Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1012266486

From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: U.S. Copyright Law (was: several related threads with diffeent titles)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:08:06 GMT
References: <>

On 28 Jan 2002 10:52:10 -0700, wrote:

[much snipping]

>So far as receiving Mr. Baldwin's permission to run the post -- he said he
>never sent it -- my assumption is that this is truly the case and it was an
>oversight on my part.

And were the OTHER times that you printed my postings without my
permission ALSO an oversight on your part? You are asking people to
swallow a pretty unbelievable chain of coincidences. If you had
stopped taking my material after I asked you to stop, your claim that
it was all a mistake might even have been believable. However, after
I told you in no uncertain terms that I did not want you publishing
any more of my material, you STILL published material of mine without
my permission that went WAY beyond fair use.

For the record, there is one (and ONLY one) time that I granted Ken
permission to use a short quote of what I had posted on s.g.m. This
was not long after his agreement of January of 2000 (which he has now
rescinded), and Ken asked to quote an item (3 paragraphs) in which I
had briefly described some research done by others, and I agreed (see
The Plantagenet Connection, Winter 2000, pp. 160-1). At the time, I
believed that Ken was trying to turn over a new leaf, and was trying
to be a more responsible editor, so I gave him permission for that one
item, a decision I now regret. (It is a mistake that I am not likely
to repeat.)

>At this point in time absolutely no one was denying me permission to quote

How many people were you actually asking at the time? For those who
have given permission to Mr. Finton, it would be interesting to know
the actual dates on which Mr. Finton first requested permission to
publish s.g.m postings, and how that compares with the dates on which
he started taking material.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: