--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--

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

Yes, Joe's modification is fine. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Project >At 08:06 AM 1/18/00 -0500, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >>I second the motion. I would add that: The historian will create a >>history page the whereabouts of which will be added to the USGenWeb >>front page index. >> >>Joe > >Ginger, > >Will you agree to Joe's modification? > >If so, Motion 00-1 is open for discussion in it's modified form. >If not, it is open in it's original form. > >Tim > > >>Ginger wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Joy and...... >>> >>> I move that The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board create >>> the office of Project Historian. The Historian will be chosen >>> from among interested volunteers and appointed to the office >>> by the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator. The >>> duties of the Historian shall consist of gathering and compiling >>> the history of The USGenWeb Project, from various resources, >>> and to add to that history on an ongoing basis. Each new >>> Advisory Board may elect to appoint it's own Historian. If, >>> for some reason, the Historian neglects to fulfill his or her >>> appointed duties the Advisory Board and the National >>> Coordiantor may choose a new Historian as needed. >>> >>> Ginger >>> gingerh@shawneelink.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> >>> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:29 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Project (forwarded by request) >>> >>> >For a bunch of genealogists, who pride themselves on documenting every >>> >little detail, we are doing a #&$@^ poor job of documenting our own >>> >history. I propose we have a historian (either appointed or elected to >>> >document our history. >>> > >>> >Right now, we only have (roughly) 3.5 years (4.5 (roughly) if you count >>> >KYGenWeb). Some of the biggest arguments I have seen on some of the lists >>> >is over our history and various persons' recollection of what happened. It >>> >will only get worse as some of the founders leave, pass on, or lose their >>> >memories. >>> > >>> >At 01:20 AM 1/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >>> >>I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full >attention >>> >>could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print >that >>> >>the listserv would not accept. - Tim: >>> >>---------------------- >>> >>I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if >>> >>anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the >>> >>project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the >>> >>project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this >omission. >>> >> >>> >>Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) >666-5028 >>> >>><http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He >>> >>artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY >>> >>Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies >Project, >>> >>U.S. Biographies Project >>> >> >>> > >> >>-- >>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 >> >> >

At 08:06 AM 1/18/00 -0500, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >I second the motion. I would add that: The historian will create a >history page the whereabouts of which will be added to the USGenWeb >front page index. > >Joe Ginger, Will you agree to Joe's modification? If so, Motion 00-1 is open for discussion in it's modified form. If not, it is open in it's original form. Tim >Ginger wrote: >> >> I agree with Joy and...... >> >> I move that The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board create >> the office of Project Historian. The Historian will be chosen >> from among interested volunteers and appointed to the office >> by the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator. The >> duties of the Historian shall consist of gathering and compiling >> the history of The USGenWeb Project, from various resources, >> and to add to that history on an ongoing basis. Each new >> Advisory Board may elect to appoint it's own Historian. If, >> for some reason, the Historian neglects to fulfill his or her >> appointed duties the Advisory Board and the National >> Coordiantor may choose a new Historian as needed. >> >> Ginger >> gingerh@shawneelink.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> >> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:29 AM >> Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Project (forwarded by request) >> >> >For a bunch of genealogists, who pride themselves on documenting every >> >little detail, we are doing a #&$@^ poor job of documenting our own >> >history. I propose we have a historian (either appointed or elected to >> >document our history. >> > >> >Right now, we only have (roughly) 3.5 years (4.5 (roughly) if you count >> >KYGenWeb). Some of the biggest arguments I have seen on some of the lists >> >is over our history and various persons' recollection of what happened. It >> >will only get worse as some of the founders leave, pass on, or lose their >> >memories. >> > >> >At 01:20 AM 1/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >> >>I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full attention >> >>could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print that >> >>the listserv would not accept. - Tim: >> >>---------------------- >> >>I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if >> >>anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the >> >>project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the >> >>project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this omission. >> >> >> >>Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) 666-5028 >> >><http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He >> >>artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY >> >>Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies Project, >> >>U.S. Biographies Project >> >> >> > > >-- >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 > >

