[Jandek] RE: jandek Digest, Vol 55, Issue 37

alex langer alanger at hotmail.co.uk
Sat Feb 24 10:09:25 PST 2007

to be honest, i think Mr. Smith wouldnt give a toss.

>From: jandek-request at mylist.net
>Reply-To: jandek at mylist.net
>To: jandek at mylist.net
>Subject: jandek Digest, Vol 55, Issue 37
>Date: 23 Feb 2007 22:21:31 -0800
>Send jandek mailing list submissions to
>	jandek at mylist.net
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mylist.net/listinfo/jandek
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	jandek-request at mylist.net
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	jandek-owner at mylist.net
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of jandek digest..."

>Today's Topics:
>    1. Re: jandek Digest, Vol 55, Issue 36 (A. Chankin)

>From: "A. Chankin" <achankin at gmail.com>
>To: jandek at mylist.net
>Subject: [Jandek] Re: jandek Digest, Vol 55, Issue 36
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:43:40 -0500
>Ah, come on guys.  You know better, or you really ought to.
>"a letter is not actually a copyrighted statement, and in fact can said to
>be "owned" by its recipient. So it's on the recipient's shoulders."
>Sorry, but no, what you stated there is totally incorrect.
>  A letter absolutely is a copyright protected from the moment the pen hits
>the page.  It is NOT on the recipients shoulders whether to publish it.  
>recipient has zero legal right to publish a letter from someone else 
>permission, and is breaking the law if they do so.
>If you don't believe me, look up the law for yourself; I'll make it easy 
>you to do so:
>202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
>Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
>copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
>work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including
>the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of 
>convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in
>the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or 
>any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any
>material object.
>As I mentioned the respect issue is separate, that is more of a personal
>ethical question, to which I personally believe the answer there supports
>the legal answer.
>As for the "poor man's copyright" someone mentioned, that is again not 
>spot on.  A work is copyrighted from the instant you create it.  You do not
>have to register it in any way for copyright to exist.  The poor mans
>copyright refers to how one registers a copyright.  The only way to
>officially register it in the US is to mail it in with the proper forms and
>fees to the US copyright office.  Poor mans copyright refers to the idea
>some people have that they can mail a work or document to themselves and
>thus provide some evidence that they created it and when they did, and of
>course the US copyright office wants to discourage you from doing that for 
>lot of good reasons.  But the work is copyrighted whether it is registered
>or not, or even if it is incorrectly registered.
>408. Copyright registration in
>(a) Registration Permissive.  At any time during the subsistence of the
>first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which the
>copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the subsistence of
>any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of copyright or of
>any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright
>claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit specified by this
>section, together with the application and fee specified by sections
>708. <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap7.html#708> Such registration
>is not a condition of copyright protection.
>Again, all of this is not to say that the correspondence can never be
>published.  It is all just to say that it is Corwood's decision as to if 
>when that correspondence is published, even if they sent it to other
>people.  (Unless you are talking about some time in the future when the
>copyright has expired, which is likely to be at least the 22nd century.)
>It could be all public domain, right now, but only if Corwood chose to make
>it so.  I haven't seen anything suggesting that has taken place, so in the
>absence of any permission, people really shouldn't be posting bits of their
>correspondence here or elsewhere on the internet.  I personally think it's
>disrespectful, but that is besides the point, it is actually illegal.
>Art C.
>P.S. Lauren, again I agree it has nothing to do with the veil of secrecy or
>anything.  This protection applies when you or I or Grandma Smith writes a
>letter too, it really has nothing to do with Jandek per se.
>I also have to object to the distinction you draw between "letters" and
>"notes."  There is no such distinction in copyright law.  Brief notes are
>equally protected as correspondence.  I'm glad you feel it wise not to 
>things out of courtesy, but you should extend that courtesy to everything
>you recieve from anyone, even if it's brief, and keep in mind that not just
>your courtesy, but awareness of people's rights is a factor to consider.

>jandek mailing list
>jandek at mylist.net

MSN Hotmail is evolving  check out the new Windows Live Mail 

More information about the jandek mailing list