Should you publish emails on your blog without the senders consent?
Last week Michael Arrington posted about the new pay structure at the blog network b5Media. One of the first commenters questioned TechCrunch’s decision to publish an email without b5Media’s consen. His comment simply said :
Pretty unethical to re-post an entire private email publicly
Erick Schonfeld replied to the comment saying :
No, it is not unethical. We post internal memos, letters, and documents from businesses we get all the time. So does the New York Times. So does every news organization in the world.
As long as we didn’t obtain the information unethically (which we didn’t, it was sent to us unasked for), it is fair game.
It’s called news. And the reason we post things like this is to give you, our readers, a deeper insight into the businesses and industries we cover.
Joseph Raymond added :
Internal memos still hold their copyright unless the author has released it to the public. The addressee of a physical letter becomes of the owner of the physical letter only, i.e., the addressee is not conferred reproduction or publication rights over the letter received. Those are still held by the author. I suggest you get a legal opinion Eric. Copying an entire letter is difficult to defend as fair use.
Is publishing emails on your blog unethical?
In this instance I don’t think that TechCrunch acted unethically. The email was sent to hundreds of people, including TechCrunch, therefore I believe that it’s ok to publish a press release type email like this. However, I was a bit surprised by Erick Schonfeld’s statement :
As long as we didn’t obtain the information unethically (which we didn’t, it was sent to us unasked for), it is fair game.
Am I to assume that any emails I send to a news website maybe published without my consent? I certainly hope not.
The reason this subject interests me is because this happened to me many times in the past year. Mostly I wasn’t concerned with the parts which were published but on a few occasions I had to email the blogger and ask if they could remove it from their post. Regardless, on every occasion the blogger published parts of my email to them without even asking.
Here is what I used to think :
- If you get sent a press release type email which has been sent to hundreds of other bloggers, you don’t need permission to post it unless the email specifies that it shouldn’t be posted.
- If you are publishing a full email, you should ask the sender if it is ok to republish it in full.
- If you are publishing a very small part of the email which isn’t private, it should be ok to post it.
To clarify my third point, I think that if you are just publishing a small part of an email which you don’t believe the sender will have a problem with, then you should just go ahead and post it. For example, if someone emailed me and asking me for help with a CSS problem then I wouldn’t have any problems with them publishing the response on their blog.
However, it isn’t always obvious if the sender will have a problem with a certain part of an email being published. This is why I now think that you should always check with the sender before publishing any part of it on your blog (except press release & mass emails).
What do you think : Should you publish emails on your blog without the senders consent?
Jeremy Wright | October 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am #
For the record: this was an internal communication. Sent *only* to our team. Which contained a confidentiality and a legal notice against republication (making the copyright claim quite clear).
That said, in today’s media world you have to assume all communication will go public. However it wasn’t sent to TechCrunch by b5
Kevin Muldoon (Post Author) | October 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am #
Thanks for clarifying Jeremy. Erick Schonfeld suggested that you emailed it to them directly, this obviously changes the ballgame a little. By the sounds of it TechCrunch do this quite regularly,
Jeremy Wright | October 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm #
I took Erick’s comments to mean it was emailed to them by someone else (ie: they didn’t seek it out), which I think is accurate: someone leaked it to them
Not to say TechCrunch doesn’t do such and such regularly, just that in this case I’m sure it was leaked to them (since we didn’t send it directly, and I’m not sure waht Option C could be!)
Christie Adams | October 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm #
I think real world rules apply-if someone tells you explicitly not to share the information, then you should keep it to yourself. Otherwise, you know that any information you share might get passed along.
And-as we’re seeing here-sharing information can look bad on you, too. Bottom line: think it through before you post it up.
David | October 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm #
I think he could have sufficiently reported on the facts listed within the e-mail without posting the full text of the e-mail. To do so was just rude.
Armen | October 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm #
This is interesting.
I’ve noticed more people adding disclaimers to their emails that state confidentiality, unless otherwise told. It’s probably wise to be on the safe side I suppose.
Jeremy Wright | October 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pm #
For the record, given the choice between someone like Mike excerpting and then putting the wrong spin on it, vs republishing the whole thing, I’d prefer the latter
Mike Abundo | October 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm #
Yes — especially when the email is proof of wrongdoing.
Sumesh | October 8th, 2008 at 4:11 am #
I was in a confusion early this year when I contemplated publishing an email from my (former) employer, but then decided to describe the email in my own words(as opposed to reproducing it). That way, readers will know the crux of the matter, and there won’t be legal trouble (I think!).
As for the web, not every one has the time to sue TechCrunch and other blogs, though I’m pretty sure Arrington would’ve sued b5m if the oppposite(b5m leaking TC stuff) had happened
Vanessa | October 8th, 2008 at 8:04 am #
Generally no you shouldn’t. It’s not good web etiquette. It’s like giving out someone’s telephone number.
On the other hand, if it’s about business, you should have an e-mail address exclusively for business use with the understanding it will be used in the context you mention.
If I pass out a business card am I offended when that person gives it to someone else without asking for my permission?
One site I’ve had for about six years, I know most of the subscribers pretty well now. When they send a comment or something they would like posted I never post the email or the name unless they have given prior permission. When I post it I include a blurb stating I do not post names or e-mails without permission. If they would like the information included it is up to them to let me know. I don’t have time to send a request to ask.
With a business, a separate e-mail address is as appropriate as a separate phone line. E-mail is a tool used for personal and business contacts. You shouldn’t leave anyone guessing which it is.
David Bradley | October 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am #
Legally speaking from a UK perspective at least, if someone sends you a letter (and in law an email is just a digital letter), as soon as it enters the postal system the letter is essentially the property of the recipient, you can do what you want with it. If you are a publisher (whether newspaper or blog) and someone sends you a letter, unless they specifically say NOT FOR PUBLICATION, you have free rein. And, even then, I don’t think N4P or OFF THE RECORD are actually legally binding, although the correspondent may like to think so.
Deb Ng | October 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm #
My general rule of thumb is if you don’t have permission to publish, don’t, even with emails.