"not For Publication" On A Letter From A Solicitor.

[flip_flop]

I have never seen this before. What does it mean?

I am very aware of 'Without Prejudice' and all that entails, but 'Not For Publication' is a new one on me.

I strongly suspect it is entirely up to the recipient of a letter what they choose to do with it, and therefore I also strongly suspect 'Not for Publication' is unenforcible by the sender.

If my suspicions are correct, what is the point?

[flip_flop]

In my experience solicitors are a bar to good, efficient, commerce, so is this just another of their weazly tactics?

[fuzzy-brain]

There could be several reasons for this. Firstly, there is the 'hazy' definition of 'publication' and what constitutes publication. Then the contents of the letter could be such that even unintentional 'publication' might lead to problems with the law in relation to libel and/or slander. Why not revert to the solicitor and ask why "Not For Publication" was used in the letter?

[tonywiltshire]

Flip_flop, you obviously have a very low opinion of Solicitors, I do not agree with you most are very hard working people who are controlled severely by regulation and in a very competitive career.
My suggestion would be to totally ignore any letter marked “not for publication” as it does not exist.

[Buenchico]

>>>I strongly suspect it is entirely up to the recipient of a letter what they choose to do with it

Wrong. Irrespective of whether or not a letter carries a 'not for publication' statement, the writer of the letter (or their employer if they're writing n business) retains the copyright to what they've written, so publishing that letter elsewhere (without permission) is ALWAYS a breach of that copyright. Adding a 'not for publication' statement is simply akin to writing 'copyright material' (which is, in itself, unnecessary) on the letter.

Chris

[flip_flop]

Chris

I've just found the following and it would appear to disagree.

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/6hexu-solicitor-sends-letter-not-publication.html

I am in the dark either way, but it appears there is conflicting information out there!

[atalanta]

In law, the copyright of any unpublished letter belongs to the writer or his/her heirs for ever. Once it is published, copyright in the letter ceases to exist seventy years after the death of the writer. This, even if it is for business purposes, remains an unpublished letter, and only the writer, (the author) , has the right to publish it. There is no need to say so on the letter, as the law exists as I have described it.
If the person to whom the letter has been written is the editor of ( say) a newspaper or journal, the writer is making it clear that this is not a contribution for the publication.

[Buenchico]

I stand by my answer.

From the University of Cambridge:
"The rights of copyright owners are separate from the rights of the owners of the physical or digital objects themselves. For example, the writer of a letter retains ownership of copyright in the words on the page although the recipient of the letter becomes owner of the physical item."
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/imagingservices/copyright.html