Hello Frances and All, Unless the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages has changed the copying restrictions, the State Library should not be allowing reader print copies of the early church records. This is because the original copyright of these records vests with the church that created them. SAG is doing the correct thing by not allowing copies. In any event, I suggest that if you need to get copies of early church records, get permission from the church or church archive that holds them. Most would be happy to provide copies on receipt of a request with a donation or their regular fee. The reason to go to the original church records is that the 'Early Church Records' in the Archive Resource Kit (ARK) are often copies created from the clergy returns and hence the likelihood of transcription error is greater. Also, the original church records quite often have the signatures of marriage parties provided they were literate. Although getting a bit dated now, the publication "Parish Registers in Australia" by Nick Vine Hall (1990) is an excellent guide to the location of church records. I certainly subscribe to looking up the Early Church Records in the ARK when the registration number of the particular entry from the registrar's web or CD-ROM index indicates such an entry is present. This number will be in the format of 'V1840225 24A/1840', where the year is 1840, the volume number is 24A and the entry number is 225. However, please refer to the notes that accompany the ARK as there is quite a lot of mistakes in the filming of these records. Regards...Rex Toomey Port Macquarie NSW

Hi Rex & List, I was a little surprised by your comment, and I quote; "This is because the original copyright of these records vests with the church that created them. SAG is doing the correct thing by not allowing copies." Given that the official Government recording of these records commence in 1856, the churches or any other organisation would not still hold copyright over the documents under the current law. Copyright is not definitely infinite. There is a clearly defined term (which I think is about 50 years) where copyright applies over any written, published or produced article. Once this time period is reached the documents then become free of copyright and available for use by anyone. It is a common courtesy to acknowledge the source or original authorof an article even if it is not under copyright. Since it is almost 150 years since the last church recording was done there is absolutely no way these records would be still under copyright or any church could lay claim to them. Even if SAG or a church body has transcribed the records they would still be in their original form, therefore the original copyright provisions would apply. If SAG or anyone else transcribes the records and alters or adds to them substantially they may then claim copyright however, that document would then not be a true and accurate copy of the original and next to useless for any purpose. Just rearranging the order of the data in an article does not constitute ownership under copyright law. Therefore there must be some other reason for not allowing copying of these articles. Use of the word "copyright" is probably just to scare off those who are not familiar with the law. John Caling Canberra ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ezitree" <ezitree@tsn.cc> To: <AUS-NSW-NORCO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:08 PM Subject: RE: [NORCO] Old Church Records > Hello Frances and All, > > Unless the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages has changed the > copying > restrictions, the State Library should not be allowing reader print copies > of the early church records. This is because the original copyright of > these records vests with the church that created them. SAG is doing the > correct thing by not allowing copies. <<< SNIP >>>

My understanding is that these pre 1856 records were microfilmed and transcribed as part of a project following Federation. This is where the Churches sent in their Parrish Registers and they were transcribed and microfilmed. This project extended into WW1 and resources became a little stretched. I understand that some registers were sent to Sydney, never transcribed and never returned to their original source and have disappeared. When you go to the State archives there are some church records which are not to be photocopied ( not sure of the reason as they would be outside the 50 years ). I have searched through early records at the Mitchell Library ( and found transcription errors ) and have never had a problem getting a print. I agree with John - the records are pubicly available on the index - with errors if you can think laterally and overcome them. A copy ( or transcription ) is also available from BDMs. Trevor in Albion Park. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Caling" <acarina@actewagl.net.au> To: <AUS-NSW-NORCO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [NORCO] Old Church Records > Hi Rex & List, > > I was a little surprised by your comment, and I quote; "This is because the > original copyright of these records vests with the church that created them. > SAG is doing the correct thing by not allowing copies." > > Given that the official Government recording of these records commence in > 1856, the churches or any other organisation would not still hold copyright > over the documents under the current law. Copyright is not definitely > infinite. There is a clearly defined term (which I think is about 50 years) > where copyright applies over any written, published or produced article. > Once this time period is reached the documents then become free of copyright > and available for use by anyone. It is a common courtesy to acknowledge the > source or original authorof an article even if it is not under copyright. > > Since it is almost 150 years since the last church recording was done there > is absolutely no way these records would be still under copyright or any > church could lay claim to them. Even if SAG or a church body has transcribed > the records they would still be in their original form, therefore the > original copyright provisions would apply. If SAG or anyone else transcribes > the records and alters or adds to them substantially they may then claim > copyright however, that document would then not be a true and accurate copy > of the original and next to useless for any purpose. Just rearranging the > order of the data in an article does not constitute ownership under > copyright law. > > Therefore there must be some other reason for not allowing copying of these > articles. Use of the word "copyright" is probably just to scare off those > who are not familiar with the law. > > John Caling > Canberra > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ezitree" <ezitree@tsn.cc> > To: <AUS-NSW-NORCO-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:08 PM > Subject: RE: [NORCO] Old Church Records > > > > Hello Frances and All, > > > > Unless the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages has changed the > > copying > > restrictions, the State Library should not be allowing reader print copies > > of the early church records. This is because the original copyright of > > these records vests with the church that created them. SAG is doing the > > correct thing by not allowing copies. > <<< SNIP >>> > > > > ==== AUS-NSW-NORCO Mailing List ==== > Got the address of a really useful website? List it at > http://resources.rootsweb.com/world/Australia/NewSouthWales/ > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > >

