You are correct, Ginger. Pam, as she said, made an honest error. Joe Ginger wrote: > > It was my understanding that those were subprojects > of the USGenWeb Archives. Did I misunderstand that? > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: FEATHER2s@aol.com <FEATHER2s@aol.com> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:04 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Special Projects > > >When did the Board vote to create additional Special Projects? The Projects > >Page located at http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html was "updated" > >on January 12th and now lists a "Pension Project" and a "Digital Map Library" > >there. > > > >The Bylaws are very clear on the formation of official Special Projects and > >the procedure was not followed in either case, as evidenced in the excerpt > >quoted below: > > > >ARTICLE XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS > > > >"Section 1. Special projects shall be established by The USGenWeb Project to > >promote the gathering of information in specialized areas. A coordinator > >shall be appointed by the Advisory Board to organize the project and enlist > >volunteers. In addition, each special project shall have an Assistant Project > >Coordinator or other support team in place that can take charge in case the > >Project Coordinator becomes unavailable for a period of 30 days, unless there > >are extenuating circumstances. Special projects shall be repositories for > >public domain or research documents and shall provide an easily accessible > >website for online research by the genealogical community. A collection of > >links does not constitute a special project, although links to appropriate > >websites maintained by other individuals or organizations are encouraged. > > > >Section 2. The name of the special project shall be The USGenWeb ______ > >Project " > > > >I respectfully request that the above named "Special Projects" be removed > >from that national listing. > > > >Virginia Cisewski > >NW-Plains CC Rep > > -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

It was my understanding that those were subprojects of the USGenWeb Archives. Did I misunderstand that? Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: FEATHER2s@aol.com <FEATHER2s@aol.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:04 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Special Projects >When did the Board vote to create additional Special Projects? The Projects >Page located at http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html was "updated" >on January 12th and now lists a "Pension Project" and a "Digital Map Library" >there. > >The Bylaws are very clear on the formation of official Special Projects and >the procedure was not followed in either case, as evidenced in the excerpt >quoted below: > >ARTICLE XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS > >"Section 1. Special projects shall be established by The USGenWeb Project to >promote the gathering of information in specialized areas. A coordinator >shall be appointed by the Advisory Board to organize the project and enlist >volunteers. In addition, each special project shall have an Assistant Project >Coordinator or other support team in place that can take charge in case the >Project Coordinator becomes unavailable for a period of 30 days, unless there >are extenuating circumstances. Special projects shall be repositories for >public domain or research documents and shall provide an easily accessible >website for online research by the genealogical community. A collection of >links does not constitute a special project, although links to appropriate >websites maintained by other individuals or organizations are encouraged. > >Section 2. The name of the special project shall be The USGenWeb ______ >Project " > >I respectfully request that the above named "Special Projects" be removed >from that national listing. > >Virginia Cisewski >NW-Plains CC Rep >

I created that page on my own without discussing it with anyone. I just thought it would be nice if researchers had links to any project that might help them. I didn't think about rules or Bylaws or anything else except ease of research. Pam

My opinion on the historian issue is this. We should write up a history, including a timeline, of the beginnings of the project, including organizers. It would be the historian's job to keep this history updated with any new facts. There are things that should be omitted. The infighting, etc. has no place in the history. That is one reason I removed the page about the Jerry Dill thing from the main pages. Pam

Hi All, I would be glad to post a history of the Project on the National Pages, but I don't have a good one. The only one I have is sketchy and doesn't mention any of the organizers by name. Do any of you have have a good history of The USGenWeb Project? Pam

When did the Board vote to create additional Special Projects? The Projects Page located at http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html was "updated" on January 12th and now lists a "Pension Project" and a "Digital Map Library" there. The Bylaws are very clear on the formation of official Special Projects and the procedure was not followed in either case, as evidenced in the excerpt quoted below: ARTICLE XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS "Section 1. Special projects shall be established by The USGenWeb Project to promote the gathering of information in specialized areas. A coordinator shall be appointed by the Advisory Board to organize the project and enlist volunteers. In addition, each special project shall have an Assistant Project Coordinator or other support team in place that can take charge in case the Project Coordinator becomes unavailable for a period of 30 days, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Special projects shall be repositories for public domain or research documents and shall provide an easily accessible website for online research by the genealogical community. A collection of links does not constitute a special project, although links to appropriate websites maintained by other individuals or organizations are encouraged. Section 2. The name of the special project shall be The USGenWeb ______ Project " I respectfully request that the above named "Special Projects" be removed from that national listing. Virginia Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

Is there wording in the original motion (and subsequent amendment) to spell out the term of the position?? If not, I propose that appointments be made for the election year beginning September 1st. The first appointee would serve until 31 August 2000. I also propose that an Historian can be removed by a simple majority of the Board.

