E-mail confidential.

Media criticism.
June 1 2004 6:42 PM

E-mail Confidential

Who's afraid of Time Inc.'s legal disclaimer?

The other day, a Time Inc. journalist of my acquaintance sent me an e-mail from his corporate e-mail account. I read it quickly and was about to hit the delete icon when I spotted this extraordinary 114-word "disclaimer" sloshing around at the bottom. It read:

This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.

Thank you.

Advertisement

Ignoring the e-mail's threats, I forwarded it to my 175-pound Samoan attorney for his opinion, and he convinced me that Time Inc. has much more to fear from me than I have to fear from Time Inc. In fine Socratic fashion, my counsel walked me through the disclaimer, sentence by sentence, encouraging me to add my own thinking to our exercise. Here are my notes.

This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates.

My attorney noted that it's probably true in the technical sense that an e-mail message from one of its employees sent via Time Inc.'s e-mail system is Time Inc.'s property. For that reason, Time Inc. employees should probably use their personal e-mail accounts for personal notes.

But sending me an e-mail—like sending a letter—creates an implied license for certain uses. What sort of uses? Surely I have the right to delete it or to print it for my records. I know of nothing in U.S. law that would bar me from sharing it with my friends or even quoting the message in print. Of course, there are limits to what one can do with e-mail or other correspondence. U.S. copyright law gives every letter and laundry list automatic copyright protection, so if you published a slew of e-mail from a correspondent and he sued you alleging copyright infringement, a court might find that you deprived him of the financial rewards of his literary labors and render a decision against you. But I doubt very much if that's going to apply to one in a billion e-mails.

The first sentence of the Time Inc. disclaimer also got me to thinking: If the message is Time Inc.'s corporate "property," what is it doing in my in-box without an invitation? Trespassing?

It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).

Or it may not be, as my attorney noted. Correspondence between an attorney and his client is usually considered "legally privileged," but an e-mail from a Time Inc. wage slave to me? Not automatically. If the message is privileged or confidential, shouldn't Time Inc. let me know and not leave me dangling with the vague "may be" language? And when the disclaimer declares the message is "intended only for the use of the addressee(s)," to what "use" is it referring? Reading and burning it?

No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient.

TODAY IN SLATE

Politics

Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS

But the next president might. 

IOS 8 Comes Out Today. Do Not Put It on Your iPhone 4S.

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Here are the facts.

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Science

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

The Ungodly Horror of Having a Bug Crawl Into Your Ear and Scratch Away at Your Eardrum

We Could Fix Climate Change for Free. What Exactly Is Holding Us Back?

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 17 2014 6:09 PM Here's Who Voted to Fund Syrian Rebels and Get This ISIS Conflict Really Cooking
  Business
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
  Life
Outward
Sept. 17 2014 6:53 PM LGBTQ Luminaries Honored With MacArthur “Genius” Fellowships
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 17 2014 6:14 PM Today in Gender Gaps: Biking
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 17 2014 5:56 PM Watch Louis C.K., Dave Chappelle, Bill Hicks, Mitch Hedberg, and More on New YouTube Channel
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 17 2014 5:26 PM If Fixing Global Warming Is Free, What’s the Holdup?
  Health & Science
Jurisprudence
Sept. 17 2014 4:49 PM Schooling the Supreme Court on Rap Music Is it art or a true threat of violence?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 17 2014 3:51 PM NFL Jerk Watch: Roger Goodell How much should you loathe the pro football commissioner?