Text 31667, 104 rader
Skriven 2006-06-13 09:48:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31591 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello Janis.

12 Jun 06 16:25, you wrote to me:

 >>> No, he has not republished it.

 >> In a number of very similar cases Dutch courts have ruled that it is
 >> a republication. Or whatever is the translation of "nieuwe
 >> openbaarmaking".

 JK> These are not similar.

They are very similar, read on.

 JK> In the first example you sent me, "Peter Mom against VNU business
 JK> Publications B.Ve" (NOTE: a  business!!) VNU maintained the rights to
 JK> publishing its own materiel, not on a thousand websites.. "Offering
 JK> the publications on other Internet sites is however a separate
 JK> publication for which also authorisation must become obtained. "

 JK> Michiel, it is the EXACT same in this country.  If you want to use any
 JK> material from a commercial BUSINESS magazine, you must ask permission
 JK> first.  That example has no bearing on this situation with your
 JK> article.

This shows my reluctance to provide you with references in Dutch was fully
justified. I told you translating legal documents is tricky business. You
obviously ran it through some robot translator and it fubarred.

Sure, using material from a commercial business magazine requires permission.
But that is not the issue at hand! You understood nothing of the case, you
apparently didn't even get it right as to who is the plaintiff and who is the
accused. It was not the magazine protesting against the use of their material
without permission, it was the author protesting against the publisher using
his articles without permission.

Peter Mom, a freelance journalist offered article's to a publisher, VNU
business publication, for inclusion in one of their magazines.

Exactly the same as when I offered my article to Björn for inclusion in
FidoNews. That a commercial party is involved in the Mom vs VNU case is
irrelevant, Dutch law equally applies to commercial and non-commercial parties.
The reason most court cases involve commercial parties is simply that when
substantial amounts of money are involved people have a bigger incentive in
taking things to court.

Mon's articles were published in the printed version of the magazine and were
also available on the on-line version via the publisher's website.

So far so good.

Then the publisher opened *another* website and made the on-line version of the
magazine, including Mom's articles, *also* available via that website. To this
Mom protested, he claimed it was a new publication that required his renewed
permission. Same as what I claim regarding Shannon's website.

The court put him in the right and awarded him compensation  (Though not as
much as he asked for).

This case shows:

1) That those claiming that by submitting an article to a magazine for
publication, the author gives up all rights, have it wrong. Mon was not laughed
out of court, as some claim would happen to me, his case was accepted by the
court and judged on merit.

2) That publishing an article on another website - in part, in toto, as part of
a collection or separate, is a *new publication* that requires renewed
permission. That is about the only part that your robot translator got right.
More or less...

 >> http://www.boek9.nl/weblog2/pivot/entry.php?id=1864

 JK> And this example is over the copyright of DOMAIN NAME :)

No, your robot translator fubarred again. Both references are about the same
case. The first is an article about the case, the second reference (the .pdf)
is the official record of the court.

 JK> You should realize

You should realize that you can not judge Dutch law from a distance. You must
know the culture, the history the cases and last but certainly not least, you
must know the language. Reading a translation of a Dutch law book is not
enough, not by far.

 JK> that these examples you sent me have nothing to do with a club
 JK> newsletter,

Janis, face it, you had no idea what these cases were all about. And it is not
"cases" plural, the two references were about the same case. In the first, you
had the plaintiff and the accuser mixed up and you thought the second was about
a domain name. You had no idea!

 JK> a compilation of individual articles, being distributed as designed
 JK> to it's members and displayed by those members on their bbs systems.

They have everything to do with it, but you will never see that if you continue
to look at it from across an ocean through the eyes of a robot tramslator.

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)