Suzy Klein and "The D'Oyly Carte"

[Ein Heldenleben]

If it helps yes technically emails are copyright . Even if it's written by an employee s/he may have personal copyright in the email . Realistically I would have thought any journalist / producer / writer responding to a general enquiry would have no problem with that being being published more widely - they are in the business of public communication and if people want to reproduce it great . Where it gets more complicated is a response to a complaint . Then it would be reasonable to have some expectation of privacy in the reply but to be honest you have to assume those get might get published as well.

[Barbirollians]

If it helps yes technically emails are copyright . Even if it's written by an employee s/he may have personal copyright in the email . Realistically I would have thought any journalist / producer / writer responding to a general enquiry would have no problem with that being being published more widely - they are in the business of public communication and if people want to reproduce it great . Where it gets more complicated is a response to a complaint . Then it would be reasonable to have some expectation of privacy in the reply but to be honest you have to assume those get might get published as well.

Much of the discussion strikes me as bizarre. I am far from sure how copyright comes into this at all . Is the content of an e-mail intellectual property ? If it contains a trade secret or a piece of valuable advice then probably . A response to an enquiry from the member of the public as to why the performers were not credited - I cannot see how or what property there is in it .

The more relevant question is whether it is confidential . Has an express duty of confidence been imposed ? I doubt it . Then is it information of a nature that one might reasonably expect the recipient to appreciate is confidential - again how can that be the case ? I see nil reason in the absence of such considerations why an e mail from the BBC cannot be quoted on here .

[Master Jacques]

I see nil reason in the absence of such considerations why an e mail from the BBC cannot be quoted on here .

Barbirollians, I am with you; but there is perhaps a difference between quoting an email selectively (OK) and reproducing it wholesale (not OK).

In this case it was pointed out to me by the producer who had replied to me, that quoting both her name and the personal anecdote she included (to indicate that she at least had no prejudice against the music of Sullivan, but had loved it dearly from her youth up) was unacceptable, as these were not intended for public consumption. I agreed with her, and given the BBC's copyright in the entire email (which I originally posted verbatim) decided it was easiest to delete the post, and to later re-post just the performing details she had provided. (Those turned out to be inaccurate, but that's another thing entirely!)

[Barbirollians]

Barbirollians, I am with you; but there is perhaps a difference between quoting an email selectively (OK) and reproducing it wholesale (not OK).

In this case it was pointed out to me by the producer who had replied to me, that quoting both her name and the personal anecdote she included (to indicate that she at least had no prejudice against the music of Sullivan, but had loved it dearly from her youth up) was unacceptable, as these were not intended for public consumption. I agreed with her, and given the BBC's copyright in the entire email (which I originally posted verbatim) decided it was easiest to delete the post, and to later re-post just the performing details she had provided. (Those turned out to be inaccurate, but that's another thing entirely!)

The personal details of the producer and her personal anecdote could well fall within what could be expected to be treated as confidential so I think you were right but for different reasons !