# Are emails under copyright? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 27, 2018, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380 "2018-08-27T21:36:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/21 "2018-08-28T16:11:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No and yes, AFAIK. I don’t know of any cases like this that made to court. Like most extreme hypotheticals about the fringes of law, there isn’t much to say. However, the plain wording of the law is clear that works must be “fixed, tangible form” so I’m assuming that you’re SOL in enforcing your spoken words. I don’t know if it’s ever resulted in lawsuits, but I know that it’s an ongoing issue in stand-up comedy about comedians who steal jokes they’ve heard other comedians deliver. In many cases, the jokes were scripted (and therefore covered by copyright) but they are other cases where a joke is improvised in the middle of a performance. Robin Williams was notorious for this; when he was ad-libbing he fired off funny lines and in many cases they were things he had heard other comedians say. Williams at least acknowledged this and he would pay other comedians when they pointed out he had used their material. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/22 "2018-08-28T16:35:27Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > It was also a debate for the US presidential election. There was a public interest in this, recognized by the participants in having done it. I don’t think they could complain. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. As Chuck said, the time was covered by a completely different copyright law. Even whole pirated books were sold with no consequences. Go look up Charles Dickens and see how furious he was on the issue. Yes, they wanted their words to be widely disseminated. In today’s world, all they’d have to do is make a recording as they spoke and their words would be copyright, no matter how public they made them - because they were private citizens. Everything the government says and does (with a few minor exceptions) is free of copyright. Does that mean that every campaign speech by a sitting representative is free to be reprinted? I think so, but I’m not sure. Attribution would be crucial in any case. Claiming it as your own would get the press down on you, as many have found out to their cost. Other writings are also affected by intention. It’s normally acceptable to reprint publicity and promotional material in whole because that’s its purpose. It’s not acceptable to reprint the whole of the work being promoted, though. Copyright is nuance all the way down. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t know if it’s ever resulted in lawsuits, but I know that it’s an ongoing issue in stand-up comedy about comedians who steal jokes they’ve heard other comedians deliver. In many cases, the jokes were scripted (and therefore covered by copyright) but they are other cases where a joke is improvised in the middle of a performance. > > Robin Williams was notorious for this; when he was ad-libbing he fired off funny lines and in many cases they were things he had heard other comedians say. Williams at least acknowledged this and he would pay other comedians when they pointed out he had used their material. This isn’t really a copyright issue. Joke stealing would be frowned upon no matter what the law said. Courts would hate to get involved in these matters for a practical reason. Two comics may tell the “same” joke, but they’ll undoubtedly change a word or a whole setup in doing so. Where and when does it change enough to be original? I’ve listened to multiple late-night monologues covering the same news with the “same” joke. The writers undoubtedly came up with the jokes independently. Robin Williams often excused himself by saying that when he was riffing he spouted lines that popped up in his head. Some of them he had heard before, some of them were original. In some cases, it could be proven that he was there when another comic said them. In others… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/23 "2018-08-28T16:49:50Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Does that mean that every campaign speech by a sitting representative is free to be reprinted? I think so, but I’m not sure. That would be covered under the newsworthiness exception. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/24 "2018-08-28T17:08:29Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Courts would hate to get involved in these matters for a practical reason. Two comics may tell the “same” joke, but they’ll undoubtedly change a word or a whole setup in doing so. Where and when does it change enough to be original? I’ve listened to multiple late-night monologues covering the same news with the “same” joke. The writers undoubtedly came up with the jokes independently. Robin Williams often excused himself by saying that when he was riffing he spouted lines that popped up in his head. Some of them he had heard before, some of them were original. In some cases, it could be proven that he was there when another comic said them. In others… It just seems strange to me. As a writer, I’m sure you’d agree that the hard work is coming up with the words in your mind. Putting them down on a piece of paper afterwards is just a minor physical task. But the fixed in tangible form principle reverses this and seems to declare that writing the words down is the key factor rather than putting the words together. Picture Fyodor Dostoevsky creating _The Gambler_. According to the logic of this principle, the person who was really creating the work was his secretary (and future wife) Anna Grigoryevna, who he dictated the story to. It’s obviously absurd to argue that Grigoyevna rather than Dostoevsky wrote _The Gambler_. All that said, I can see the practical difficulties of basing the copyright principle around who first expressed the words rather than who first wrote them down. There would be a mass of cases where people would claim to have created some famous (and money making) work without having any physical evidence to support their claim. So expediency trumps logic. