Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I have two covers with enclosed letters that I'd someday like to publish in web pages, but I'm not sure how to go about it in an ethical manner. Here are the details:
• One cover was written to a family member by a U.S. Navy sailor, stationed in Hawaii, just after the end of the war in 1945. He brags about "stealing the navy blind," and mailing the stolen goods home in parcels. So much for the “Good Warâ€.
• The other was written to a friend by a U.S. Marine Corps recruit in training at Camp Pendleton, during the Vietnam War. He writes about effectiveness of Marine Corps brainwashing: he can't wait to get to 'Nam and kill "gooks". There is a poignant ending to the recruit’s story — his name is among the 58,000 other names on the Wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. Vietnam War protestors might say, “Serves him right!†I say, “How very tragic.â€
My dilemma is this: Do I or do I not reveal the names of these two men and the contents of their letters?
The former letter was written 70 years ago. The man himself is probably deceased, but it's likely that members of his family are alive today. It seems to me that publishing his letter along with identifying information is tantamount to charging him with a crime and convicting him, without actual evidence. Would publishing it amount to libel? Can you libel someone who's no longer alive?
In the latter case, no criminal activity is intimated. In fact, it's legal for marines to kill enemy soldiers in a combat zone, which is what the marine said he wanted to do. (There is the question of whether the war itself was legal, since the U.S. never declared war on North Vietnam, and couldn’t declare war on the National Liberation Front, which had no official status.)
Whether the marine actually killed any communist soldiers is beside the point. More to the point is that he characterizes himself in his letter as a person who looks forward to killing communists, which places him firmly on the side of Hawks during the Vietnam War and would have made him a person to be scorned by anyone in the peace movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Even today, many people would be offended by his comments.
Of more concern however are the feelings of the marine's family, who no doubt went through a period of grief following his death and probably are still grieving.( I know that if I had been killed in Vietnam, and I had a very close call, my parents' lives would have been ruined.)
Do I have a right to publicly shine a light on that marine's letter, and explain that he died in Vietnam? I don't think so. The marine’s motto— my motto in this context — is Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful). It wouldn’t be a very faithful move on my part to break that faith by making that marine’s private letter a public document.
•••
Now, having written this, I think that I no longer have a dilemma. I know the right thing to do. But I would like to learn your thoughts.
Bob
P.S. Don't let my avatar mislead you. Although I joined the U.S. Navy in 1962, I served as a Marine Corps hospital corpsman in combat in Vietnam.
Login to Like
this post
05:39:54pm
The right thing for the right reasons! It helps when you write out your dilemma - seeing it spread before you gives you a better perspective. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Login to Like
this post
Umm, this relates to another thread.
The original authors (or heirs) continue to hold the copyrights on the letters. Further, you cannot publish them in their entirety and merely withhold the names.
Some issues are discussed in plain English (not legalese) here:
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
Chris
Login to Like
this post
I feel that both letters are historic and true to what people were doing and thinking during those times. If those were in my collection, I'd have no issue putting them in my collection with the writer's names visible.
Then if I was posting on the Internet, I see no reason to "out" these veterans, I'd block their names. The letter from the marine is very ironic since, as you said, he was brainwashed to kill gooks and the absolute opposite actually happened! That says a lot.
Login to Like
this post
Bob,
Two different, but similar, dilemmas.
All I can say is that, if it was me, I would be withholding the names. I don't know how you got these pieces; but, whether the content leans to right or wrong, I don't think the writers ever intended a greater audience beyond the recipient of the letter.
One person probably broke the law - how did that get by the censor anyway? - the other wrote what he did as a possible confession? It brings up a dilemma. How much of one's private life should we reveal in our search of history? It's for the families to decide if it should become public (though the question is raised as to how these letters became public in the first place). If a public figure wrote the letter, and it contradicted directly what he or she has said publicly, then the letter deserves to see the light of day. Otherwise...?
Login to Like
this post
"... One person probably broke the law ..."
If you are not talking about the Laws of War, then I imagine that you are talking about:
"... He brags about "stealing the navy blind," and mailing the stolen goods home in parcels ..."
The particular strain of Bronze Age Mythology in which I was raised requires that we make an effort to judge people favorably.
Perhaps, when he was home on leave, he complained about, say, the Navy's infamous powdered eggs. After much kidding about his obvious exaggerations, he promised to send some of this obviously useless garbage home so the family could taste for themselves. This, then, became an inside joke about "stealing the navy blind".
