Ryan Jerz :: Reno Blogger, Reno Blog

Fun, conversations, and occasional journalism from Reno, Nevada
Let the parade of horribles begin!


Misc: A brief update on my situation and copyright law

First, I am not a lawyer. I do not know for a fact how any of this actually works in law. What I’m about to tell you is based on a few conversations I have had recently and how I interpreted those conversations.

In this mess with Terri Patraw there have been two major claims by her and her lawyer. The first was defamation. She claimed that what I had said constituted defamation. There’s not really a case there, as far as I know, since there isn’t a single statement I made that was untrue. The second claim was that I violated copyright by publishing her emails to me from throughout the ordeal. I couldn’t believe the claim at the time, but in the situation, the legal wheels were working behind the scenes.

I was told from the beginning that the claim might be legitimate. It seemed ridiculous that in light of the situation I could be held liable for something I was using to show the pattern of her behavior, but I told everyone working on my case from the beginning that I would follow the law. That meant that in either charge they levied, I would remove the offending content if it could be shown that I had been wrong. If I had lied or printed false information, I would take it down and rectify the situation. If I had indeed violated copyright, I would remove the infringing content and rectify the situation.

On Wednesday evening, I had a conversation with one of the original authors of the DMCA in which he explained to me that the printing of the emails was likely something that could have violated copyright. I got a brief introduction to the laws governing copyright, and it was very interesting. While printing the full text of the emails could possibly be seen as a violation, the damages of doing so might also prove insignificant. Remember, copyright is a right that governs lost revenue and revenue made from the infringed upon materials. My interpretation was that the emails would likely prove close to worthless monetarily, and I had made no money at all on the content, so I could get away with leaving them up with little financial risk. That’s not how I roll, though.

Tonight, I took down the full text of the emails and replaced them with snippets and summaries of the originals. The spirit of the post is intact, but the legality is more solid.

I think this could also serve as a guideline for anyone thinking about printing emails they have received for any reason. Again, I’m not a lawyer or expert in this, but I would think twice before posting the full text of an email. Not only can you run afoul of the person who sent you the emails, but you could also run afoul of the actual law.


tags: copyright, defamation, emails, lawsuit, terri patraw
posted by Ryan Jerz on 05/23/2008

Comments

Frank Allison, May 24, 08:14 PM #:

Patraw and all her screen names have made a concerted effort to drag Merritt’s name through the mud.
He committed violations and was punished by the U. However, if the NCAA comes to the same conclusion as UN did, that there is no evidence of gambling by Merritt, what then? In a perfect world Merrit would be able to sue the hell out of Patraw. I can only hope.

Ryan Jerz, May 26, 10:46 AM #:

Frank Allison is a great comment name.

The Merritt situation will definitely be interesting. If he’s cleared of the gambling, then I can’t imagine him leaving it alone, but I don’t know the guy at all so I don’t have any idea. She certainly has dragged every name associated with the department through the mud, and I have to think she’ll wind up defending her actions just like they’re having to do now. Have you checked her blog? One of the letters she made me pull down is basically posted there in a little less detail. She’s outright saying that Glick sent the cops to her house to harass her. Not that I appreciate any charge of defamation, but the things she’s saying are far worse than anything I ever said about her. Hell, at least I can prove everything I said is true.

So yeah, I think she’ll have to deal with all of her crazy statements, and I wouldn’t want to have to speak on her behalf then.

Frank Allison, May 26, 04:38 PM #:

Thanks on the FA comment. I couldn’t resist.

And I have looked at her blog. I especially like the comment in her 5/18 posting “False Evidence in a Lawsuit”.

“Some parties in a lawsuit have been known to pay bloggers to smear the opponent.”

I doubt if we will ever find out but I do wonder sometimes if she really believes all the stuff she spews out.

Mike Jamieson, May 28, 08:23 AM #:

This helps a lot in answering specific questions I’ve had about reposting
emails. (In full.)

Too bad you have to take a crash course in all this, via this drama.

Commenting is closed for this article.