Sunday, June 15, 2014

Personal Letters Are Copyrights.


An anonymous poster asked this question, which is found here.  According to the poster, he stated: 

Like I said, prove that it is against the law to have a copy of the letter, especially since it was given by the author; quote the law. I would want to remain anonymous if I was the contact to avoid harassment from crazies like you all. Again, where is the law that makes it illegal, and provide the evidence, not speculation, that the law applies to this specific case.

Having a copy of the letter depends on how it was obtained?  Was it sent by the person who wrote the letter?  We already know that Cardinal Tagle sent his written letter to Jennifer Dulla, Tony Diaz, and Sister Mariam.  Their names are on the letter.  Tim Rohr, on the other hand, stated that he obtained a copy of the letter from his contact in Manila....a contact he refused to name.  Even his contact wrote in Junglewatch and refused to reveal himself.  Mr. Rohr never said that he obtained the copy of the letter from the cardinal. 

Another issue is the publication of the letter.  Does Tim Rohr actually have the permission from the cardinal to publish his written letter?  Every personal letter is a copyright and is owned by the person who wrote the letter.  Why didn't the Umatuna publish the cardinal's letter?  Perhaps, it is because they did not have his permission to do so.  Below is a weblink giving legal advise to questions on the Internet.  The question deals with copyright on personal correspondence.  The question asked was:  


Question:   Can I publish personal letters to me from someone else without the sender's permission? 

The answer was provided by the Law Office of Michael Hermann.  According to his legal advise: 

Answer:   No. The writer of the letter owns the copyright and all derivative rights(including copying and publication). Even though you received the letter, and consider it your property, the writing is not yours, and you must obtain permission from the copyright holder for re-publication. If you publish without an OK, you could be subject to penalties under copyright law, and possibly other state laws,(invasion of privacy, defamation,(?) depending on the content matter, and depending on whether your disclosures results in damages or harm to the reputation of the writer.

Legal Advise on Personal Correspondence

According to the Law Office of Michael Hermann, the writer of the letter owns the copywrites and all derivative rights, which includes copying and publication.  Therefore, even if the Cardinal sent Jennifer Dulla a personal letter written by him, the words in that letter is a copyright and cannot be published without the permission from the cardinal.  This not only brings into question the Cardinal's personal letter that was published in Junglewatch, but also all personal correspondence between Aaron Quitugua and Father Adrian and correspondence between Father Paul and the Archbishop.  Did Mr. Rohr obtain permission to publish those personal letters in his blogsite from Father Adrian and the Archbishop as well as the other writers?   



39 comments:

  1. Tim Rohr spells defamation....

    ReplyDelete
  2. WHY DONT WE ASK CARDINAL TAGLE his opinion on the matter? He sent the letter, and it was a rebuttal to the incorrect information that was printed. Cardinal Tagle wanted the matter set straight and handled it with great dignity. Why didn't the Umatuna not publish Cardinal Tagle's letter for all the Umatuna readers to see that it was a mistake..... what is the BIG COVER-UP? HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY..... if it was an HONEST mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:29 a.m.,

      First of all, the cardinal's letter was not a rebuttal. This was never a debate as to whether the Umatuna was right or wrong. The letter was issued as a correction just as the letter stated. We already know that the Cardinal sent the letter to three people.....not four. Tim Rohr's name was not in it. And Tim Rohr admitted that he did not obtain the letter from the cardinal, but from an unknown contact in Manila. If the Cardinal really wanted his letter published, he would have sent it to a journalist here in Guam. Tim Rohr is not a journalist.

      Delete
    2. Cardinal Tagle has bigger mission rather to deal with a petty fink. The issue here Tim Rohr have obtain letter with no permission and post it on his blog. I won't be surprise someone might push legal matters to him.

      Delete
    3. Why nobody's writing about the content of the letter? Did the NCW lie about the 'invitation' or not?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 9:53 p.m.

      An invitation was given to the Way on Guam and even in Saipan. The confusion was on WHO gave the invitation. It was the NCW in the Philippines who invited us, not the cardinal.

      Delete
  3. Get permission from Cardinal Tagle to print the letter in the Umatuna.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:30 a.m.,

      The question is did Tim have permission from the Cardinal to publish his letter in his blogsite. And did he have permission from Father Adrian, the Archbishop, Father Paul, and Araon Quitugua in publishing their personal correspondence?

      Delete
  4. Diana this is speculation, and contributory defamation on your part. Unless you have proof that Card. Tagle did not give JW the letter AND advised JW not to publish the letter; then you cannot go down this road of persecution. Directly or indirectly.