My own evolving standard is to redact the names of folks who might well be alive, and not bother redacting the names of folks who are in all likelihood well & truly gone.
I am mindful of the fact that, for example, any endearing message could be evidence of adultery, so I am tempted to become more strict about redacting names in any uploaded scans.
OTOH, if I found a inglorious discrediting message from some chicken hawk's family, I'd rent billboard space - or pay Google AdWords to direct attention to my treasure - but I've got an issue with people who send other people's children off to war.
Cheers,
Login to Like
this post
I agree with Chris. The content of those letters offer a very intimate look into the heart. Those were thoughts and feelings that weren't meant to be shared with the world. I wouldn't put it out on the web. Even if the writers are gone they probably have close family out there. Ernie
Login to Like
this post
I appreciate the many responses my original post has received, and I've learned a lot. This subject is obviously complex.
Thebiggnome wrote,
"The original authors (or heirs) continue to hold the copyrights on the letters. Further, you cannot publish them in their entirety and merely withhold the names."
It would seem, based on this comment, that it would be virtually impossible to obtain permission to publish letters of someone long dead: Would not the permission of all living heirs, excepting minors, be required? Without the permission of all of them, then what?
My family is very small, but if someone not in my family wised to publish a personal letter written by my father or mother, it seems to me that they would need the permission of my sister and myself, our spouses, our children, their children, and any living aunts, uncles, cousins. Without permission from each of us, excepting minors, it would be risky, not to mention unethical, to publish.
However, following the letter of the law and maintaining a high standard of ethical behaviour is like walking an endless tightrope across a bottomless gorge. With every jurisdiction and and every judge and jury and every paralegal watchdog applying arbitrary, fuzzy standards, it seems almost impossible to base the writing of history on anything but public documents, which we know are anything but thorough, complete, and honest.
At some point, it seems to me, it would be unethical not to publish certain personal material, the letter from the marine being a case in point. Even though young men generally believe that they are immortal (or at least haven't given the matter serious thought) need to know that that the advice they receive from governments and military organizations is quite possibly bad advice that simply doesn't advance good governance and civilized goals. To be taught that killing "gooks" is a good thing is bad enough; to die because of that teaching is a tragedy. I believe that more good would come from publishing that marine's letter, after redacting all identifying information, than from burying it in an album.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
In the philatelic press it is common to see articles written about interesting correspondence found inside covers or written on a post card. However, these have been written mostly within an historical context following Item #10 from the link that Chris provided:
"10. Don't forget that copyright protects expression, not facts and ideas. So, even though you can only quote a limited number of words from a letter, you may still be able to summarize and discuss the facts and ideas contained therein at greater length, as long as you do so in your own words (avoiding close paraphrase)."
Login to Like
this post
It seems to me that we are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Publish the letter but omit or censor anything that may identify the sender or recipient.
"names have been changed to protect the innocent"
Did Homer or Churchill etc never want anyone to read their thoughts, in which case why write them down?
What about all the used postcards that get sold, should we not put images on ebay or tell the purchaser they must not read the messages.
Go for it Bobstamp, just remember the saying that you cannot get blood from a stone and in prison you get your meals and accommodation provided together with tv and private security at absolutely no cost to yourself. Also your partner will probably be able to claim government benefits. Its a win win situation.
Login to Like
this post
06:38:31am
The question that strikes me is how the letters came into the market place. Could it not be said that by disposing of them the potential ownership rights ended or were compromised enough that a claim would have little standing.
As a matter of social courtesy, I suppose I'd disguise the actual names or any specific information that would create added sorrow to whatever family is left. Remember that it is usual for commanding officers to write to parents or spouses of a fallen soldier a letter that implies that the death was somewhat heroic and saddened all the deceased's friends. I imagine no CO, despite the temptation, ever wrote that to next of kin ;"Your son was a terrible Marine/sailor/airman and his death was caused by his dereliction of duty, or gross stupidity, etc..."
I have a couple of letters between a GI who must have been wounded early in the South Pacific and treated in Australia by a young girl who may have been a nurses aide or candy stripper. The letters seemed quite dull at first discussing weather and her "mum's" restrictions but at times there are not just personal comments, but rather intimate remarks that as a parent I'd think justified the "Mum's" concerns. Unfortunately the correspondence is incomplete, so I am quite sure I'd never publish them anywhere where there is a chance that someone would be embarrassed or their parentage brought into question. Some things are best left undisturbed.
