I want to paraphrase, reword, report on the content of a
newsletter I subscribe to (for lots of money) and charge people much
less money for my rewording/reporting/restating of the material it
contains.

The information contained in the newsletter is not proprietary nor
trademarked nor legally protected in any way other than copyright(as
far as I can
tell).

I only want to share the ideas, concepts, tips, etc. included in the
newsletter, NOT how they are stated. I can and will change all
wording.

I will be reporting on the content, not simply regurgitating it. None
of what I share will be verbatim.

If the newsletter says, "Be sure to dot your teas and cross your
eyes." I would restate it something like, "They recommend you pay
attention to every little detail."


When signing up for this newsletter online there is an agreement that
includes this statement:

"I understand and agree to never to disclose, publish, release or
resell the information in any way, shape or form, or I will be in
violation of international copyright laws and pursued under the
strictest penalties allowed."

However, because this invokes the international copyright laws as the
binding legal constraint, and these laws specify that ideas are not
copyrightable (only their exact presentation), it seems to me that
this clause is unenforcable as they are trying to apply it (given the
way I intend to paraphrase the information (ideas) and not directly
copy the content in any way).

As I understand it, information is not copyrightable internationally
or otherwise. You can trademark information. You can patent
information. You cannot copyright information. Only the exact
presentation of information.

As far as I can tell, you cannot protect information with copyright
laws, you can only protect the way the information is presented. I am
not creating a derivative work. I am simply reporting on the content
of someone else's work.

The ideas shared in the newsletter are about selling and marketing
and using widely available business tools. None of it could be
considered "original creative content". It is not a work of fiction.
It is non-fiction tips and techniques that others are already aware of and
doing.

I believe this warning on their site is a bluff and would like to call their bluff.

Is my assessment correct? Can you cite actual examples one way or the other?

I guess it comes down to this, is information copyrightable or not? 

If I say in a newsletter that I publish, "You should test headlines
with an a/b split in your direct mail campaigns." Is that protected if
someone reports on my story by saying, "He says you'd be smart to test
your direct mail headlines with an a/b split before rolling it out to
your entire list." I don't think so. Certainly not under copyright
law.

Sooo, what's the verdict?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 03 Apr 2006 14:16 PDT

I think I would have been inclined to agree with you a month or so ago.

But the notorious Da Vinci Code infringement case has me rethinking
things.  The author of the book is being sued for exactly what you
described...borrowing ideas rather than verbatim text:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001815.html


http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060303_153729_5944


If you haven't read up on this case, you probably should.  

I don't think a case like this would have had legs in US courts. But
it clearly has traction in the UK.  Since you specifically asked about
international law, it could well be that the outcome of this case will
tell the tale.

Take a look at the above links, and let me know what you think.


pafalafa-ga

Copyright law is a mighty nebulous area. There's currently a dispute
over whether Dan Brown may have lifted some of his ideas for "The Da
Vinci Code" from an earlier book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." I don't
think it is being alleged that there was word-for-word plagiarism, but
the lawsuit is proceeding anyway.

Articles, whether copyrighted or not, are lifted regularly every day. 

The Day of Reckoning arrives only when someone decides to sue then,
whether you win, lose or draw, it could be extremely expensive.

Copyright © Bryan 2006

The selection and arrangement of information IS subject to copyright
protection in the U.S.  Thus, close paraphrases could get you into hot
water.  An acceptable approach could be to do a newsletter that gives
a "blurb" about articles in other publications.  For example, "This
month's Expensive Newsletter has a useful article on using trademark
law to protect celebrity images."  If on the other hand, you are
giving a long paraphrase of the substance of the source article, I
believe that you could be in trouble under the "selection and
arrangement" principle.

Furthermore, you could be liable for breach of contract, even if your
copyright theory worked out.  (For example, if a newsletter consisted
entirely of long quotations selected from 18th-century essays, your
reproduction of these public domain materials would seem to violate
the contract.  The contract seems a little murky, but I would think
carefully about how much I would be willing to pay an attorney to
explain my interpretation of the contract to the judge.  A strong
counterargument would be that "international law" should be read to
include not only TRIPS and the Berne Convention but the national law
of various countries.

I you are still thinking about moving forward with this, get the
advice of an attorney well-versed in matters of copyright.

As soon as they discover what you are doing, they will cancel your
subscription and access to the information for your service.