The only experience I have dealing with historians is military. But the model they use seems relevant here so I will relate it for what it is worth. The Air Force, if my memory serves me correctly, has full time historians from Headquarters USAF level down to the division level. Below it is an additional duty for someone to feed historical information up the chain. Relating this to our case, ideally each state would have someone who passes history at that level up to the appointed historian. This goes along the line of Tim's suggestion. Who started the Project, when, where, why, Who comes, who goes, significant events and dates of events are historical. The internal squabbling is not. Motions that result in significant changes are historical, the more mundane are not, in my opinion. For instance, Motion 00-1 would, it seems to me, be of historical interest if passed. In any event, I hope if this passes that we search carefully from among the wealth of talent in the Project for someone with experience as historian either in business or government. If we select well the job of the AB in ensuring unbiased and accurate recording of our history will be minimal. Joe -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Jim, A long while back I did a time line with only facts such as when what was started. I spent literally hours doing it and have a lot of information but I choose only the timeline as that cannot be contested. Facts and dates are just that - totally impartial. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion Motion 00-1 Something to think about... History is one of those plastic things that moves towards the ideas and values of those in power. History is also a divisive issue. Those that were there do not see our history the same way, how can we possibly divine the true "History"? Is this history documented anywhere by anything other than privately held emails? Is there anything to base this history on that stands up to your standards on what you would base your genealogy on? Jim Ginger wrote: > Hi Rich, > > Do you have anything in particular that you feel > we should implement. Generally a historian's duty > consists of recording noteworthy events as they > happen. Since the historian we appoint will also > be charged with going back to the project's inception > and bringing the history up to date some general > guidelines would be in order. > > Anyone else have any comments/suggestions? > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: RichPump <RichPump@wf.net> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion Motion 00-1 > > >Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is > >needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup > duties > >of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible > >be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never > make > >everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... > > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> > >> Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a > >> historian of the Project? > >> > >> Tim > > > >-- > > > > Richard M. Howland > > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > > NE/NCR CC Representative > > > > HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator > > VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator > > ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator > > TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm > > http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html > > http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html > > http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html > >

My 2 cents: I do see the value in a basic recorded history of the Project. However, I don't feel it needs to include every sordid detail on all the infighting and on every political battle that has taken place in our stormy past (and present). What would this accomplish? For whose benefit do we propose to make our history information available - the USGW site visitors (the public), or our internal volunteer community? Particularly if it is the former, we'd want to put our best foot forward, would we not? And in that case, a basic history, touching on the highlights and accomplishments of the USGW, and the people who have made it great, would be the face we want to show the world, right? If we decide that a historian is someone we need, then the successful candidate (aside from the obvious need for a command of the written word) should be optimally be someone who has been there from the beginning (or nearly so), and who has no political axe to grind. Neutrality? Probably impossible to truly expect. However, tact and the ability to present an even-handed portrayal of the history of the USGW would be essential. Shari Handley SE/MA SC Rep

Something to think about... History is one of those plastic things that moves towards the ideas and values of those in power. History is also a divisive issue. Those that were there do not see our history the same way, how can we possibly divine the true "History"? Is this history documented anywhere by anything other than privately held emails? Is there anything to base this history on that stands up to your standards on what you would base your genealogy on? Jim Ginger wrote: > Hi Rich, > > Do you have anything in particular that you feel > we should implement. Generally a historian's duty > consists of recording noteworthy events as they > happen. Since the historian we appoint will also > be charged with going back to the project's inception > and bringing the history up to date some general > guidelines would be in order. > > Anyone else have any comments/suggestions? > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: RichPump <RichPump@wf.net> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion Motion 00-1 > > >Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is > >needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup > duties > >of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible > >be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never > make > >everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... > > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> > >> Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a > >> historian of the Project? > >> > >> Tim > > > >-- > > > > Richard M. Howland > > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > > NE/NCR CC Representative > > > > HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator > > VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator > > ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator > > TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm > > http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html > > http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html > > http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html > >

