Re: Press Release Copyright (was RE: Howard Stern In Denver)

[Sven Weil <sven@gord.isdn.lightning.net>]

Judging from my old job as a newspaper reporter/proof reader, we routinely
published press releases (with slight rearranging, of course) in their
entirety. 

They were mailed to our offices with THE INTENTION of being published. I
don't wee where this differs from a regular newspaper in that sense. It
wasn't used for any financial gain.



Douglas J. Broda said:
> 
> At 02:50 PM 4/29/99 -0400, Roger Kirk wrote:
> >
> >If it bears no notice to the contrary, can one reasonably  
> >assume that a press release (by definition) is intended 
> >to be copied in whole or in part for dissemination without 
> >securing the permission of the author/copyright holder?
> 
> I gotta admit I don't know. (But hey, I do mostly family law...)
> 
> Mr. Ross' statement is generally correct, of course, but whether there's an
> implied intention to allow re-dissemination of a press release is a VERY
> interesting question. (I know you can *explicitly* allow redistribution of
> a work.) I don't have time to look it up right now. Maybe next century. :)
> 
> 
> Douglas J. Broda
> Broda and Burnett
> Attorneys at Law
> 80 Ferry Street, Troy, NY 12180 USA
> (518) 272-0580
> dougbroda@mindspring.com
> 


- -- 
Sven Franklyn Weil            "The needs of the many outweigh 
<sven@lily.org>                          the needs of the few
<http://www.lily.org/~sven>                      or the one." 
                                                     -- Surak

------------------------------