Is this a valid content idea?

Hi,

I've recently been creating a new personal finance site (my full time job is as a trader so I can write lots of my own original content) and have just realised that I'm already being sent lots of SPAM emails about mortgages, insurance, loans etc...

Would it be against TOS to publish these on a SPAM/scams/cons section of my site? And to warn users against them? Also, would the spammers be able to sue me? What they're doing is illegal anyway, but I'm not sure where I'd stand in terms of copyright and defamtions issues.

Thanks,

fcmisc.

 

Sounds like you really would need to speak with a lawyer more than trusting this to an open forum. IMHO.

 

Good point! I'm about to meet one for lunch and will have to pick his brain!

 

Who's TOS are you concerned about?

Just yesterday I received a spam with a copyright notice on it.... first time I've seen that. You would just be publishing email's you've received, can't imagine there would be any legal problems (but I'm no lawyer). Would posting the emails and labeling them as scams be a defamation issue, that might be a concern...

//oh, just noticed this is in the adsense area, so that's whose tos

 

I'm no lawyer and applying common sense doesn't always work but... Seems to me there are 2 different issues here. One is the copywrite of unique material. And the other is the mis-use by spamming with it.

If an author tosses a copy of a new book on my porch without my permission, that does not mean I can steal the copywrite and publish his book under my name.

But that's just in the court of Lee's brain...and I've lost a few cases there.

 

Would be interesting if a real spammer came forward to sue someone for defamation.

I imagine that as long as you targeted spam that was illegal you would have little to worry about... But I am not a lawyer, so I suggest the previous advice to consult with one first.

I just doubt any spammer is going to out himself to go after something as flimsy as a defamation suit.

 

It (defamation) should almost all depend on the wording you use. If you write "this is a scam" you might be in trouble, if you write "I think this is a scam" you should be safe. If you depersonalize the information from the mail (ie remove any information that identifies the sender) you should be (I think) safe.

For copyright you should be safe as long as there is no stated copyright in the mail.

ps. I'm no lawyer, not even close.

 

I would love to hear from a lawyer on this particular issue. In my opinion if someone sends you an e-mail it should be free game. You should have no expectation of privacy or protection if you send someone a letter. They should be able to republish and redistribute it as they see fit.

I think the onus and responsibility for protecting themselves has to lay at the feet of the sender, always.

 

Someone who breaks into your house or attacks a member of your family should also be 'free game' but don't expect the law to see it this way

Personally I don't see any problem publishing this sort of stuff as long as you don't supply the senders email address (it may have been spoofed from an innocent 3rd party) and stick to the facts when commenting on it. The previous comment about depersonalizing is spot on and would probably make the information more readable and relevant to any visitor - most scams/cons are ripped off from an original crooked idea anyway! Limiting the copy to quotes should also be seen as acceptable use. If you are in an EU country unsolicited spam email is illegal so the sender is even less likely to sue.

Cheers,
BP

 

I'd like to emthasise that (well, I would if I could spell), seeing as I loaded up my email client on Sunday to be faced with over 500 emails that were all bounced back from various mail servers that had been spammed my someone using my email address.

Nice.

 

Are you planning to put adsense ads on that page? I'd be very careful about that as Google will not like the fact that their ads are pulled based on spam content, instead of a real, useful resource for your visitors.

Overall, I think your idea is not good. You'll be distracted by the spam inflow and organization and worrying about the legalities of the whole thing. Instead, set a junk mail filter for those and concentrate on building a useful original resource.

 

One thing that came to mind is that radio stations and djs will read e-mail on the air because they disclaim that all e-mail sent to them has the potential to be read on the air.

Their anal retantive lawyers seem to accept this.. so maybe if you just note somewhere that any email you receive is open to be published....(maybe even use an opt-out auto-responder for a sense of irony)...

 

The content of spam emails is against the TOS: viagra, sex, drugs etc...
Besides, your "spamarchive.com" website would be a junk content site and I don't think you'd enjoy receiving money that way.

 

If you are worried about the Adsense side of things write to Google and ask them. As far as publishing the emails, I'm no lawyer and I hope your lunch date gave you good advice but I disagree with siraxi. There are a lot of people out there who fall for phishing and I have recently been overwhelmed with junk paypal pretenders. I think a section of your site advising people how to identify these emails (check the atrocious spelling for one) and what not to click, would be helpful advice for your visitors.

Quite a few years ago I put a collection of Nigerian scam email on a site. Guess what? Not one of the senders came forward to complain about it.

 

Thank you all for taking such an interest in my query.

I actually had the opportunity to discuss this with two lawyers. And though neither work in defamation or intellectual property, they gave me a brief rundown of the law (I'm in UK).

Basically, as long as I don't publish trademarks I should be OK. Quoting emails etc... and making a reasonable critique of them (e.g. pointing out errors, noting URL's that have tracking information in them...) is termed fair use. But I can't be so rude as to accuse the sender of a crime that would result in a jail sentence. Or impinge a woman's lawyer.

While a few of you have said that I'd be republishing SPAM, I will be adding value to this by helping users to identify reasons for why I think the mail is SPAM. So I should be safe enough. And before it all goes live I'll get confirmation from the Big G just to be safe.

Thank you all again for providing such a great forum.

fcmisc.

 

I've seen other sites posting notices in the site's TOS saying stuff along the lines of "you send me an email, I have the right to publish it".

Not sure about Adsense though.

 

Actually, that's not true. Anything published has an implicit copyright.
10 Big Myths about copyright explained say "in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not"

This has been a good thread. I have been thinking of doing something similar.

 

Therein lies the question then. Privately - Hardly, Originally - Well if he only publishes where he got at least two similar spams he should be safe

I say publish it (depersonalised), explain why you think it's spam (and that it might not be) and offer to remove any information where the original sender requests it.

 

I'd go further and ask for the original sender to prove it was his information and then you'll remove it

Cheers
BP

 

Thanks for the useful link tlainevool.

What I intend to do will fall under point 4 - Fair Use - of that article. Just to be safe I'm trying to look up the UK version of the law, will state that I only suspect that the emails I'm commenting on are junk, and will remove aspects that identify the sender.

fcmisc.