Judging from some of the flame wars that have broken out among some of the old-timers on the project over their "selective memory" of the events in our history, the historian should be someone who can to resolve these varying views and in a fair and impartial manner. At 05:33 PM 1/23/00 -0600, you wrote: >Hi Rich, > >Do you have anything in particular that you feel >we should implement. Generally a historian's duty >consists of recording noteworthy events as they >happen. Since the historian we appoint will also >be charged with going back to the project's inception >and bringing the history up to date some general >guidelines would be in order. > >Anyone else have any comments/suggestions? > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: RichPump <RichPump@wf.net> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:42 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion Motion 00-1 > > >>Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is >>needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup >duties >>of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible >>be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never >make >>everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... >> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >>> >>> Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a >>> historian of the Project? >>> >>> Tim >> >>-- >> >> Richard M. Howland >> Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 >> NE/NCR CC Representative >> >> HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator >> VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator >> ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator >> TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator >> >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm >> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm >> http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html >> http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html >> http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html >> >

Hi Rich, Do you have anything in particular that you feel we should implement. Generally a historian's duty consists of recording noteworthy events as they happen. Since the historian we appoint will also be charged with going back to the project's inception and bringing the history up to date some general guidelines would be in order. Anyone else have any comments/suggestions? Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: RichPump <RichPump@wf.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion Motion 00-1 >Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is >needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup duties >of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible >be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never make >everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... > >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a >> historian of the Project? >> >> Tim > >-- > > Richard M. Howland > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > NE/NCR CC Representative > > HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator > VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator > ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator > TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm > http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html > http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html > http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html >

At 09:45 AM 1/23/00 -0500, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >You make a good point, Rich. When we get a historian in >place it will be the responsibility of all the Board members >to ensure the appointed individual provides an unbiased >version of our history. The most important duty we have is >to carefully select and appoint an unbiased historian in the >beginning. I would bet that among the silent majority in the >Project there are several individuals with the education and >training for the position, perhaps retired and willing to >take on the job. And the people in the best position to know >that is our State Coordinators. I am sure that Tim will ask >them when the time comes. > >Joe Actually I was wondering if in addition to Historian for the Project at large that the State Coordinators be asked to send along a history of their individual State Projects for inclusion in our overall Project history. For instance this would give credit to the various folks who have been State Coordinators for each state along with the approximate times that they headed specific projects. Some of these folk are no longer with us be it through death or moving on to other avenues of interest. Tim

We are all genealogists. Start with the present and work backwards. It is very important that the historian present names, dates, places and events with citation of sources and documentation of any supposition. Tina In a message dated 1/23/00 6:36:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > Anyone else have any comments/suggestions?

You make a good point, Rich. When we get a historian in place it will be the responsibility of all the Board members to ensure the appointed individual provides an unbiased version of our history. The most important duty we have is to carefully select and appoint an unbiased historian in the beginning. I would bet that among the silent majority in the Project there are several individuals with the education and training for the position, perhaps retired and willing to take on the job. And the people in the best position to know that is our State Coordinators. I am sure that Tim will ask them when the time comes. Joe RichPump wrote: > > Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is > needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup duties > of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible > be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never make > everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a > > historian of the Project? > > > > Tim > > -- > > Richard M. Howland > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > NE/NCR CC Representative > > HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator > VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator > ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator > TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm > http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html > http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html > http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Actually I have several questions. I like the idea and think that a historian is needed. I however think that attached to this motion should be a plan to setup duties of and responsibilities of historian. Now while no one on this board could possible be opinionated, how do we insure that our history a balanced work. It will never make everyone happy. But is there away to tell a unbiased history. Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a > historian of the Project? > > Tim -- Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html

Is there any further discussion regarding motion 00-1 to appoint a historian of the Project? Tim