Hi all, My advice has been that if the material is reproduced in its original form copyright does apply. However if the data has been altered, copyright then is with the person who made the changes. For example, in my case. I have copied entries from parish registers into a data base and then rearranged the data. As you all know the entries in a parish register are in chronological order. So if looking for family members one needs to know the date of the event. However when I rearrange the data and sort it by family surname the family is reconstituted. This is significant change to the format of the original data. Another example is when the entries from the three registers i.e Birth death and marriage are combined in one data base. However I am not a copyright expert. I suggest that if in doubt do as I have done and contact the Intellectual Property & Copyright Librarian at the State Library Htioi Terry

Hello John and other interested listeners on the list, Firstly, let me state that I am not a lawyer - just another family historian trying to understand a very complex issue. Whilst copyright duration used to be 50 years, this changed to 70 years after 31 December 2004 as a result of the Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Secondly, the copyright lasts 70 years "after the death of the creator." As these records were created by ministers of the church for the (sacramental) purposes of church, the records probably then come under the category of material created by "employees". This states that where a work is made by an employee as part of that person's job, the employer will usually own the work. I guess this is similar to Crown Copyright. However, there are lots of "probably" and "usually" words here. Therefore, the implication is that whilst the church still is in existence, they still hold the copyright of church material until 70 years after the church closes down. I found this and other related information on the Australian Copyright Website www.copyright.org.au/ Please do not read this as legal advice. As I said above, it is a very complex issue and worthwhile discussing. Regards...Rex

Hi John and other interested listeners, Perhaps our discussion does not belong in Norco but some other general news group. Hopefully, it is not TOO boring to others and maybe a little bit interesting in light of the heavy usage we family historians make of these records. When I said that "...copyright lasts 70 years "after the death of the creator..." I was only quoting what is on the copyright website. I was also confused by the tangle of words that are used in copyright legislation and information papers. In one paper (Family Histories and Copyright - G42) they state that the "...copyright passes to another person (or organisation) when the owner dies. If no beneficiaries are named in the copyright owner's will, it is inherited by the person who inherits the residue of the estate, or to the next of kin if there is no will." I have sent them an email requesting clarification of what this really means. Perhaps the answer lies in the specifics of when the records are actually published. Does the copyright start from the date the first microfilm of early church records was offered for sale rather than from the date it was first created? The (NSW) 'Archives in Brief No 74 - Research and copyright and your use of State archives' generally says that material NOT published remains permanently in copyright. Therefore does the reproduction of the early church records on microfilm constitute publication? In general, I personally want to abide by the requirements of organizations that provide access to this type of information. They do not have to give family historians access to their church records. Whilst being beaut historical documents, their church records were originally created to record the sacraments of the church. That they retained these documents over the years and normally make them available for perusal for a small cost, is a wonderful boon to all of us. If they say we shouldn't make reader prints, well I am happy with that. I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree. This is my last post on the subject. Regards...Rex Port Macquarie NSW

Dear John and List, I will stand corrected if need be but it is my understanding that the first 123 volumes of the Birth Death and Marriage records were copied onto microfilm by the then Archives Office of NSW, without the authority of the Attorney General who holds the copyright, but it it noted on the start of each reel that the records are subject to copyright and not to be copied. Sincerely,Bill > Hi Rex & List, > > I was a little surprised by your comment, and I quote; "This is because > the original copyright of these records vests with the church that created > them. SAG is doing the correct thing by not allowing copies." >