maybel Who owns the copyright on my homepage, It depends on who helped you prepare n. u you used cup art, had an Internet service provider assist you, or adapted
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, September 1, 1998
someone else's HTML code, the answer becomes complex. On work-for-hire it is essential to have a valid written contract, signed by all parties, executed before the fact. But my work is multimedia educationll material! Although few legal redefinitions of fair use in this environment are available, unofficial guidelines have appeared. You probably will not be sued if your material consists of less than 10 percent or 3 minutes of a copyrighted work, whichever is less. For text, the limits are 10 percent or 200 words; for music, 10 percent or 30 seconds; for photographs, 10 percent or 15 images; and for data sets 10 percent or 2500 fields. Only two active-use copies can exist If continued use is planned ask for proper permission But I certainly own my courses on the WWW! Not necessarily. Many universities and colleges, wearing green-tinted glasses, are starting to claim intellectual property rights to courses created and used by the faculty they hired. Those concerned about the interaction between the Internet and the law should periodically browse the offerings of Web sources concerned with both electronic freedoms and responsibilities. It is your responsibility to help make the new laws for the Internet. Do it, or lose it! Raymond E. Dessy, Virginia Tech (Comments, e-mail, and forums are invited at http://www. chem. vt. edu/chem-dept/ dessy/internef) Thanks to my Honors Colloquium students, Internet Impact, UU o(X)4, Spring 1998, Virginia Tech.
Suggested browsing:
http://www.ladas.com/ IN 11/ http. // icwe D . ioc.gov/copyright/ http://www.patents.com/copyngh.sht http://viper.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/ seminar/papers/skier.htm http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/ copyright/papers/samuelson.html http://www.eff.org http://www.an.net/dfc/ http://www.software.ibm.com/is/dig-hb/ http://www.bmb.com/ip/PubDomain.html http://wwwl.uspto.gov/web/offices/ dcom/olia/confu/concluZ.html (appendix J) http://chronicle.com (WTio Owns On-Line Courses, Ub/Uo/yo, Chronicle of Higher Education', in print, p. AZ6). (1) George and Ira Gershwin, It Ain t Necessarily So , Porgy ynd Bess, 1935.
