<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Finding the future (some recent mail)</title><link>http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/12/54687.aspx</link><description>A proudly eclectic mix of interesting links from readers.  The headline refers to the possibility that high achieving members of social sites could be the celebrities or media figures of the future.  Plus, will future generations need to add a fifth "base"</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)</generator><item><title>Finding the future (some recent mail)</title><link>http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/12/54687.aspx#54785</link><pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:09:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:54785</guid><dc:creator>Paul, Alamo, CA</dc:creator><description>Copyright is supposed to be protection of *published* work. Email is generally not considered publication on the face of it. Copyrighted work normally needs to assert its copyright to be protected. Further, reproduction of existing copyrighted work does not alter the protection of said work (so, including copyrighted work in an email does not change its protection; but, writing a new poem in an email may lose protection). The real issue is what "contract" exists between the author and recipient. Sending an email to a blogger is different than sending your manuscript to a publisher which is different than personal correspondence which is different from work email. Many "public" recipients do explain what rights you give up when sending them email, but it generally defaults based on the nature of the relationship.
What is more interesting here is the nature of privacy, rather than copyright. But, given that a personal letter to someone is not copyrighted, it is hard to see how new precedent would get established for personal emails. The issue may revolve around personally identifiable information being released - this is a privacy issue. The artist did not release his GF's personal information, so was not violating that. Libel should not be possible here, even though his "editing" of the words could be defamatory (create a fraud), given that he did not identify the person.</description></item><item><title>Finding the future (some recent mail)</title><link>http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/12/54687.aspx#1934487</link><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 03:57:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1934487</guid><dc:creator>clipping path, cochin, kerala</dc:creator><description>Great stuff! &amp;nbsp;Thanks for sharing!!</description></item></channel></rss>