“Zarrella Had The Right To Request Removal….”
The following was written by Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today and is published here on JOAB with his written permission:
There is a problem here. Copyright law is very clear on this matter, it says that there can be no transfer of copyright unless “an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.”
This means that Zarrella, no matter the intent, holds the copyright to the posts he created (copyright automatically reverts to the author) unless there is a written contract saying otherwise.
You can read the full statute here.
I can not say that what Zarrella did was right, I do not know the full story and don’t claim to, but without a written contract it would appear that Zarrella had the right to request removal. After all, they were his copyrighted works and, even if he allowed one person to use them in a oral contract, which is completely non-binding in the area of copyright law, that doesn’t apply to another person and it doesn’t stop him from backing out at any time.
What this whole incident really underscores is the importance of getting these matters in writing. In matters of copyright, without a written contract, there is simply too many ways for things to go sour. In truth, this was resolved rather peacefully.
Though well-versed in copyright law, I am not a lawyer. However, I agree with the decision to remove the works and would encourage you to keep it that way. Not only does it save drama, but Zarrella’s case is not as weak as one might think.
That maybe so, but he was posting at a website he did not own, so he gave up his copywrite when he willingly submitted it this site which was not owned by him. If he had owned the site, and then it had been transfered, that would be the case, it wasn’t. It’s exactly the same as me typing this comment, by willingingly typing this on your site, I’m giving you publication rights.
Duncan said this on August 22, 2006 2:43 am
Duncan,
That is the whole problem and the whole point. It might logically seem that way but it isn’t. You can not transfer copyright without a written contract. that is what the law says.
If a person submits a work to a site and ther eis no written contract, it is best viewed as a loan. This is why all major publications have written contracts for these things. Otherwise, the person has the right to, at a later date, object to the continued use.
Is this fair, perhaps not, but it goes back to the imporance to getting everything in writing. When it comes to transfering copyright, there is no such thing as a tacit or even oral contract.
Jonathan Bailey said this on August 22, 2006 9:45 am
Ahh, so that means one day I could wake up and ask to have all “my content” taken down from JOAB too. And since I own it I could open up a new site using the domain Celebrity Cowboy and bebop its all mine.
David Krug said this on August 23, 2006 9:32 pm
[...] I have continued my discourse with Jonathan Bailey on the topic of copyright issues in relation to blog content- because I believe it to be of crucial importance, especially going into the future….. [...]
Jack of All Blogs » Blog Archive » More On The Copyright Dilemma…. said this on August 24, 2006 6:30 pm
David, yes it could mean that, unless there was a contract between you and the new owners.
did we have a contract?
Dan Zarrella said this on August 24, 2006 6:33 pm