Someone writes a letter to you in which she (the writer) comes across as a total asshole. Are you (the receiver of the letter) legally free to show it to anyone you so desire? Is faxing and/or emailing it to anyone against the law?
I’ve always heard that truth is an absolute defense against libel, but I want to make really really sure.
I am not a lawyer, but I can see no problem with showing a private letter to whomever you choose, unless the writer sends it with a stated expectation of confidentiality.
Even then, I see no reason why the receiver of the letter should be legally required to obey this expectation of confidentiality, unless there’s some prior mutual contract in place that says he should do so.
Obviously, that doesn’t apply to privileged communications such as a letter from a client to his lawyer.
IANAL, but my belief is that you can show it to whomever you want, but may not copy it without permission. And the only exceptions are legally sanctioned (a lawyer cannot show someone a letter from a client, for example). If the writer claims it is confidential, he shouldn’t have sent it.
This reminds me of one of the funniest fictional exchanges I’ve seen in a while (from Terry Pratchett’s Making Money).
A. Could you reveal to me … (something secret)
B. Can you keep a secret?
A. Of course.
B. So can I!
Legally? Probably nothing to prevent it. My limited sense of ethics would, though.
It raises an interesting legal consideration though. If you write a letter, as I understand it that is copyrighted at the point of creation, so what happens if you distribute it without permission? Or is the letter not deemed a creative work and thus not protected like a first draft for a novel? Would you be OK in the case of the letter purely by showing the letter to people, and screwed in the event you tried to copy it for distribution? Lawyers help me out here!
There was a case a few years ago (Salinger vs. Random House) where someone got some of J.D. Salinger’s letters and wanted to use them in an analysis of the author. Salinger sued for copyright infringement. I’m not sure how the case came out, but last I heard, the court ruled for Salinger and blocked the publication of the letters in the book.
Not a lawyer, but I believe copyright infringement only comes into play if there’s an attempt to either take credit for, or make money from, someone else’s work, or if there can be a reasonable expectation that your distribution of said work would cause some sort of financial loss to the author (i.e. he can’t sell it if you’re giving it away for free – no one would pay for it).
So if you forward an email saying “look at this douche” it’s got nothing to do with copyright since you’re not claiming the words are yours and you’re not attempting to cash in on it financially. There have been a few instances of unflattering emails which were forwarded around enough to make national or international news – however I’ve never heard of the original author attempting to sue (or even considering it) for copyright infringement.
Putting Salinger’s letters into a book, however – presumably the idea is to publish/sell the book for money. In which case you’d need written permission (a limited usage license) from the author, and it’s likely the author will expect residuals in exchange, if he even agrees to the license.
Like this guy?
Ha! That one’s a new one on me. I was thinking of a couple different ones that originated in England, I think. Claire Swire was one. I also recall one where some guy (not in Korea, though) was getting into TMI detail about a date with his girlfriend, which was sent to his buddies, which was then widely circulated. Which didn’t end well for him, I don’t think. 
Not at all the case in the US. In particular you can be sued for statutory damages (among other things) regardless of any attempt to make money. Note though, that some of these damages require that the work had been registered. Not likely in the case of an ordinary letter. But compensation for legal fees is always a possibility.
Basically, if you violate someone’s copyright and they have lawyers, kiss your $ goodbye.
What constitutes infringement, though? Don’t you have to prove that you were in some way damaged by that person’s use of the material? If I show it to one person, are you damaged and is that infringement?
I agree that “damage” may not be financial (in an immediate sense anyway) – simply removing a credit/copyright notice on distributed material is damage – but that still comes from the fact that if someone sees your material and wants to commission you for something similar or pay you to use it, they can’t do so if they don’t know who you are; and/or it leaves an explicit or implicit impression that someone else was the author.
I thought that a plaintiff in a civil case had to prove some sort of harm… i.e. it’s called “damages” because the plaintiff was, in fact, damaged in some way. Which is what I was saying – the question of copyright wouldn’t come up in showing a letter to one or two others, because whatever damage the author experiences wouldn’t be in terms of ownership of the material. It might be libel (don’t know, not-a-lawyer), but I can’t see how it’s a copyright case.
A letter sent someone becomes that persons property to do with what he wants. No one copywrites a letter before sending it. If so it would have the little c in a circle at the bottom of the page.
Now if you forwarded it with coment look what this idiot “Bill” sent me, you could be in trouble.
This is demonstrably false. The letter is copyrighted as soon as you write it; there is no need to apply a © for your copyright to be in force. You may need to register your copyright to get certain types of monetary damages, but none of that effects your basic rights.
You have the right to sell the physical letter, hang it on your wall, or burn it. You don’t have rights to the words on the letter, those are covered under copyright. The difference between allowing someone to read the letter and putting it on public display charging admission for all to read is the realm of lawyers, but I suspect the former isn’t a problem, and the latter is akin to publishing.
Per the Berne Convention, copyright on an original work is automatic. The (C) symbol indicates a registered copyright which has been filed with the Library of Congress or other national authority.
Yes and no. In the US, f the copyright is not registered, you can still be found to infringe. However, you can only sue for actual damages, which is hard to prove. The court can direct the infringer to stop copying the work, however.
If the copyright is registered, then you can get damages for infringement.
But, in either case, if you make a copy, you are infringing.
No. If you’re not making a copy, then it’s not a copyright issue. Copyright doesn’t prevent you from showing copyrighted material to someone else.
Again, you’re right and you’re wrong.
In the US, if the copyright is registered, you do not have to prove damages. There are statutory damages that the infringer is required to pay. Outside the US, where there is no copyright registration, then copyright works just like in the US with registration – there is no need to prove damages, since they are set by law.
If the copyright is not registered (likely with a letter), then there are two issues: infringement and damages. Infringement is clear cut – did the person copy the work? – but damages are hard to prove. The court will most likely rule that the infringer must stop copying the work. (This sort of case rarely goes to court simply because it’s too expensive to sue. Most copyright holders register their copyright – Salinger did – in order to protect their rights. If not, it’s hardly ever worth the cost of a court case).
Outside the US, where there is no copyright registration, then copyright works just like in the US with registration – the
Finally, again, if the letter isn’t copied, then it’s not a copyright issue (that’s why it’s called copyright – the right to make copies).
It’s also unlikely in the extreme for it to be libel if you show someone a letter. Any libellous material would be in the letter itself, and it would put the letter writer in the position of suing himself for libel.
…