Does copyright affect personal communications?

[kevrosmith]

While I have not consented to publically posting this private message

Briefly on this point, though while a bit OT, I must admit that I was a bit surprised when the private response from Red Roo was posted verbatim in the public thread. What's the general consensus on this? I must admit, if I sent a private message to another member on the forum, I possibly would not expect them to post it publicly. Does this general principle apply in this instance?

In my experience, when I've had private communication with Company reps regarding specific issues, I've attempted to convey the intent behind their specific response.

 

[TheRealTMA]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Briefly on this point, though while a bit OT, I must admit that I was a bit surprised when the private response from Red Roo was posted verbatim in the public thread. What's the general consensus on this? I must admit, if I sent a private message to another member on the forum, I possibly would not expect them to post it publicly. Does this general principle apply in this instance?

In my experience, when I've had private communication with Company reps regarding specific issues, I've attempted to convey the intent behind their specific response.

Technically and legally it's illegal to post private communications without permission since it's a breach of copyright . Such behaviour on other forums has resulted in very large legal payout, although this also involved defamation and other issues.

In this specific case, it's marginal but one would have to assume that since it was the topic of discussion and the receiver said the response when received would be posted, the sender should have the expectation that it would be posted. Although specific permission should have been sought I would suggest before posting the verbatim reply...

 

[OzEire]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Reading this thread it was fairly clear that Ansett would post the QF/RR response to this issue. Many AFF members, myself included, were interested in that response.

In general, publicly posting a PM doesn't sit right with me and I feel it would have been worth asking permission to do so.

The simpler course of action would have been for RR to put the delay apology directly to Ansett via PM and then note that a substantive response to the various point(s) would be made in the thread.

 

[basso]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Technically and legally it's illegal to post private communications without permission since it's a breach of copyright . Such behaviour on other forums has resulted in very large legal payout, although this also involved defamation and other issues.

It's also a breach of the forum rules:

* Personal Messages are "personal" by definition and cannot be posted or shared without the consent of all parties. The only exception are PMs to/from AFF Moderators and Administrators which could be shared internally amongst this group.

 

[medhead]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Can a company have personal messages?

 

[RooFlyer]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

I have as you may see deleted my post that has caused some controversy and sent an apology email to Red Roo.

I had mentioned on many occasions that I would be posting the reply in the forum and with no restrictions mentioned in the email, re communicating, I presumed that red Roo did not have any issue with this. Obviously I was wrong and apologise.

Probably the right thing to do, but following the thread I too had no doubt -no doubt at all! - that the response from QF, when it came would be posted here, so was surprised that RR took issue. I was a bit cynical about that, but bit my tongue (held my typing fingers) then. Perhaps a case of the party being complained about wishing to steer things such that the party being complained about appears to be a hard-done-by party.

If you can be bothered to do it, I think a summary of the advice from Qantas would be a very useful post. Please do.

 

[Spongbob]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Can a company have personal messages?

Companies have a legal personality, so I guess they can.

 

[medhead]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

Companies have a legal personality, so I guess they can.

That doesn't really answer the question. A company providing an official company response via their official company channel, is that a personal and private communication? Keeping in mind that I've PMs from Red Roo that would be of a personal nature, that I wouldn't share.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Technically and legally it's illegal to post private communications without permission since it's a breach of copyright .

can you provide a link to the case (or law) which supports this proposition?

Breach of AFF rules/guidelines aside, I'd be interested to know if it is actually a breach of copyright.

 

[medhead]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

can you provide a link to the case (or law) which supports this proposition?

Breach of AFF rules/guidelines aside, I'd be interested to know if it is actually a breach of copyright.

I missed the copyright reason. Also interested to know the situation.

 

[TheRealTMA]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

can you provide a link to the case (or law) which supports this proposition?

Breach of AFF rules/guidelines aside, I'd be interested to know if it is actually a breach of copyright.

Sorry don't have time to chase this up atm. However as a general principle, all correspondence including email is subject to copyright by the author. One can't post or reproduce this to third parties without permission.

 

[pagingjoan]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Sorry don't have time to chase this up atm. However as a general principle, all correspondence including email is subject to copyright by the author. One can't post or reproduce this to third parties without permission.

You may be thinking of this type of warning that appears at the foot of many emails from commercial entities?
(It does not exactly align with your statement but may be what you are referencing? It has some of the "flavour", so may have triggered the thought.)

(Redundant disclaimer: IANAL )

<This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of ........................ ABN ........ or any of its related entities ........ .......... does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication.>

 

[medhead]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Sorry don't have time to chase this up atm. However as a general principle, all correspondence including email is subject to copyright by the author. One can't post or reproduce this to third parties without permission.

That doesn't sound correct. Copyright is for protecting people's ideas or creative concepts.

 

[RooFlyer]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Sorry don't have time to chase this up atm. However as a general principle, all correspondence including email is subject to copyright by the author. One can't post or reproduce this to third parties without permission.

As an author of a couple of books, I can't say that I've seen that interpretation of copyright before. Interesting one.

Edit: this appears to be pretty clear, it being an 'internet answer' notwithstanding.

 

[opusman]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

That doesn't sound correct. Copyright is for protecting people's ideas or creative concepts.

Please don't presume that everyone's emails are as devoid of creativity as yours apparently are

Some references (from the US, but Australian copyright law is practically the same):

Do Not Forward: Why Passing Along An Email May Constitute Copyright Infringement | Northeastern University Law Journal Online
https://law.unh.edu/franklin-pierce-ip-center/studying-ip-at-unh-law/ip-basics/copyright-internet

 

[medhead]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Please don't presume that everyone's emails are as devoid of creativity as yours apparently are

Some references (from the US, but Australian copyright law is practically the same):

Do Not Forward: Why Passing Along An Email May Constitute Copyright Infringement | Northeastern University Law Journal Online
https://law.unh.edu/franklin-pierce-ip-center/studying-ip-at-unh-law/ip-basics/copyright-internet

My emails generally deal in fact not creative concepts. One may cynically argue that the response was creative. But as a report of investigation findings it should also be factual.

 

[prozac]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

It has been my understanding that you cannot post online a "copy and paste" either in part or in entirety an article or other piece of an online site. That is a breach of copyright. It is my understanding that you may however post a link when referencing something.

 

[TheRealTMA]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

That doesn't sound correct. Copyright is for protecting people's ideas or creative concepts.

Actually copyright is the right to protect and copy a 'work' of the creator of the 'work'. It does not specifically require or involve any creative concepts (except the act of creating the 'work') or protecting ideas as such, just the 'work'.

But I actually have actual work to do so I'll leave it there.

 

[medhead]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

Actually copyright is the right to protect and copy a 'work' of the creator of the 'work'. It does not specifically require or involve any creative concepts (except the act of creating the 'work') or protecting ideas as such, just the 'work'.

But I actually have actual work to do so I'll leave it there.

You need to tell the attorney general that information. His website seems to think it is about creative concepts and ideas. Protecting the creator's right to their idea. As I said it doesn't seem correct to suggest that extends to all correspondence, especially stuff that lacks an original idea, concept or creation. For example, this very post.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

re: RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

Perhaps this summary, from an Australian univertisty, is worth considering: Emails - Flinders University

Emails are subject to copyright, but 'the printing, copying or forwarding of emails is generally not considered to breach copyright'. However as the article points out, there may be other reasons to consider before forwarding an email - such as confidentiality or privacy issues.