Login to Like
this post
Copyright is a specific legal right that must be asserted by the author.
That's what the little c-in-a-circle marking is for.
Minus that marking, or similar explicit assertion, why would copyright be an issue?
Cheers,
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Ikey,
sorry, copyright protection automatically extends. It's easier, and more financially rewarding, to have pre-asserted one's copyright protection, but the presumption of protection exists in US law, much the same way that occupation of a space on a highway entitles that car to be there no matter how big or fancy or in a hurry another car might be.
I also want to thank Chris for including that discussion of copyright as it extends to unpublished correspondence. That adds so much to my understanding.
do you know whether those rules follow the general rules making the 20s the generally accepted time frame for copyright-free material today?
David
Login to Like
this post
"That's what the little c-in-a-circle marking is for."
I'm confused; you mean this is all you need to copyright something?
You don't need to register copyrights?
What about this typical phrase you see in books?
"All rights reserved. No part of this publication, including images and text, may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, scanning, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Direct all inquires to the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by U.S. Copyright Law."
Login to Like
this post
now we've done it.
the circled C is a convention. by itself, it's a prehistoric emoji, and not much more.
Published work is considered the publisher's or author's or.... depending on the kind of publisher, type of material, etc. In scientific journal publishing, where I live, publishers are assumed to have copyright (we secure copyright transfers from those authors who can legally surrender it; not all can or do). This is changing with open access, but let's not confuse the issue.
We often, but not always, submit material to the Library of Congress along with requisite fees registering copyright. We already enjoy the government's presumed protec tion of copyright protection; the LoC registration just helps to fortify it, but it's not needed. The C is meant to indicate that that registration process has happened, but it can also mean that I intend to defend my copyright.
But the C no more protects us than its absence allows others to copy material willy nilly. The government automatically provides protection, although it's up to us to defend it. LoC registration (and C) just further showcases that.
David
Login to Like
this post
darn, Christopher took half the space and was twice as clear.
Login to Like
this post
A couple of members have now asked how the letters in question came into the marketplace. I bought both of them from dealers, and dealers get their material from collectors who wish to trade or sell them, from other dealers, and often from people who come into their shops with boxes (and sometimes boxes and boxes and boxes) containing collections and/or accumulations. The majority of such "box lots" must be sold or given away by heirs who know nothing about philately, and mainly want to discharge their responsibilities as heirs.
A couple of stories:
• My wife, Susan, once bought a box of 1920-30s postcards. They comprised a long correspondence among members of a family from Indianapolis. Many were quite personal; Susan My felt like she had become a part of the family. She assembled the postcards into an interesting, annotated album and managed to contact a member of the family and offered him, for free. His reply: a terse "No!" Not only did he not want the collection, he appeared to not care if anyone else had it. It was obvious that someone in the family had dumped the postcards someplace and didn’t care what happened to them.
• Several year ago my mother sent me a large box of covers and enclosed, very legible letters from a young man from Kansas City, Missouri, all clearly dated. Starting in 1942, they clearly document his military career from basic training through his release from POW camp in Germany (he was captured on the first day of the Battle of the Bulge, and for some months was listed as Missing In Action). Included are also letters from his parents to army officials about the whereabouts of their son, and responses. A V-Mail letter they wrote to their son’s commanding officer was returned with a notation saying that the intended recipient had been killed.
My mom bought the box of letters from a junk dealer. I’ve never been able to contact anyone in the soldier’s family, but I did learn that he is buried in a small community in New Mexico’s Black Range about an hour and a half drive from my childhood home and where my mother lived until she went into care a few years ago. She died in 2010. I’m guessing that that junk dealer attended a sale of the a soldier’s estate.
Surely we can assume that most of the old letters we come across no longer have value as treasured family heirlooms. It follows that the people who sold them or gave them away have no interest at all in what happens to them. Regardless of the ethics of publishing such letters, the risk of doing so seems to me to be vanishingly small.
Login to Like
this post
I stand happily corrected, and am even happier that there were so many corrections to choose from 
Login to Like
this post
"Surely we can assume that most of the old letters we come across no longer have value as treasured family heirlooms. It follows that the people who sold them or gave them away have no interest at all in what happens to them. Regardless of the ethics of publishing such letters, the risk of doing so seems to me to be vanishingly small.