I will take care of this ASAP! Pam Tim Stowell wrote: > > Since the issue of Lookups and Copyright is continually resurfacing, I'd > like to ask the Board members to review a message, sent to a public list in > 1996 by then National Coordinator John Rigdon, and compare it with what we > have listed on the National pages and see if any of the following or any > other action needs doing: > > 1. The National pages need to be updated in reference to this note > 2. The pages need to be updated regarding the latest copyright act > 3. State Coordinators need to remind volunteers of these issues > > Thanks, > > Tim > ---------------- > Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:06:25 +0000 > From: "John C. Rigdon" > To: GALINA - Georgia/South Carolina USGenWeb Project > <GALINA@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu> > Subject: Our Proposed Position on Lookups > > After much research and discussion, here is my position on the issue > of Lookups. > > John Rigdon > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project > > COPYRIGHT FAQ > > It is vital for genealogists/family historians to understand > copyright laws, not only for the protection of others' rights, but to ensure > that we retain the rights to our own work. > > Besides any legal ramifications; we, as a great new project, do not > want to offend our many friends who work tirelessly for little profit to > publish these great source references. We do not want to offend > those who do legitimate professional research - let us not make > these people our enemies - We want them as our partners. > > It is that recognition plus concern for the organization and all > individuals involved which led to establishment of this policy. > > The only way to protect the project as a whole and each of us as > participants in that project is to remove all lookup offers > for which you do not have written permissions or determinations that > the source is public domain and therefore requires no permission. > > Infringement can occur from several different reasons or actions and > ALL these aspects must be considered in each case. > > 1. The source itself--is it copyrighted or public domain? If it is > copyrighted, who holds the copyright and what are the requirements of > that person or entity? > > 2. The amount and type of information taken from the source. > > 3. The person or entity using the information from the > source--because different rules apply to different entities. Are we > equivalent to a > public library? Are we educators? Is USGenweb a non-profit > organization in the LEGAL sense? I think most of us will agree that this > project > doesn't yet have clear legal claim to any of those titles or > privileges. This doesn't mean that we can't qualify, only that at this > moment we > don't qualify. > > 4. The market effect of one's use of the information-- it will > probably be on this point that someone will eventually be sued for copyright > infringement. > > We are not acting in private here. We are not merely pursuing our > private avocations. We have chosen to join a grassroots movement to > protect and preserve our family histories for our nation and the > generations to come. In doing so we have "gone public" in a big way, > and we are now subject to laws that govern such public groups. > > We're all here to help the genealogical community. Folks doing > lookups should understand that authors have a legitimate right to > compensation, and a well-done lookup should include telling folks > how to buy the book when it's of significant value to their > research. Authors need to understand that genealogists have a > right to look before buying and that lookups should be perceived > as a marketing tool rather than a loss of sales. > > =========================== > > USGenWeb'S Official Policy > > USGenWeb will not tolerate any copyright violations. Lookup requests > should be limited to one name, or perhaps two if it is a married > couple. Information given will be minimal, for example if it is a cemetery > lookup, the information will be the name of the cemetery and the > dates on the headstone. Please do not ask for "everybody with X surname" > or an entire family group, or for hardcopies to be mailed; the > volunteers have been asked not to comply with such requests. > > Our lookups will extend to searching the book to determine if the > book would be helpful to you in your research. Should the book prove > useful, we can provide the authors address and ordering information. > > The USGenWeb Project will endeavor to get a WRITTEN statement from > each copyright holder which stipulates which books may be used for > lookups. > =========================== > > Proposed wording which we need to have from copyright holders: > > I grant non-exclusive permission for individuals to do lookups for > the USGenWeb Project from my publications. I am not forfeiting my rights > under 17 USCode Section 106. > > I grant permission for lookups in ______________ > > I DO NOT grant permission for lookups in ______________ > > Signed______________________ > > Dated ______________________ > > ============================ > > Here is a general overview of copyright law. > > 1. COPYRIGHT LAW > Since Jan 1, 1978, everything an author (including you and I) writes > is protected by copyright the minute it is written. > > 2. DURATION OF COPYRIGHT > Copyright protection under this law extends for the rest of the > author's life and an additional 50 years beyond it. The new law does not > depend on publication. Works by two or more authors extend 50 years beyond > the death of the last