At 11:51 AM -0800 1/12/00, Sandy wrote: A bunch of stuff summed up in the line: > >I believe it is VERY misleading to allow Rootsweb to display the >USGenWeb logo and to claim it hosts THE USGenWeb Project. > Sandy, I agree that the logo and link as currently captioned are misleading. In fact, as far as USGenWeb goes, I think "sponsored by" is a better term than "hosted by". As you point out, many web presence providers host USGenWeb pages. (Mine is primarily on Best Internet, and I pay $50 a month for it.) But relatively few companies give unlimited free space with no ads required to USGenWeb pages, while charging the public at large for no-banner-ad pages. The gift of free no-ads web space is significant enough that I would think any company or organization providing such would qualify under the usual meaning of "sponsor." Where the term "sponsor" breaks down is that most of the *other* projects on that line are resources managed directly by Rootsweb staff. Sort of like saying that Walt Disney "sponsors" the Magic Kingdom. As a label for every icon on that row EXCEPT USGenWeb, "Hosted by" is more accurate than "Sponsored by". But with the current wording, it certainly sounds like every project on that row is fully housed on Rootsweb. To avoid misleadingly appearing to claim to host the entire USGenWeb Project, I think the cluster pages should either replace the link labelled simply "USGenWeb" with one labelled either USGenWeb Archives or USGenWeb National pages (both of which ARE fully housed on Rootsweb), or else the header should be changed to "Major Projects Hosted or Partially Hosted by RootsWeb." (Note that this isn't mainly an icon issue. It would be just as misleading if you were in non-graphic mode and saw only the text.) Teri Pettit pettit@adobe.com USGenWeb CC Representative, Southeast-Mid Atlantic Region http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/

At 6:04 PM -0800 1/12/00, FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: > >My opinion is that we should either request that Rootsweb remove the USGenWeb >logo from non-USGenWeb pages, as we have done with every other non-official >site, or allow anyone to use the logo so long as it's a link back to the >USGenWeb Project. Any attempt to be selective will be met with ugly >accusations of discrimination, etc., and increases our vulnerability to >litigation. I personally favor the second approach, except that I would add "and as long as it is clear from the context in which the logo appears that it does not identify the page as part of The USGenWeb Project." Things that would make it clear include: 1. Text explicitly saying "This page is not part of the USGenWeb Project". OR 2. Using an approved modified version of the logo which contains text identifying some auxiliary role (such as Jen Godwin's variations - I think a simple "Visit USGenWeb" would be a nice addition too. Short and sweet, and it makes it very clear that it is intended as an external link. You wouldn't be invited to "visit" USGenWeb if you were already there.) OR 3. Including the USGenWeb icon somewhere on the bottom half of the page, in a cluster or row along with the icons of other genealogy projects or web sites. The confusion we want to avoid is some visitor to a "look-alike" county or state page thinking they are at a USGenWeb page when they aren't. So we should still disallow putting the full-size logo somewhere on the top 4 inches or so of a page unless it is an official Project page. Putting little logo icons near the bottom of web pages is so common that people don't tend to view them as automatic indicators that the page "belongs to" the organization that the logo is trademarked by. Think of all those ubiquitous "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer" or "Made on a Macintosh" icons. You never think the pages belong to Microsoft or Apple. Note that the above policy would allow the way in which the logo formerly appeared on The Migration Page and the USGenNet home page. Teri Pettit pettit@adobe.com USGenWeb CC Representative, Southeast-Mid Atlantic Region http://www.best.com/~tpettit/usgenweb/board99.html

I second the motion. I would add that: The historian will create a history page the whereabouts of which will be added to the USGenWeb front page index. Joe Ginger wrote: > > I agree with Joy and...... > > I move that The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board create > the office of Project Historian. The Historian will be chosen > from among interested volunteers and appointed to the office > by the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator. The > duties of the Historian shall consist of gathering and compiling > the history of The USGenWeb Project, from various resources, > and to add to that history on an ongoing basis. Each new > Advisory Board may elect to appoint it's own Historian. If, > for some reason, the Historian neglects to fulfill his or her > appointed duties the Advisory Board and the National > Coordiantor may choose a new Historian as needed. > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:29 AM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Project (forwarded by request) > > >For a bunch of genealogists, who pride themselves on documenting every > >little detail, we are doing a #&$@^ poor job of documenting our own > >history. I propose we have a historian (either appointed or elected to > >document our history. > > > >Right now, we only have (roughly) 3.5 years (4.5 (roughly) if you count > >KYGenWeb). Some of the biggest arguments I have seen on some of the lists > >is over our history and various persons' recollection of what happened. It > >will only get worse as some of the founders leave, pass on, or lose their > >memories. > > > >At 01:20 AM 1/18/00 -0500, you wrote: > >>I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full attention > >>could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print that > >>the listserv would not accept. - Tim: > >>---------------------- > >>I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if > >>anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the > >>project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the > >>project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this omission. > >> > >>Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) 666-5028 > >><http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He > >>artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY > >>Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies Project, > >>U.S. Biographies Project > >> > > -- 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