"
I think I've followed this thread fairly carefully, and haven't quite seen this point raised:
Although those people sold or gave away old letters, the thoughts contained in the letters are those of the writer, not the recipient.
For this reason, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it's appropriate to publish personal information contained in them online. It may be legal to do so, but I personally don't think it's necessarily ethical to do so. In the original case that started this thread, I don't think enough time has elapsed to have a clear conscience in publishing them.
I know I wouldn't want to find a letter online that, say, my father had written during his military service in WW2, perhaps written on a very discouraging day, and which he assumed to be for the recipient's eyes only.
And if you transcribe that letter, not just show the image, then it's available to any and all search engines.
I would obscure the identifying information.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
06:48:35pm
On the other, other hand, while letters from or to my antecedents may have been dumped in a trash bin somewhere in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn (Jensens and Arnholts ), the area around Kearney, New Jersey (Descendants of Michael Kearney) or the rural areas near Rensselear, New York ( Burkes and Corduals) were I to come upon one or more of the covers or contents, I'd do whatever is in my power to gain control of them.
Why ?
I have been building a composite family history for several years and have had some success, but would greatly enjoy further ephemera that may exist somewhere gathering dust. What I have found is interesting, but there is still a hope that more clues exist.
I am quite sure that there are others with similar hopes so if I found something I thought might be interesting I'd try to contact the potential heirs before publishing anything. All they can say is bug off, ..... politely, of course.
I just thought I's add the personal notes to my ideas about the subject. One never knows what might turn up.
Login to Like
this post
Doing a search for my fathers name on google found me the following letter from him to a sister of his deceased army comrade and friend. The letter was written in about 1937 I believe. Dad died in 1975 and the letter was unknown to all of us. It is the only example of his writing that the family has.
The letter was on a military website and if it had not been public would never have been seen by any of us.
I always look at articles that may have ancestor connections on the likes of Ebay etc or just by inputting the name into a search engine, never know what you may find.
So to me letters etc in the public domain are a godsend, but I appreciate that this does not apply to everyone.
Now if I could only find the death of his mum, sometime after 1929 I'd be a happy bunny.
Login to Like
this post
I have a dilemma. It's not keeping me awake at night, but it's interesting.
I have two covers with enclosed letters that I'd someday like to publish in web pages, but I'm not sure how to go about it in an ethical manner. Here are the details:
• One cover was written to a family member by a U.S. Navy sailor, stationed in Hawaii, just after the end of the war in 1945. He brags about "stealing the navy blind," and mailing the stolen goods home in parcels. So much for the “Good Warâ€.
• The other was written to a friend by a U.S. Marine Corps recruit in training at Camp Pendleton, during the Vietnam War. He writes about effectiveness of Marine Corps brainwashing: he can't wait to get to 'Nam and kill "gooks". There is a poignant ending to the recruit’s story — his name is among the 58,000 other names on the Wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. Vietnam War protestors might say, “Serves him right!†I say, “How very tragic.â€
My dilemma is this: Do I or do I not reveal the names of these two men and the contents of their letters?
The former letter was written 70 years ago. The man himself is probably deceased, but it's likely that members of his family are alive today. It seems to me that publishing his letter along with identifying information is tantamount to charging him with a crime and convicting him, without actual evidence. Would publishing it amount to libel? Can you libel someone who's no longer alive?
In the latter case, no criminal activity is intimated. In fact, it's legal for marines to kill enemy soldiers in a combat zone, which is what the marine said he wanted to do. (There is the question of whether the war itself was legal, since the U.S. never declared war on North Vietnam, and couldn’t declare war on the National Liberation Front, which had no official status.)
Whether the marine actually killed any communist soldiers is beside the point. More to the point is that he characterizes himself in his letter as a person who looks forward to killing communists, which places him firmly on the side of Hawks during the Vietnam War and would have made him a person to be scorned by anyone in the peace movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Even today, many people would be offended by his comments.
Of more concern however are the feelings of the marine's family, who no doubt went through a period of grief following his death and probably are still grieving.( I know that if I had been killed in Vietnam, and I had a very close call, my parents' lives would have been ruined.)
Do I have a right to publicly shine a light on that marine's letter, and explain that he died in Vietnam? I don't think so. The marine’s motto— my motto in this context — is Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful). It wouldn’t be a very faithful move on my part to break that faith by making that marine’s private letter a public document.