author to die. Anonymous works, works under a > pseudonym, and works for hire extend 75 years from publication or 100 > years from creation. > > 3. PUBLIC DOMAIN > Any published/written material on which the copyright has expired is > considered to be in the "public domain" and may be used by the > general public without payment to or permission from the author. An article, > poem, etc. may be copyrighted individually, but it is also covered if > the publication in which is appears is copyrighted. > > There has been some discussion that authors/publishers cannot > copyright facts. This is and isn't true. The original records cannot be > copyrighted, but for example, a compilation of them can be. Anyone, > however, is free to consult the original records and make their own > compilation and are free to do whatever they want with them. But, > even though someone abstracts/transcribes public records, they cannot be > tossed about either. The law specifically recognizes the right of > the person doing the work, in this case transcription, to be compensated > for their work. > > 4. COPYRIGHT BEFORE 1978 > Under the old copyright law, a published work was copyrighted for 28 > years and could be renewed for another 28 years, for a total of 56 years. > When the new law was passed, that copyright protection was extended to a > total of 75 years for all works currently copyrighted. So works published > earlier than Jan 1, 1921, are in the public domain. > > 5. FAIR USE > The copyright act does not set down definite limitations on how many > paragraphs or words constitute "fair use" of copyrighted materials. > Instead, it sets up four criteria to determine fair use: > > A. The purpose and character of the use > > B. The nature of the copyrighted work > > C. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to > the entire work > > D. Effect of the use on the market for or value of the work. > > The author of The Beginning Writer's Answer Book concludes that a > good standard is to limit yourself to quoting fewer than a hundred words > from an entire book. > > 6. INDIRECT QUOTATION > One way of avoiding violating copyright is to paraphrase material--to > put it into your own words--or use indirect quotes. You should, > however, always give credit to the source and refrain from extensive use of > paraphrase or indirect quotes. > > 7. RULE OF THUMB > If use of material created by someone else diminishes the market > value of that person's work, his or her copyright has been violated. > > 8. WHERE TO GET PERMISSION > The publisher is the best place to write for permission to quote > from a book, poem, song or magazine article. Ask your reference librarian > for help locating the publisher's address if it is not printed in the book or > magazine. If the publisher is no longer in business, try locating the > author in Who's Who in Literature at your local library. > > There is usually no fee for permission to quote from copyrighted > materials. > > 9. Burden of Proof in Infringement Actions > > During the course of its deliberations on this section, the > Committee's [US House of Representatives] attention was directed to a recent > court decision holding that the plaintiff in an infringement action had > the burden of establishing that the allegedly infringing copies in > the defendant's possession were not lawfully made or acquired under > section 27 of the present law [that would be the 1909 version of the > copyright law, the 1976 act changed this], American International Pictures, > Inc., v Foreman, 400 FSupp928 (S.D. Alabama 1975). The Committee believes > that the court's decision, if followed, would place a virtually > impossible burden on copyright owners. The decision is also > inconsistent with the established legal principle that the burden of > proof should not be placed upon a litigant to establish facts > particularly within the knowledge of his adversary. The defendant in > such actions clearly has the particular knowledge of how possession > of the particular copy was acquired, and should have the burden of > providing this evidence to the court. It is the intent of the > Committee, therefore, that in an action to determine whether a > defendant is entitled to the privilege established by section 109(a) > and (b), the burden of proving whether a particular copy was lawfully > made or acquired should rest on the defendant. > > [In other words, If someone accused you of violating the infringement > principles of copyright law, it is up to you to prove you didn't.] > > 17USC, Section 501, "Copyright Infringement and Remedies." > > There are two provisions in the law for remedies of violation of the > copyright of a person. Both are rather severe, the person who feels > they have been violated may sue for actual damages or statutory > damages. > > Actual damages include, lost sales, the profit the infringing party > may have made from the infringement, and legal fees. > > Statutory Damages are fixed at $20,000 per infringement if I read the > section correctly. This one gets a bit confusing, and is covered in > 28 US Code, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. > > The following web sites provide reference on copyright law: > > http://www.counsel.com/cyberspace/copyright.html > http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifla/II/cpyright.htm > http://genealogy.tbox.com/jog/aug96/advanced.html > > Contributors: > > Sunni Bloyd > Jett Hanna > John Rigdon > Jeff Weaver > John G. West > --------------- > Email addresses removed - as most are most likely invalid at this time; > document updated with spell check - Tim

