This article;
reminded me that, supposedly, there was a great deal of information relevant to the assination that would not be released for 50 years. The idea was that none of the key people (i.e. family, government officials, investigators) would likely still be alive.
Perhaps it was just an urban legend - and I was a wee sprite at the time - but does anyone else remember this? Were there troves of information being held? 50 years are up now, obviously.
Well, don’t we only have to wait 2 more days to find out? Or was the “50 years” dated from the creation of the paperwork, and not the assassination?
I read recently that Jackie’s pink suit is in the archives and can’t be displayed until all of us who remember the assassination are long dead. That doesn’t seem right to me. It’s an important piece of history and should be on display.
Last night, NBC showed Officer Tippett’s widow and for the first time, showed a letter that she got from Jackie. A very classy and moving letter, but she had to ask Caroline’s permission to show it. What’s up with that? If Jackie wrote you a personal letter, Caroline owns it???
At last, proof positive of a Kennedy conspiracy.
(Yes, :D)
It’s a matter of privacy and personal respect, not law or Da Peepul’s Right Ta Know.
How much would you pay for one of Jack Ruby’s old cigar butts?
Under copyright law, the words in all letters are owned by the people who wrote them, the same as everything else you write. There have been several biographies of writers that were gutted when permission to quote letters was denied. You may own the physical piece of paper that the letter is written on, but you can’t republish the contents.
Yes, it seems counterintuitive at first but it follows logically from the premise that you own your words. The Kennedy estate continue to keep the rights to the Kennedy’s words.
Fair use does allow people to quote a small fraction, not enough to affect the value of the whole, but probably doesn’t come into play here because the original is so short that quoting enough to be meaningful requires quoting the entire thing.
Caroline Kennedy gave the dress to the National Archives in 2003 on the condition that it would stay out of view until 2103.
So it’s assumed that every handwritten note anyone writes in his/her life is copyrighted? Here’s the most ridiculous thing I can imagine: suppose I sign a credit card bill in a restaurant and scribble a few words, maybe something like “you need to wear a longer skirt to hide those fat legs”. The waitress takes offense to this and the next thing you know, it’s all over the internet. Could I sue for copyright infringement?
Yes, although it’s unclear how good your chances would be of winning. However, if the waitress put your note, along with others, in a book called “Unpleasant Things Customers Said to Me,” you’d have an excellent chance of success.
Most of the remaining government documents are supposed to be released no later than 2017 (the 25th anniversary of the 1992 Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act) except for documents that the president certifies as “justifiably closed”. Frequently Asked Questions | National Archives
Tippett’s widow doesn’t even possess the letter. That same NBC News story said the letter is part of the Kennedy estate and Caroline is the one who gave permission it be used in the story. Watch it here.
To expand on kunilou’s answer, which is correct, the remedies for copyright infringement are small. You can prevent publication or order it pulled if already published. In fact, people do this all the time and lots of online stuff gets pulled. That only requires a take-down notice. For a book you’d have to go through a lawyer and maybe a court. If you do go to court, you can ask for monetary damages but only to the extent that you can show you have lost a specific amount of money. By registering a copyright, you can get punitive damages, designed to punish the other person and so much higher amounts, but normally no ephemeral piece of writing goes through the registration process.
That’s not what I got from the video you linked. If Mrs. Tippit does not possess the letter, why did Brokaw says she “treasures” it? He said, “legally, it is a part of the Kennedy estate”, which I took to mean the copyright is owned by the estate, but Caroline gave permission to share the contents of the letter for that story.
It is my understanding Mrs. Tippit possesses the letter; I doubt there is anyone on Earth who could compel her to give it up.
A few people have actually done just that to prevent embarrassing statements from becoming widespread among the public. It usually backfires horrible, due to the Streissand Effect.
On top of that, every (news) story I’ve read where people tried that, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, usually without actually reaching a trial (often thanks to anti-SLAPP statutes).
Judges aren’t idiots. They’re just normal people with a lot of specialized training, an imperial office (including a ritualized uniform), and an f’ed up view of the world (while they’re wearing the robe and sitting in that office).
You can always report on a statement. That’s fair use and therefore not copyright infringement.
Infringement is very specific; fair use is subjective. The line between is murky and almost invariably misunderstood by the public.