|
For something to be copyrightable, it must be an "original" work of authorship that is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). A leading copyright treatise states that a work is "original" if it is "independently created by the author" and possesses "at least some minimal degree of creativity." Nimmer on Copyright, §§ 2.01[A], [B]. Therefore, a submission or comment posted online would be protected by copyright provided that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. The copyright would belong to the author and not to the site on which the comment or submission is posted. This is why many terms of use for sites that invite third-party submissions, comments, etc. provide that, in making a submission, a third party assigns all copyright to the owner of the site, who is then free to use the material as he likes without further say from the submitter. Without such terms of use, the submitter (i.e., the author) would retain the right to object to any other use being made of the submission besides the post itself as submitted by that person. Two major doctrines modify the above. First, by making the submission, the author of the comment gives at least an implied license for display on the site and for incidental copying that goes along with it. Second, fair use might allow otherwise copyrighted material to be quoted in limited ways. Given the above, I believe permissions would be needed to re-publish in magazine format any comments or other materials that reflect any degree of creativity. The magazine sounds like a great idea, though, and the problem is likely more logistic than anything, as I assume few if any contributors would not give permission if asked. |