Ms Bolick is firing broadsides so fast my trigger finger is tiring trying to keep up. So I will address her last missive first. She has a good point about the copyright statement. If we ain't gonna or can't sue em best we not threaten em. So I would agree with her that the page be simplified along the lines she suggests. Toward some of her other comments in previous missives I cannot be so kind although I believe she is more uninformed than malicious <G>. So I will try to inform on that count. The charges made about the Archives clearly SEEM part of a vendetta. I hope they are not but I would like to see a bundle of those messages from "folks" complaining about who is housing their files. I don't expect to nominate myself as the chief defender of RW. They are quite capable of defending themselves. What I do resent is someone criticizing the archives who has no clear idea of the amount of data housed in the USGenWeb Archives, how decisions are made to house it nor the amount of democracy employed in making those decisions. I can assure anyone that we would not long retain 51 (at last count) volunteer file managers if the Archives Coordinator were as dictatorial as some would have you believe. I would be the first to go. Decisions on Archival matters are discussed and reached collectively. They have to be now more than ever because of the size of the digital library. If something turns out to be cumbersome or awkward to manage any of the file managers can point out ideas for change. And, if there is a consensus among the file manager for change, changes emerge. Changes don't come about simply because someone from inside or outside the Archives doesn't like someone. If anyone can point to a server owner that is willing to house giga bytes of data, index it, furnish a search engine for it and willingly watch it grow geometrically, all for FREE, let us know. A mirror site would be a nice adjunct to the operation. The amount of data housed is projected to go into the tera bytes by the time the Census Project is completed with scans. BTW, giga is 10 to the ninth power and tera is 10 to the twelth power. Only a Washington policitian would not be impressed with those numbers. One tera is 1000 billion (one trillion) if my math is correct. More below on this. And I smile when I read about consulting with legal counsel. Many of us in the Project are retired and have to think twice (three...times?) about hiring a $100/hr attorney to make a will change let alone hire one to intimidate some genealogical data thief. I have submitted hundreds of files to the ND Archives and would only consider legal action against a commercial offender and then thru an attorney who would agree to a percentage of any favorable judgement as his fee. Or, maybe one who is so bored or addled he/she would do it pro bono <G>. So lets get real, folks, and keep this at the hobby level. Something we can all enjoy as we strive to get all those terra bytes of data online. If you want to get even with RW for some reason swamp them with marriage/birth/death, census records, histories and other gems of genealogical data all of which they have promised to house for us with FREE access to all. And, so far, they are doing it. As for going commercial we have pushed them into it with a mass of data files. I just checked and I can buy a 10.2 GB Seagate disk drive for $157. That is $15 per GB. Now figure what it would cost to save to disk one terra byte ($15,000) not to mention servers, routers and digital Telco lines to retrieve and deliver it. And then people to maintain it and then all this slowly wears out and must be replaced...Think this problem through before making comments that denigrate this effort, this gift, this expensive gift really to the genealogical community many of whom are your grandfolks who are going online and loving the data just as most of us love putting it there. The folks who conceived the idea of an archives for the Project and those who agreed to house it should be more praised than criticized. In fact, my visiters to the ND Archives have it in that order. I left the threaded files attached to maintain continuity. Joe FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: > > --part1_ac.4c0fee.25b9e5ce_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Forwarded per request. There are some very valid points made here and IMO, a > discussion by the Advisory Board is long overdue on this topic. > > Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski > > "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." > ----Henry David Thoreau > > > --part1_ac.4c0fee.25b9e5ce_boundary > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Disposition: inline > > Return-Path: <teylu@home.com> > Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) > by air-yc01.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 > 11:12:19 -0500 > Received: from mail.rdc1.tn.home.com (ha1.rdc1.tn.home.com [24.2.7.66]) by > rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:11:57 > -0500 > Received: from home.com ([24.2.25.34]) by mail.rdc1.tn.home.com > (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP > id <20000121161156.YVCT9818.mail.rdc1.tn.home.com@home.com> > for <FEATHER2s@aol.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:11:56 -0800 > Message-ID: <388883F0.53664E16@home.com> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:06:11 -0600 > From: Sandy <teylu@home.com> > Reply-To: teylu@home.com > Organization: CornwallGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~engcornw/ > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: FEATHER2s@aol.com > Subject: The REAL issue/ [was Re: Copyright] > References: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000121080041.210C-100000@saltmine.radix.