Boston University School of Public Health

Among the most straightforward and useful guides in this respect are Brad Templeton's "A Brief Intro to Copyright" and "10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained." Regarding three areas that should concern us, here are some excerpts from Templeton:

Linking
For the time being it is fairly safe to put links on your Web site to another site. However, this is an undecided issue upon which the courts has never ruled. This can be considered a area of limited liability unless, according to Templeton's document, "Linking Rights," " . . . you know that owners of a site don't want you linking inside, and you do it anyway just so people can get around their rules, then I think that if their rules are upheld as valid then you could be held liable for contributory infringement."

Fair Use
This is still an area where we can exercise some freedom if we combine this with good judgment. Since we work largely in the areas of scholarly activity and research, and so long as we do not damage the commercial value of the work we are borrowing from, we can consider using a portion of some copyrighted material for teaching related activities.

According to Templeton, "The 'fair use' exemption to copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research, and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Intent and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticize the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times' Web site?"

He continues, "The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't. Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the workGÇöin the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden)."

Accordingly we should be able to put a picture of the Camel cigarette ad campaign on a Web site for the Mass Communication and Public Health course since the Fair Use law may be interpreted in this case as a means to prevent employing the copyright law to limit criticism. However, we should proceed in this area with caution as this aspect of the law remains complex, cloudy, and largely interpretive.

E-mail
This is something we probably don't think much about at this point; however, as e-mail becomes more a piece of the fabric of our communication and culture, this is something that bears consideration. Quoting Templeton's Myth #10, "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it." To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the e-mail you write is copyrighted. However, e-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on whatever e-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value; but if you want to stay strictly within the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts e-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary, non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value, with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all e-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honor."