•••
Now, having written this, I think that I no longer have a dilemma. I know the right thing to do. But I would like to learn your thoughts.
Bob
P.S. Don't let my avatar mislead you. Although I joined the U.S. Navy in 1962, I served as a Marine Corps hospital corpsman in combat in Vietnam.
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
15 Aug 2015
05:39:54pm
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
The right thing for the right reasons! It helps when you write out your dilemma - seeing it spread before you gives you a better perspective. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
Umm, this relates to another thread.
The original authors (or heirs) continue to hold the copyrights on the letters. Further, you cannot publish them in their entirety and merely withhold the names.
Some issues are discussed in plain English (not legalese) here:
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
Chris
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
I feel that both letters are historic and true to what people were doing and thinking during those times. If those were in my collection, I'd have no issue putting them in my collection with the writer's names visible.
Then if I was posting on the Internet, I see no reason to "out" these veterans, I'd block their names. The letter from the marine is very ironic since, as you said, he was brainwashed to kill gooks and the absolute opposite actually happened! That says a lot.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
Bob,
Two different, but similar, dilemmas.
All I can say is that, if it was me, I would be withholding the names. I don't know how you got these pieces; but, whether the content leans to right or wrong, I don't think the writers ever intended a greater audience beyond the recipient of the letter.
One person probably broke the law - how did that get by the censor anyway? - the other wrote what he did as a possible confession? It brings up a dilemma. How much of one's private life should we reveal in our search of history? It's for the families to decide if it should become public (though the question is raised as to how these letters became public in the first place). If a public figure wrote the letter, and it contradicted directly what he or she has said publicly, then the letter deserves to see the light of day. Otherwise...?
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
"... One person probably broke the law ..."
If you are not talking about the Laws of War, then I imagine that you are talking about:
"... He brags about "stealing the navy blind," and mailing the stolen goods home in parcels ..."
The particular strain of Bronze Age Mythology in which I was raised requires that we make an effort to judge people favorably.
Perhaps, when he was home on leave, he complained about, say, the Navy's infamous powdered eggs. After much kidding about his obvious exaggerations, he promised to send some of this obviously useless garbage home so the family could taste for themselves. This, then, became an inside joke about "stealing the navy blind".
My own evolving standard is to redact the names of folks who might well be alive, and not bother redacting the names of folks who are in all likelihood well & truly gone.
I am mindful of the fact that, for example, any endearing message could be evidence of adultery, so I am tempted to become more strict about redacting names in any uploaded scans.
OTOH, if I found a inglorious discrediting message from some chicken hawk's family, I'd rent billboard space - or pay Google AdWords to direct attention to my treasure - but I've got an issue with people who send other people's children off to war.
Cheers,
Login to Like
this post
09:24:20am
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
I agree with Chris. The content of those letters offer a very intimate look into the heart. Those were thoughts and feelings that weren't meant to be shared with the world. I wouldn't put it out on the web. Even if the writers are gone they probably have close family out there. Ernie
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
I appreciate the many responses my original post has received, and I've learned a lot. This subject is obviously complex.
Thebiggnome wrote,
"The original authors (or heirs) continue to hold the copyrights on the letters. Further, you cannot publish them in their entirety and merely withhold the names."
It would seem, based on this comment, that it would be virtually impossible to obtain permission to publish letters of someone long dead: Would not the permission of all living heirs, excepting minors, be required? Without the permission of all of them, then what?
My family is very small, but if someone not in my family wised to publish a personal letter written by my father or mother, it seems to me that they would need the permission of my sister and myself, our spouses, our children, their children, and any living aunts, uncles, cousins. Without permission from each of us, excepting minors, it would be risky, not to mention unethical, to publish.
However, following the letter of the law and maintaining a high standard of ethical behaviour is like walking an endless tightrope across a bottomless gorge. With every jurisdiction and and every judge and jury and every paralegal watchdog applying arbitrary, fuzzy standards, it seems almost impossible to base the writing of history on anything but public documents, which we know are anything but thorough, complete, and honest.
