In a message dated 1/30/2003 7:48:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE@ARRL.org writes:
I’ve used enough bytes to try to make my point which can be summed up as: The League most certainly has or retains copyright attorneys to help in the publishing end of its business. Shouldn’t we put them to work to tell us what can and what cannot be done without exposing us unreasonably to legal action, and how to go about doing just this? Our task, subsequently, would seem to be to act with due prudence by following the legal guidance of the experts in this area of the law, and go about doing the job of promoting Amateur Radio and ARRL.
Jim, the situation is actually rather simple, and we are taking steps to fix this problem. Here is the problem: Yes, we have a new version of the video with appropriate copyright claims on it. Protecting ARRL's copyright is not the problem. Mark Wilson and the rest of the ARRL staff is very good at that, they have a regular procedure for claiming copyright on our publications in whatever format those publications appear. But we don't have: (1) releases from Walter Cronkite; (2) releases from anyone else who appears in the video; (3) releases from anyone who may own video segments, for example, the world trade center on fire, used in the video; or (4) a written release from Dave Bell, the producer, delineating what rights ARRL has. We also have Walter Cronkite's lawyer threatening to sue Glenn Baxter for distributing the video, perhaps in modified form, and making unauthorized use of Walter Cronkite's persona. We have, in hand right now, no more right than Baxter does to distribute Walter Cronkite's image and voice. In an effort to clarify the situation, Dave Bell, in my view, unintentionally muddied the waters further. He doesn't want any broadcast use of the video. That is clear and everyone understands it. But he also claims that ARRL's rights in the video are "severely limited" without explaining what those limitations are. He is in a position to determine them, and we will have to abide by that determination. But what does it mean? He is willing to have us put the video on closed circuit TV, but not on microwave, point to point feeds which, by law, can't be intercepted by third parties. That is more restrictive a presentation means than web distribution. So, our web distribution rights are unclear. All we need to do is get Bell's clarification of the distribution limitations, which we are doing. The Board is free to obtain a legal opinion from an IP lawyer, but this isn't rocket science, frankly. It is a matter of getting clearance from those who have the authority to provide it. We are doing that now. 73, Chris W3KD