    JW does not have to reveal their sources. However if you have irrefutable evidence that he was not allowed to receive and publish the letter then please bring it out.

    This is just like the invitation...The Cardinal invited Guam NCW, the Bishops invited, we were invited, we were invited, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... But where's your invitation?? Where's your RSVP?? Nobody produced the paper.

    So do you have any evidence that his statements are NOT TRUE? Seems the other site JW gathers and documents their resources and references before they go out and publish....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM still did not answer the question. Was the letter for Tim or not? Yes or no? Did Umatuna authorize you to have the letter? If not, is defamation.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 8:50 a.m.,

      First of all, these are questions that I am ASKING on this post.

      Newspaper organizations and journalists are protected by shield laws. Junglewatch is not a news organization, and Tim Rohr is not a journalist. I believe that it is Tim Rohr who has to show proof that what he did was legal in the event that he is being brought to court.

      And I am not just referring to the cardinal's letter. You are only addressing the Cardinal's letter. Junglewatch has also published personal correspondence between Aaron Quitugua and Father Adrian as well as personal letters between Father Paul and the Archbishop. I do not think Tim Rohr realizes that this is now much more than just the Cardinal's letter. Tim Rohr has also published the Archbishop's letter, which was given and addressed only to Father Paul, and this letter was used in claiming the Archbishop a "liar", which is a defamation to the Archbishop's character and reputation.

      Nowhere in any news organization such as the Mariana's Variety, the PDN, PNC news, or KUAM will you find the Archbishop's letter to Father Paul published. Why? Perhaps because they did not obtain any permission from the Archbishop to have his letter published. The personal letter written by the Archbishop and addressed only to Father Paul can only be found published in Junglewatch. So that begs the question.....did Tim Rohr obtain the permission from the Archbishop to publish his letter?

      Delete
    3. Diana,

      I am a local attorney, and I can assure you that Tim is acting within the law.

      Delete
    4. Dear local attorney,

      And I'm sure the Archbishop gave Tim permission to publish his letter for the purpose of degrading him? I don't think so.

      Delete
    5. Local attorney, the answer is Tim is acting according the law. If he is clinging to your skirt out of desperation then evidently this post made a point.

      Delete
  5. Simply, ask the Cardinal.

    But unfortunately i think JW did ask permission from the Card. and has that permission in writing which is why JW is not worried about it.

    So give us something substantive. Get the statement from Manila whether or not JW had permission.

    Don't assume the Card. is too busy. These matters of public perception and representation are important to him as the clarification letter exhibits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM I think???? This is speculation. State facts.

      Delete
  6. "...AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM still did not answer the question. Was the letter for Tim or not? Yes or no? Did Umatuna authorize you to have the letter? If not, is defamation..."

    The sender authorized JW. Simple as that. Do you know otherwise, then prove it.

    YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEFAMATION OF GUAMS' NCW yourself by purporting something that wasn't true and steering the real truth of the matter here aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:57 am,

      I believe this has become much more than the Cardinal's letter. There are other personal letters that were published in Junglewatch.

      Delete
  7. Well guys he admit it, guilt is arising????? Inputs may arise who don't agree with him.
    I led this guy a long a bit to demonstrate to the reading audience what liars do when caught in a lie: they become obsessed with discrediting the person who exposed their lying rear end. And in this case, this is probably the person who originated the lie which is why he can't sleep and is addicted to JungleWatch.
    I may not know who this person is exactly (though I have a good idea), but the people he lied to DO. And exposing a lie of this magnitude is probably beginning to cause Neocatechumenal members themselves, the ones not yet drunk on KAKA, to begin to question how else they may have been lied to.
    As this doubting and questioning grows within the ranks, the whole edifice, which was only a facade to begin with, will begin to come crashing down. And since we have the only diocese in the world which has a bishop who is himself a Kiko, the unravelling of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam will begin a domino-like collapse of the whole Kiko-contraption as other bishops will see a warning in what happened in Guam.
    Thus, the kiko's need to stop me. They lied to their people and lied about a Cardinal's support the same way they lie about the papal support of their liturgy, the magna cum laude's of their seminary graduates, the money they collect, and just everything else that is the target of a direct inquiry.
    They cannot afford for their people to know all this. So long as no one can question, the lies, the transfer of monies and property, the overthrow of the church from within, all that can continue. But now, because they have been caught in their biggest most obvious lie yet, some members will start to ask those dreaded questions (such as "just where does my money go?"). And some will begin to notice that the Emperor has no clothes.