At some point, it seems to me, it would be unethical not to publish certain personal material, the letter from the marine being a case in point. Even though young men generally believe that they are immortal (or at least haven't given the matter serious thought) need to know that that the advice they receive from governments and military organizations is quite possibly bad advice that simply doesn't advance good governance and civilized goals. To be taught that killing "gooks" is a good thing is bad enough; to die because of that teaching is a tragedy. I believe that more good would come from publishing that marine's letter, after redacting all identifying information, than from burying it in an album.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
11:05:36am
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
In the philatelic press it is common to see articles written about interesting correspondence found inside covers or written on a post card. However, these have been written mostly within an historical context following Item #10 from the link that Chris provided:
"10. Don't forget that copyright protects expression, not facts and ideas. So, even though you can only quote a limited number of words from a letter, you may still be able to summarize and discuss the facts and ideas contained therein at greater length, as long as you do so in your own words (avoiding close paraphrase)."
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
It seems to me that we are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Publish the letter but omit or censor anything that may identify the sender or recipient.
"names have been changed to protect the innocent"
Did Homer or Churchill etc never want anyone to read their thoughts, in which case why write them down?
What about all the used postcards that get sold, should we not put images on ebay or tell the purchaser they must not read the messages.
Go for it Bobstamp, just remember the saying that you cannot get blood from a stone and in prison you get your meals and accommodation provided together with tv and private security at absolutely no cost to yourself. Also your partner will probably be able to claim government benefits. Its a win win situation.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
17 Aug 2015
06:38:31am
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
The question that strikes me is how the letters came into the market place. Could it not be said that by disposing of them the potential ownership rights ended or were compromised enough that a claim would have little standing.
As a matter of social courtesy, I suppose I'd disguise the actual names or any specific information that would create added sorrow to whatever family is left. Remember that it is usual for commanding officers to write to parents or spouses of a fallen soldier a letter that implies that the death was somewhat heroic and saddened all the deceased's friends. I imagine no CO, despite the temptation, ever wrote that to next of kin ;"Your son was a terrible Marine/sailor/airman and his death was caused by his dereliction of duty, or gross stupidity, etc..."
I have a couple of letters between a GI who must have been wounded early in the South Pacific and treated in Australia by a young girl who may have been a nurses aide or candy stripper. The letters seemed quite dull at first discussing weather and her "mum's" restrictions but at times there are not just personal comments, but rather intimate remarks that as a parent I'd think justified the "Mum's" concerns. Unfortunately the correspondence is incomplete, so I am quite sure I'd never publish them anywhere where there is a chance that someone would be embarrassed or their parentage brought into question. Some things are best left undisturbed.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
Copyright is a specific legal right that must be asserted by the author.
That's what the little c-in-a-circle marking is for.
Minus that marking, or similar explicit assertion, why would copyright be an issue?
Cheers,
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Auctions
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
Ikey,
sorry, copyright protection automatically extends. It's easier, and more financially rewarding, to have pre-asserted one's copyright protection, but the presumption of protection exists in US law, much the same way that occupation of a space on a highway entitles that car to be there no matter how big or fancy or in a hurry another car might be.
I also want to thank Chris for including that discussion of copyright as it extends to unpublished correspondence. That adds so much to my understanding.
do you know whether those rules follow the general rules making the 20s the generally accepted time frame for copyright-free material today?
David
Login to Like
this post
11:45:14am
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
"That's what the little c-in-a-circle marking is for."
I'm confused; you mean this is all you need to copyright something?
You don't need to register copyrights?
What about this typical phrase you see in books?
"All rights reserved. No part of this publication, including images and text, may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, scanning, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Direct all inquires to the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by U.S. Copyright Law."
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
now we've done it.
the circled C is a convention. by itself, it's a prehistoric emoji, and not much more.
Published work is considered the publisher's or author's or.... depending on the kind of publisher, type of material, etc. In scientific journal publishing, where I live, publishers are assumed to have copyright (we secure copyright transfers from those authors who can legally surrender it; not all can or do). This is changing with open access, but let's not confuse the issue.
We often, but not always, submit material to the Library of Congress along with requisite fees registering copyright. We already enjoy the government's presumed protec tion of copyright protection; the LoC registration just helps to fortify it, but it's not needed. The C is meant to indicate that that registration process has happened, but it can also mean that I intend to defend my copyright.
But the C no more protects us than its absence allows others to copy material willy nilly. The government automatically provides protection, although it's up to us to defend it. LoC registration (and C) just further showcases that.