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/25 "2018-08-28T17:14:39Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Let’s say I wanted to publish an email exchange between me and another person as part of an autobiographical work. > > Let’s also say that I identify them by name and relation. > > or Let’s say alternatively that I identify them only by a relationship to me. > > or Let’s say alternatively that I don’t ID at all except as “family member.” > > Are these different considerations? > > Also Would there be a content limit over which it’s not fair use anymore, if it even is in the first place? It sounds like you want to do this without their permission, and are asking us if you would be on sound legal ground to do so. Legal issues aside, publishing someone else’s emails to you without their permission ranges from poor etiquette to unethical. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/26 "2018-08-28T17:18:12Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > It was also a debate for the US presidential election. There was a public interest in this, recognized by the participants in having done it. I don’t think they could complain. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. Well, Senate seat in Illinois, actually: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > The Lincoln–Douglas debates (also known as The Great Debates of 1858) were a series of seven debates between Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Illinois, and incumbent Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party candidate. At the time, U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures; thus Lincoln and Douglas were trying for their respective parties to win control of the Illinois General Assembly. > **[Lincoln–Douglas debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates)** > > The Lincoln–Douglas debates were a series of seven debates in 1858 between Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party candidate for the United States Senate from Illinois, and incumbent Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party candidate. Until the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that senators shall be elected by the people of their states, was ratified in 1913, senators were elected by their respective state legislatures, so Lincoln and Douglas were tr... It’s worth noting that Lincoln lost the election (despite apparently winning the popular vote). But the debates dramatically increased his national stature two years before the presidential election of 1860. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/27 "2018-08-28T17:43:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It just seems strange to me. As a writer, I’m sure you’d agree that the hard work is coming up with the words in your mind. Putting them down on a piece of paper afterwards is just a minor physical task. But the fixed in tangible form principle reverses this and seems to declare that writing the words down is the key factor rather than putting the words together. > > Picture Fyodor Dostoevsky creating _The Gambler_. According to the logic of this principle, the person who was really creating the work was his secretary (and future wife) Anna Grigoryevna, who he dictated the story to. It’s obviously absurd to argue that Grigoyevna rather than Dostoevsky wrote _The Gambler_. > > All that said, I can see the practical difficulties of basing the copyright principle around who first expressed the words rather than who first wrote them down. There would be a mass of cases where people would claim to have created some famous (and money making) work without having any physical evidence to support their claim. So expediency trumps logic. Under the law, the transcriber is not “really creating the work.” The ownership goes to the actual author, under whose direction the fixation is being made. But the fixation must be made in order for the law to protect the work. It’s a necessary step. The law needs something tangible to give protection to. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/28 "2018-08-28T17:52:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That would be covered under the newsworthiness exception. What newsworthiness exception are you referring to? It’s true that under 7 U.S. Code § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” Reporting on a speech is certainly allowed. Quoting pieces of a speech is definitely Fair Use. But taking the whole of a work is normally explicitly outside the bounds of Fair Use. The only exception I can see is that the work was never copyright in the first place. But that’s not answered by newsworthiness. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380/29 "2018-08-28T19:44:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That would be covered under the newsworthiness exception. **Exapno Mapcase** beat me to the punch, but this is worth emphasizing, because it seems to get ignored a lot in the modern world: There is no “newsworthiness exception.” News reporting is one of the areas explicitly mentioned in the Title 17 section on Fair Use, but the use of copyrighted material for news reporting is still subject to the four-pronged test applied to all fair use cases. You can’t simply reproduce the entirety of a copyrighted work and then throw your hands in the air and say it’s all good because you’re just reporting the news. As the Ninth Circuit said in [this case](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4878807176199237981&q=Monge+v.+Maya+Magazines,+Inc.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1): > [@](#): > > Although news reporting is an example of fair use, it is not sufficient itself to sustain a per se finding of fair use. The “fact that an article arguably is `news' and therefore a productive use is simply one factor in a fair use analysis." Id. at 561, 105 S.Ct. 2218. In other words, fair use has bounds even in news reporting, and no per se "public interest" exception exists. See, e.g., Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp. LLC, 650 F.3d 295, 307 (3d Cir.2011) ("[N]ews reporting does not enjoy a blanket exemption from copyright. News organizations are not free to use any and all copyrighted works without the permission of the creator simply because they wish to report on the same events a work depicts."); Núñez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir.2000) (allowing publication of three pictures for news purposes, but clarifying that "[t]his is not to say that ... use of the photographs was necessarily fair merely because the photographs were used for news purposes, nor does it establish a general `newsworthiness’ exception.”). Because Maya cannot simply take fair use refuge under the umbrella of news reporting, we analyze Maya’s coverage in light of two other considerations: the degree of transformation occasioned by Maya’s use; and the commercial nature of its use. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-emails-under-copyright/820380.md?page=1)