    But, here, let me list for the record, some other letters I have in my possession which I have either posted or referenced on this blog THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED TO ME:
    Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No. 013-047
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter to Parishioners of Santa Barbara Church, Dededo, Guam, July 20, 2013
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, July 22, 2013
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apruon, July 28, 2013
    Msgr. David C. Quitgua, Vicar General, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, August 2, 2013, Prot. No. 013-053
    Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, August 20, 2013, Prot. No. 013-057
    Fr. A.N. Dacanay, S.J. Motion to Dismiss, addressed to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, August 20, 2013
    Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, Sep. 10, 2013, Prot. No. 013-062
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, September 13, 2013 (demanding to be restored as pastor)
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, supplement to previous letter to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, September 13, 2013
    Fr. A.N. Dacanay, S.J., Appeal of Fr. Paul Gofigan addressed to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, November 7, 2013
    Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, DECREE OF REMOVAL, Nov. 12, 2013, Prot. No. 013-074
    Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, December 6, 2013 (request to set the record straight about what the Archbishop said at the clergy retreat in Manila of October 2013)
    Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, January 13, 2014 (demand to set the record straight)
    Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, January 15, 2014 (expressing disappointment with the Archbishop's lack of action as regards what he said at the retreat)
    Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, January 16, 2014 (advising the Archbishop that what he told Fr. Paul at their private meeting was not acceptable)
    Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter of termination to the subject employee, October 26, 2011


    ReplyDelete
  8. Continuation
    And I'm not even listing the letters (or noting the phone calls) that I have received anonymously by people who wanted me to know much uglier things than what appears in this list of letters.

    So how did I get all these? Well NOT from Fr. Paul, and not from any member of the clergy, and purposely so. I have seen how the Archbishop treats his clergy and I did not want to endanger them so I made sure not to involve them from the beginning.

    What you people don't want to accept is that there is a vast lay network behind Fr. Paul. Up till what happened to Fr. Paul, the Neocatechumenal Way, despite an increasing number of clashes with the rest of the Catholic community, was pretty much left alone. However, the brutal treatment of Fr. Paul was the catalyst that solidified the army that is now gathering against the Archbishop.

    And your leaders know that if the Archbishop goes, so do you. This is why they tried to grab the title to the Yona property. This is why people like you are fighting tooth and nail to discredit me, which of course is laughable because every attempt, including this one, makes my case.

    So, keep scratching. Like a good journalist I don't reveal sources. I don't have to. But YOU have to face the people you LIED to. And that's why you keep coming back here. It's over dude. Tell the Archbishop to retire. It's going to get much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Diana/Bernie - this part And I'm not even listing the letters (or noting the phone calls) that I have received anonymously by people who wanted me to know much uglier things than what appears in this list of letters.

    So how did I get all these? Well NOT from Fr. Paul, and not from any member of the clergy, and purposely so. I have seen how the Archbishop treats his clergy and I did not want to endanger them so I made sure not to involve them from the beginning.

    So everything was picked up from secret society who are against the Archbishop, if so they have no business handling this. Hmmmmmmmm

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Anonymous at 10:58 a.m.,

    I see that you got this from http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/06/ive-been-waiting-for-this.html

    Okay......so let me see if I got this correctly based on Tim Rohr's own words. Regarding the personal letters between Father Paul and the Archbishop, Tim admitted that he did not obtain these personal letters from Father Paul or the Archbishop. So, he received it from someone else who had access to both Father Paul's and the Archbishop's personal documents. So, one then needs to ask......did Tim Rohr obtain these personal letters legally?? That's the first question. Of course, if it was obtained illegally, revealing the source would only land the person in jail. (Remember the Pope's butler who took the Pope's personal letters and confidential documents without permission and leaked it to the media.)

    The second question is.......did Tim Rohr obtain the permission of Father Paul and the Archbishop to have their personal letters (which he somehow received by someone else) to be published in his blogsite??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What don't you address all the other points of the post.

      Delete
  11. Exactly and he admit from anonymous so therefore, ILLEGAL. Is it safe to say STOLEN??????

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diane - not to taunt Tim but I notice this morning he is posting 2:39 AM this morning. Is he losing sleep from the view from the ladies? Good job ladies.Remind me of the book of Ruth and the King and Kings.


    ReplyDelete
  13. Diana, you can't answer the question yourself. So what do you do know? I would be worried if I were you or one of your fellow conspirators, because has managed to out wit you all for a long time already.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not even close what they speculate....... It's getting on their nerve
    AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM
    Now your entire post is copied to Diana's blog. The question still arises...who illegally gave you the letters!

