And which do you think this is, Scarlett67? “Almost verbatim” could be paraphrasing, after all.
Also, did it ever occur to you that reprinting this would only be a problem if the other person complained? And wouldn’t they complain only if they could identify themselves in the emails?
“Changing the names to protect the innocent” - does this ring any bells? Are you seriously suggesting that changing the identifying names and other details is insufficient? If they’re changed, then the emails cannot be readily identified by any one person.
Not to create a straw man, but are you saying that if I take a copyrighted novel, change the names of characters and places, and paraphrase a bit here and there then I can sell it as my own work? Whether the copyright owner notices or not, it’s still a copyright violation. The OP is asking if the author of the emails has a copyright, not if he could get away with violating that right.
Isn’t “changing the names to protect the innocent” usually done to avoid libel or slander charges when reporting actual events in a way that might cast some innocent people in a bad light? Does it really have anything to do with copyright?
No, micco, I’m not saying that. If you take a work that’s already copyrighted - not to mention published - and then change a few details, the original author will find you and sue you 'till you’re broke. And he or she would win, too.
Are you sure it’s still a violation if the holder doesn’t notice it? Let’s say that “notice” here means “take legal action.” Now, AFAIK a third party can’t sue someone for copyright if they’re not the holder; the holder must do that himself or herself. If the holder doesn’t take action, then no copyright violation can be proven.
Here’s an analogy that I think make sense. There are thousands and thousands of jokes making the Internet rounds. Supposedly individuals wrote these jokes - they didn’t just come into being for no good reason. And yet no one is taking legal action against the people who pass the jokes along without giving any proper credit. Why? For one reason, because the jokes are now rendered as to be unidentifiable; that is, one cannot point to an aspect of the joke and recognize it as being unique to him and him alone.
People have published books and books of these “anonymous” jokes, and yet no one ever seems to bring legal action.
If I take a group of emails and publish them, then how could I be sued or in any violation if the emails aren’t recognizable to anyone but are instead entertaining and/or educational all on their own?
dan, I do draw a distinction between paraphrasing and “largely verbatim,” which you seem to suggest would be accomplished by merely changing names and identifying material. Paraphrasing means describing the content of the work in completely different words and phrasing. It does not mean changing “Bob said” to “Tom said” and “Albuquerque” to “Buffalo.”
Also, just because no one has found and identified a lifted and slightly changed work as largely their own doesn’t mean the law hasn’t been broken. It just means you didn’t get caught. And just because someone doesn’t really have much recourse for damages does not automatically mean there has been no copyright violation. It just means that they can’t do much about it.
If I take my copy of My Autobiography by dantheman, change every instance of “dantheman” to “Scarlett,” and publish it under my own name, and you don’t find out about it, does that mean I haven’t violated your copyright? Of course not.
If the OP wants to give a general description of the e-mail discussions, he’s probably in the clear. But to do any kind of quoting, he’s probably going to need permission.
He could quote it all he wanted as long as the quotes weren’t identifiable. If I quote “A brown cow was grazing in the field,” lifting it from a Very Famous Book, would anyone know? Would anyone care? Doubtful, because it’s not a recognizable quote.
If you take my autobiography and change it to be your own and then publish it, how could I not find out about it? The book would too closely parallel mine.
The situation you describe is not the same as taking emails and stripping all identifiable information from them before publishing them. If this information were stripped - and I’m assuming, perhaps falsely, that it would not be pertinent to publication - before publication, then the OP would never need permission from the other person in order to publish it. Why would he? There would be nothing in the published emails that would identify the other person, either by name or action.
This forum is really impressive. I had no idea the amount of response. Thank you all.
I think I have my answer; publishing this piece could potentially get me into trouble, which was what I expected.
By the way, “largely verbatim” meant that while all the emails are completely intact, comments were added, in italics, in between mails to show what I was thinking at the time.
But they would still be the other person’s original creation, and not the creation of the person who stripped out the identifiers and published them. The point is not whether any people mentioned in the writing can be identified, or whether the original author finds out. Even if the OP chops out bits and pieces, he has still not created an original work.
If I steal your stereo and scratch off the serial number so it can’t be traced to you, and you never notice it missing, have I still stolen it?
Have you? Who knows? That’s my point - it would be impossible to tell, and therefore if I caught you with “my” stereo I’d have no way to prove that it’s mine.