David
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
darn, Christopher took half the space and was twice as clear.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
A couple of members have now asked how the letters in question came into the marketplace. I bought both of them from dealers, and dealers get their material from collectors who wish to trade or sell them, from other dealers, and often from people who come into their shops with boxes (and sometimes boxes and boxes and boxes) containing collections and/or accumulations. The majority of such "box lots" must be sold or given away by heirs who know nothing about philately, and mainly want to discharge their responsibilities as heirs.
A couple of stories:
• My wife, Susan, once bought a box of 1920-30s postcards. They comprised a long correspondence among members of a family from Indianapolis. Many were quite personal; Susan My felt like she had become a part of the family. She assembled the postcards into an interesting, annotated album and managed to contact a member of the family and offered him, for free. His reply: a terse "No!" Not only did he not want the collection, he appeared to not care if anyone else had it. It was obvious that someone in the family had dumped the postcards someplace and didn’t care what happened to them.
• Several year ago my mother sent me a large box of covers and enclosed, very legible letters from a young man from Kansas City, Missouri, all clearly dated. Starting in 1942, they clearly document his military career from basic training through his release from POW camp in Germany (he was captured on the first day of the Battle of the Bulge, and for some months was listed as Missing In Action). Included are also letters from his parents to army officials about the whereabouts of their son, and responses. A V-Mail letter they wrote to their son’s commanding officer was returned with a notation saying that the intended recipient had been killed.
My mom bought the box of letters from a junk dealer. I’ve never been able to contact anyone in the soldier’s family, but I did learn that he is buried in a small community in New Mexico’s Black Range about an hour and a half drive from my childhood home and where my mother lived until she went into care a few years ago. She died in 2010. I’m guessing that that junk dealer attended a sale of the a soldier’s estate.
Surely we can assume that most of the old letters we come across no longer have value as treasured family heirlooms. It follows that the people who sold them or gave them away have no interest at all in what happens to them. Regardless of the ethics of publishing such letters, the risk of doing so seems to me to be vanishingly small.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
I stand happily corrected, and am even happier that there were so many corrections to choose from
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
"Surely we can assume that most of the old letters we come across no longer have value as treasured family heirlooms. It follows that the people who sold them or gave them away have no interest at all in what happens to them. Regardless of the ethics of publishing such letters, the risk of doing so seems to me to be vanishingly small.
"
I think I've followed this thread fairly carefully, and haven't quite seen this point raised:
Although those people sold or gave away old letters, the thoughts contained in the letters are those of the writer, not the recipient.
For this reason, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it's appropriate to publish personal information contained in them online. It may be legal to do so, but I personally don't think it's necessarily ethical to do so. In the original case that started this thread, I don't think enough time has elapsed to have a clear conscience in publishing them.
I know I wouldn't want to find a letter online that, say, my father had written during his military service in WW2, perhaps written on a very discouraging day, and which he assumed to be for the recipient's eyes only.
And if you transcribe that letter, not just show the image, then it's available to any and all search engines.
I would obscure the identifying information.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
18 Aug 2015
06:48:35pm
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
On the other, other hand, while letters from or to my antecedents may have been dumped in a trash bin somewhere in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn (Jensens and Arnholts ), the area around Kearney, New Jersey (Descendants of Michael Kearney) or the rural areas near Rensselear, New York ( Burkes and Corduals) were I to come upon one or more of the covers or contents, I'd do whatever is in my power to gain control of them.
Why ?
I have been building a composite family history for several years and have had some success, but would greatly enjoy further ephemera that may exist somewhere gathering dust. What I have found is interesting, but there is still a hope that more clues exist.
I am quite sure that there are others with similar hopes so if I found something I thought might be interesting I'd try to contact the potential heirs before publishing anything. All they can say is bug off, ..... politely, of course.
I just thought I's add the personal notes to my ideas about the subject. One never knows what might turn up.
Login to Like
this post
re: I have (or had) a dilemma
Doing a search for my fathers name on google found me the following letter from him to a sister of his deceased army comrade and friend. The letter was written in about 1937 I believe. Dad died in 1975 and the letter was unknown to all of us. It is the only example of his writing that the family has.
The letter was on a military website and if it had not been public would never have been seen by any of us.
I always look at articles that may have ancestor connections on the likes of Ebay etc or just by inputting the name into a search engine, never know what you may find.
So to me letters etc in the public domain are a godsend, but I appreciate that this does not apply to everyone.
Now if I could only find the death of his mum, sometime after 1929 I'd be a happy bunny.
Login to Like
this post