    Now if Diana says she is not Ms. Terlaje, the only other person I know of now after seeing all these curve balls written on her blog, MAYBE a wife of an attorney who is with the The NCW Agana community. HMMMM!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tim Rohr is a graphomaniac. He just writes and writes and writes... but never answers any question!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let us go forward and do what we are meant to do! To spread the Good News. As The Lord said if they cause slander or insult turn the other cheek! Why must we add more insults to injury? Like Kiko said "courage"! Without faith we have no courage! The Lord will take care of all that is good and punish all that is evil.

    Revenge is the work of the devil. I firmly believe that Our Lord will take care of us. So let is not entertain what is written on the other side of the fence. To entertain this is not the path or the mission that we are to take. Our mission is to spread the Gospels and live as Christ did on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 12:00 PM I love it, thank you for reminding me.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:00 pm,

      I once said that God allows things to happen for a reason. We cannot see what that big picture is until He reveals it. It has been revealed. You are correct in that we have a much greater mission, which is spreading the word of God. We do not need to concern ourselves with Junglewatch. God will certainly take care of them.

      Delete
  17. Jungle blog admitted of getting the Tagle letter on June 1st. They still published 16 blog entries with over 548 comments dealing with the invitation until they showed the letter. This was a deception, a trap, a snare. All these blog entries and comments are living and documented proofs of their sinful ways to conceal truth, incite prejudice and hatred.

    Jungle blog thinks they do not owe apology to Cardinal Tagle. But they are wrong! They cover misdeeds by more lies and more slander. Any explanation published at Jungle blog is an even bigger and bigger lie than the previous one was. This is how Jungle blog works! But they betray their lies by contradicting themselves. They say they were allowed to publish the Tagle letter, because Umatuna did not make the correction. But Umatuna actually made the correction! Still, Jungle blog published the Tagle letter anyway. Therefore it is inevitable to conclude that Jungle blog breached the trust of Cardinal Tagle by inappropriately obtaining and handling his letter. You see how big fat lies committed at Jungle blog come into light on the brightness of truth.

    "No matter how great may be men's cleverness in concealing and their experience in lying, it is impossible to prevent the effects of any cause from showing, in some way, the intrinsic nature of the cause whence they come. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit."” (Encyclical letter Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII)

    "18 One who walks in integrity will be safe,
    but whoever follows crooked ways will fall into the Pit.

    23 Whoever rebukes a person will afterward find more favor
    than one who flatters with the tongue.

    26 Those who trust in their own wits are fools;
    but those who walk in wisdom come through safely.

    28 When the wicked prevail, people go into hiding;
    but when they perish, the righteous increase."
    (Proverbs 28)

    Bernie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diana, Tim Rohr keeps calling you "him". He is a mad sexist who cannot imagine a woman being smart! How foolish for him.

      Genie

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:31 p.m.,

      I do not understand why anyone would think that I would be lying about my gender.

      Delete
    3. Because you lie about many other things, and you hide your true identity. You started this blog, so stand behind your opinions and reveal your true identity. You lack courage to stand behind your writing, and then you personally attack the man who has the courage. If anything, it's Tim that should be thanking you for the persecution.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 6:08 p.m.,

      I persecuted Tim Rohr???? Where were you when he was persecuting the Archbishop? Where were you when he humiliated and ridiculed Zoltan, me, and others on his blog?

      What difference does it make knowing my true identity when I already see what Tim Rohr did to Zoltan, who uses his real identity? The reason Tim is where he is at today is because of the things he has done. This was upon him. He suffers because of his sin, and his family suffers along with him.

      Delete
    5. "The reason Tim is where he is at today is because of the things he has done", Very. Profound.

      "He suffers because of his sin, and his family suffers along with him. " And that's what they said about Job, isn't it?

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 8:56 p.m.,

      No, it has nothing to do with Job. It is what St. Paul said. When one member of the family suffers because of sin everyone in the family suffers.

      1 Corinthians 12:26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

      Satan always attack the family, and all it takes is one member of the family to fall, the rest of the family suffers. For example, if a son turns to drugs, do you not think that it will not affect the other members of the family? If a wife cheats on a husband, do you not think that the spouse and children will suffer from that sin?

      Delete
  18. AnonymousJune 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM you can't accept that the Diana has ability to outsmart Tim? It bother you cause whatever she post made alot of sense and fruitful of substance.

    ReplyDelete