Hey, all.
I had an idea this morning. I get all these emails to sign this or that petition, and I usually do. And when I do, I get either an email reply or a typed letter through the mail. As I read yet another letter from Judd Gregg this morning, I thought...Hmmm, what would happen if more people had access to this email?
Then, I thought...Hey, I could publish these letters on the blog. Then more people could read them. Now, maybe it's redundant because the same people who would find and read this blog would also be signing and sending the same petitions and receiving the same replies I'm receiving, but who knows? It's an idea.
The problem is that I don't know that this will be interesting to any of you, and I'd rather not stuff our blog with these posts. I've thought about and looked into starting a separate blog. Any opinions, advice? This would be legal, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What are these letters like? Are they just like, "Hey, thanks for signing"? Why are they interesting?
I think it falls outside the scope of foreseeable/natural outcome… see below I think this is a pretty good answer…some of it applies to your situation/some is just informative…
“..when you're dealing with email that is being posted to the Web, there are two issues that come up. Copyright and privacy.
There is little doubt that you have copyright protection over your emails. Since it is a creative work and it is fixated into a tangible medium of expression, you hold the copyright interest in anything you send via email.
However, by sending it via email, you offer a certain implied license for the other person to use that material. That implied license extends to any copying that would be a foreseeable and natural outcome of you sending the email.
For example, you can't send someone an email and then complain that they copied the email by pulling it down from their server or copying it when they reply to you.
However, most seem to agree that the above implied license does not extend to posting it on the Web. By sending you an email, I have no reason to assume that it is going to be posted on your site as it is not a natural consequence. Therefore, most likely, the implied license will not cover that.
There hasn't been a case to test this that I know of, but I have not read a lawyer's opinion that said otherwise. Besides, posting an email on a site is not a direct consequence of sending an email, it is an action taken by the recipient without the permission of the author.
As always, this type of argument will be held up to a fair use test and anyone seeking to use email correspondence on their blog can mitigate this by quoting only what is necessary, making sure that the use is transformative, meaning that another work is created from it, and using it for commentary or criticism purposes.
Those issues have to be taken case-by-case.
The privacy issue is much more complex and, unfortunately, can't be answered here. It will depend on five things.
1. The laws of the state(s) involved.
2. What was in the email.
3. What information was posted.
4. Whether or not the person who sent the email is a public figure.
5. Whether the judge likes you.
The one thing that is critical here is that a person who thrusts him or herself into the public spotlight, for example, by running a site or introducing themselves into a major controversy, has fewer privacy protections than a regular citizen.
This isn't to say it wouldn't be a privacy violation to post something like this from a public figure, it would just be a harder privacy case to make. The real issue is what is in the email and what is posted. If it's a rave review for a restaurant that is much different than posting my secret crush on Joan Jett (whoops).
The bottom line is, whether it is an invasion of privacy is very much a moving target but it is a very dangerous game to play.
There is one further side issue, defamation. If you quote someone from an email but only select certain portions and change the meaning of what is said, that can be considered defamation. Also, even if you quote someone entirely, if you don't put the quote into context and it besmirches their reputation, that can also be considered defamation.
All in all, I tell most who ask me to never post email correspondence on their site, it is too risky in too many ways. If someone does it to you, there are many potential avenues of attack and several ways it is actionable in court.”
From - http://performancing.com/legal-issues/legal-issues-posting-e-mail-correspondence-blog
I would think the likelihood of a negative consequence is small in that you are not planning on defaming anyone … but you know maybe you could call and ask for permission from the writer just to be safe?
…the only thing I would think is to question if there is any benefit in the letter that you receive that, you know, someone shouldn’t get without having signed the petition? Like would publishing that letter deter someone from doing what you would want them to do to get that letter? Does that make sense?
Well, I'm glad I asked. Holy shit, Kells. I'll respond to you shortly.
Tamo, no, these letters explain the senator/congressman's perspective on an issue, rationale for voting in a certain way, etc. They are comprehensive statements...often 2-3 pages long.
Kelly, all I can say is...once again, holy shit. The foreseeable outcome is a good point. It's not like these letters are part of a stump speech, press conference, or interview.
However, they are also not personal communications. They are mass-produced, auto-replies. At the same time, they are substantive (meaning the person makes his/her case for his stance/vote on a particular issue).
The thought is that it's a way to get to know the officeholder better.
ALSO, they are not often emails. They are written letters. I don't know if that makes a difference.
My intention is not to defame anyone nor to engage in libel. My intention is to spread the word about where the officeholder stands on the issues. I am hesitant to move forward on that note, as well, because I don't want to become the mouthpiece of two Bush-loving, Republican senators.
Another idea is that if someone from every congressional district did this, we the people would have access to the stances of hundreds of officeholders.
I still don't know.
hey b-Rad - yeah I agree they are not "private" (and I don't know the verbage for the technical definition of "private" but I would doubt these fall into it) but I was under the impression they were sent to you because you sign a particular petition... so my thinking is then not everyone is getting them, so they are somewhere in between private and, you know, just everyone has access to them type of thing… they are intended to go to you and to whomever else signs the petition…that is why I was tying in outside foreseeable/natural outcome (not because the letters are private, but because they are sent to you in response to your action and then, you know, I am not sure they expect you to post these on a blog).
so yeah who knows, and like you said you don’t plan on defaming anyone. I think the safest route is just to ask permission.
Good idea, K.
Post a Comment