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Ginger, > > I'm sending you the following in your capacity as a member of the > USGenWeb Advisory Board, in hopes you will give consideration to this as > a topic of discussion for the entire board. It is a message I've posted > to the USGW-CC-L county coordinators list, in the context of YET ANOTHER > "debate" over copyright law. > > If you see see fit, please feel free to forward this to the advisory > board list. > > I would genuinely like to see our project address what I believe is are > some fundamental problems which merely serve to perpetuate ill-feelings > and bad situations. > > Thank you, > > Sandy Bolick > cc: Vance County, NC > > ========================= > I think the bigger question is WHY the issue even comes up (and keeps > coming up!). > > Instead of launching off into useless debates over something that > doesn't matter (like what everybody THINKS the law says or should say, > when after all what matters is what the courts have decided it says).... > the REAL issue, to me anyway, is WHY it keeps coming up! > > Seems to me in most instances, it's purely a matter of ill-feelings, > quite often because someone perceives they've been misled and/or used. > > If you're really concerned about the success of the USGenWeb Project, > seems to me THAT is the issue to address! > > Good grief, if a REAL issue of copyright infringement arises, then it's > not something to hash out on a list anyway. That's the time the involved > parties need to retreat to private discussions, hopefully with their > respective legal counsel. > > But from a PROJECT standpoint, I think we need to analyze WHY this issue > keeps coming up, and whether we can make some changes to lessen the > liklihood of people ever getting to the point of being upset in the > first place. > > When somebody wants their files removed, the reaction always seems to be > one of "What can we do? Is it really copyrighted? How can we keep it?" > > That strikes me as missing the point. The question is WHY do they want > to remove the files? WHAT has happened to cause this person to want to > pull out of the project? > > In other words...WHAT have WE done, as a project, to cause this person > to be upset to the point of wanting to withdraw their files? COULD we > have avoided ever having this happen? CAN we do something to help > prevent it happening again? > > There will always be the fluke situation you coudln't/can't do much > about. But the project seems to take the "attitude" that EVERY situation > is a "fluke," and is the result of some flaw in the person who wants to > pull out. > > But I don't think that's true. I think we've seen a number of people > withdraw files for essentially the same reasons, and yet we don't, as a > project, seem to be willing to address the situation(s) that LED to the > problem.....and consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE we could make changes to > better ensure the same problem doesn't happen for essentially the same > reasons a second (or third or forty-blue-millionth!) time. > > The structure of the archives of this project, from what I've seen, > seems to be THE biggest problem at the "root" of most of the complaints > that lead to withdrawal of files and these long [useless] debates over copyrights. > > We keep getting complaints because people feel they did NOT know the > Archives were really the project of one individual, that this individual > had negotiated an exclusive contract to house the archives on the > servers of one particular for-profit company, and more recently that the > "owner" of the archives project is even employed by the company with > whom she made the agreement. Folks who complain seem to sense a conflict > of interest here. Frankly, I don't see why they shouldn't! > > To make matters (possibly) worse, MANY pages of this project seem to > encourage people to make financial "donations" and "contributions" to > this for-profit company...and more than one person has mistakenly > assumed this meant the company was NONprofit. > > EVEN if the project never changes any of that structure, it most > certainly can make everyone who visits or participates in any way FULLY > aware of it - VERY clearly and prominently. > > The project does NOT do this, and hence should not be surprised when > people feel they've been misled and are upset. People are DOUBLY upset > in ANY circumstance where they feel they would have made a different > decision if they'd known the full situation and that NO effort was made > to clearly inform them of the situation from the onset. > > I submit the problem is OURS as a project, and that the PROJECT is at > fault in much of this. And probably the bulk of the problem IS an > ethical one, not a legal one of copyrights and such. > > And yes, David....I think there IS a question here of WHY people are > upset about the use of material THEY contributed to this project. The > very FACT someone donated their files in the first place ought to tell > us ALL they wanted to help and to SHARE. > So just WHAT happened to cause such a complete turn-around? > I think you can pretty safely assume they didn't suddenly decide they > don't want to help other researchers. > > So why doesn't the Project address the WHY instead of jumping off into > some posture of "how can we keep their files even though they don't want > us to?" > > -Sandy > > --part1_ac.4c0fee.25b9e5ce_boundary-- -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm