>Grigore,
> You still have permission to reprint my material. I own it and grant you the right to do so. Pinnacle really has no say in what I do with stuff I own. You don't really need to ask them in my opinion. You need to ask the authors which you have done here.
>

If it's an article in an isolated situation, you're probably right, but in situations where the site is in large part duplicating an editorial compilation - eg a site which offers most or all of complete issues of a magazine, there's a compilation copyright that accrues to the publisher; the basic logic for why many newspapers can offer the same articles from Reuters or AP, but don't completely duplicate their other content, or the idea of a copyright accruing to a collection of poems or related essays.

I'd recommend getting the opinion of a competent attorney with the details of the agreement between both author and publisher; a lay opinion on the topic doesn't have a whole lot of value, especially where a detailed understanding of the agreements is lacking. Realize that not every author will have th3e same agreement with the publisher that you do; spending 10+ years implementing systems for royalties, foreign distribution rights and the like gives me a little better appreciation of just how much variance may exist. Lawyers make lots of money off people who take the advice of somone who doesn't see the whole picture and isn't personally on the hook if the advice is bad.

Since the only public statement from Pinnacle seemed to say that they weren't granting permission until the lawyers make a determination, I'd be inclined to wait until Pinnacle agrees before proceeding. YMMV.

Just call me chicken...