Dear Dr Eric, My understanding is as follows:
* There is no such thing as a "site that lies in the public domain". How would you define one? Just because a site is publicly accessible, it doesn't mean it is "in the public domain". * There question of "material consideration (or compensation)" is irrelevant to the copyright-status of any material. Except, perhaps, to the extent of whether the creator of the content OR his employer owns the copyright. * Whether something can be "retransmitted" or not depends on its copyright status, and the copyright laws of the nation concerned. It is generally a good idea, and a show of courtesy to credit and mention the creator of the content. For instance, I have 40,000 photos which can be re-used for non-commercial purposes on the Flickr site http://photosfromgoa.notlong.com But I've chosen a license which makes credit mandatory. * Finally, what is this debate related to? If a moderator of any network seeks to disallows forwards from another party to the list he/she runs, then that could have less to do with copyright issues and permissions, and more to do with list policy and preferences. Hope this "dissent" is "reasonable" :-) FN PS: I agree with what Patrice Riemens wrote on Goa-Research-Net on this issue. On 22 December 2011 19:45, eric pinto <ericpin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > As I see it, material contributed to a site that lies in the public > domain, for no material consideration (or compensation), > belongs in the public domain. It could therefore be > retransmitted without reference to and the prior consent > of the original correspondent. I act on and in this belief. > Any reasonable dissent ? eric. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Protect Goa's natural beauty Support Goa's first Tiger Reserve Sign the petition at: http://www.goanet.org/petition/petition.php ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
