Copyright and correspondence

[fozzy2]

What is the name of your state?

Situation: A person receives unsolicited correspondence from an attorney/law firm. It is not a service nor part of any suit. At the bottom of the letter it states "This letter is copyrighted in its entirety and any publication (including posting on the internet) is a violation of copyright laws and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

(No, it's not me that go the letter). Clearly the author simply does not want the letter publicized, but can they use the copyright law to do so? And if they can't, is it ethical for the firm to claim it can? I'm not asking about the substance of the letter, I just hadn't heard anyone try to use this caveat before. The substance of the letter leads me to believe its authors are bottom-feeders (if really attorneys) and I can see why they wouldn't want to publicize their "work product".

 

[EmNAll]

I'm NOT an attorney or anyone at all with legal knowledge, but I am a writer. As a writer, anything and everything written is copyrighted, no matter who wrote it or where. That's how you can submit a manuscript to a publisher w/o anything but your name on it and feel confident they're not going to steal it and pass it off as the work of someone else. But again, that's the "writing" side of the house.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state?

Situation: A person receives unsolicited correspondence from an attorney/law firm. It is not a service nor part of any suit. At the bottom of the letter it states "This letter is copyrighted in its entirety and any publication (including posting on the internet) is a violation of copyright laws and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

(No, it's not me that go the letter). Clearly the author simply does not want the letter publicized, but can they use the copyright law to do so? And if they can't, is it ethical for the firm to claim it can? I'm not asking about the substance of the letter, I just hadn't heard anyone try to use this caveat before. The substance of the letter leads me to believe its authors are bottom-feeders (if really attorneys) and I can see why they wouldn't want to publicize their "work product".

**A: post the letter word for word.

 

[fozzy2]

**A: post the letter word for word.

"It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" is not one of the laws more common sayings.

I don't have the text handy even if I were inclined to post it before I found out whether or not it should be posted. But to be more specific, while I think that virtually everything written is covered by copyright, isn't there an "implied license" in business correspondence? If such items are copyright protected, is the copyright in effect unenforceable? You would think that there would be a vast number of copyright lawsuits if reproducing a business letter were grounds for a suit.

The letter (an e-mail) was from a "firm" that sounds like a law firm but the letter does not specifically state they are lawyers. It threatens potential future litigation in conjunction with "associates" (clients? real lawyers?) unless a certain web site offers to settle copyright claims for a fee...
To make a long story short, this may be a scam. (Among other things, it never mentions anyone whose copyright was specifically violated). No, it certainly wasn't an RIAA letter .

At any rate, it probably rates as an "original product" for being so threatening and yet nebulous. But what I am wondering about is the use of a copyright warning to prevent publication. Clearly, for example, scam artists don't want their pitches posted. But even IF it is a legitimate business....?

 

[fozzy2]

An example...

I've found a different example that uses the same kind of language. This is from a more well known company. I'll post a link to the text:

http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_mail.txt

note: I was originally doing some research on copyright enforcement on-line and have found this 'copyrighted/do not reproduce' caveat in communications from a couple of different sources. I find it odd that other businesses don't seem to include this caveat/threat. Is it a new thing, or are these copyright guys just anal about copyrights?