I agree with Joy and...... I move that The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board create the office of Project Historian. The Historian will be chosen from among interested volunteers and appointed to the office by the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator. The duties of the Historian shall consist of gathering and compiling the history of The USGenWeb Project, from various resources, and to add to that history on an ongoing basis. Each new Advisory Board may elect to appoint it's own Historian. If, for some reason, the Historian neglects to fulfill his or her appointed duties the Advisory Board and the National Coordiantor may choose a new Historian as needed. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Project (forwarded by request) >For a bunch of genealogists, who pride themselves on documenting every >little detail, we are doing a #&$@^ poor job of documenting our own >history. I propose we have a historian (either appointed or elected to >document our history. > >Right now, we only have (roughly) 3.5 years (4.5 (roughly) if you count >KYGenWeb). Some of the biggest arguments I have seen on some of the lists >is over our history and various persons' recollection of what happened. It >will only get worse as some of the founders leave, pass on, or lose their >memories. > >At 01:20 AM 1/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >>I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full attention >>could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print that >>the listserv would not accept. - Tim: >>---------------------- >>I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if >>anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the >>project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the >>project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this omission. >> >>Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) 666-5028 >><http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He >>artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY >>Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies Project, >>U.S. Biographies Project >> >

For a bunch of genealogists, who pride themselves on documenting every little detail, we are doing a #&$@^ poor job of documenting our own history. I propose we have a historian (either appointed or elected to document our history. Right now, we only have (roughly) 3.5 years (4.5 (roughly) if you count KYGenWeb). Some of the biggest arguments I have seen on some of the lists is over our history and various persons' recollection of what happened. It will only get worse as some of the founders leave, pass on, or lose their memories. At 01:20 AM 1/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full attention >could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print that >the listserv would not accept. - Tim: >---------------------- >I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if >anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the >project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the >project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this omission. > >Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) 666-5028 ><http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He >artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY >Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies Project, >U.S. Biographies Project >

I've held this until other items quieted down a bit so that full attention could be given to this. I had to retype this, as it was in small print that the listserv would not accept. - Tim: ---------------------- I took a look at the current web pages this morning, just to see if anything had changed. I can't help but notice that in the history of the project, there is absolutely no mention of my role as creator of the project. It would be nice if the gang would finally correct this omission. Jeff Murphy 1625 SE Roberts Dr. C-113 Gresham, Oregon 97080 (503) 666-5028 <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/>http://www.geocities.com/He artland/Plains/4708/ Muhlenberg Co., KY Creator of KY GenWeb Project, U.S. GenWeb Project, KY Biographies Project, U.S. Biographies Project

I personally don't see a problem with using the logo as a link back to the USGW, as long as it is not used in such a way that it could make a non-USGW site seem as though it was part of the USGW. For instance, I use a small copy of the logo on my Eastern Shore genealogy page on the "links" page at <http://bay.intercom.net/handley/links.htm>. The way it is used, there is no way someone would think it was anything other than a list of links to selected project sites. However, if someone displayed the logo on the index page of their web site, in much the same way as any USGW site displays it, visitors to the site could very well get the mistaken impression that the site is a part of the USGW. Jen Godwin sent a message to the USGENWEB-ALL list earlier tonight with a link to a page in which she displays a number of specialized logos that look great, and could be used by non-USGW sites who have a special relationship with our Project (ie "friends of . . .", "data donor", "web site host", "web space provider"). If you haven't seen it, take a look: <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/7135/logos.html>. If we do indeed want to restrict the use of our primary logo, I think we need to apply it to everyone. These logos would provide attractive alternates that are close enough in appearance to the primary logo they would be readily recognizable by visitors to the sites. Shari Handley SE/MA SC Rep

--part1_95.9e2e8.25ae8c9b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I realize we all got copies of this letter, and it has been distributed throughout several lists already, but am including it here for easy reference. I have already received a number of emails about this and I really think the Advisory Board needs to address the issue. My opinion is that we should either request that Rootsweb remove the USGenWeb logo from non-USGenWeb pages, as we have done with every other non-official site, or allow anyone to use the logo so long as it's a link back to the USGenWeb Project. Any attempt to be selective will be met with ugly accusations of discrimination, etc., and increases our vulnerability to litigation. Whichever we do, we ought to do as soon as possible to avoid further confusion to our volunteers and visitors alike. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau --part1_95.9e2e8.25ae8c9b_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <teylu@home.com> Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:11:02 -0500 Received: from mail.rdc1.tn.home.com (ha1.rdc1.tn.home.com [24.2.7.66]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:10:53 -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 <20000112171039.UZLE9818.mail.rdc1.tn.home.com@home.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:10:39 -0800 Message-ID: <387CB43A.6C90F6F7@home.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:05:00 -0600 From: Sandy <teylu@home.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, Joe Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com>, Kay Mason <kmfkm@ptw.com>, Pam Reid <pamreid@home.com>, Holly Timm <hollyft@bright.net>, Ginger Hayes <gingerh@shawneelink.com>, Richard Howland <richpump@wf.net>, Tina Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com>, Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu>, Virginia Cisewski <FEATHER2s@aol.com>, Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman <73777.25@compuserve.com>, Shari Handley <shari@klondyke.net>, Jim Powell <jpowelljr@gru.net>, Terri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM>, Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com>, Gloria Mayfield <gbmayfield@tyler.net>, Barbara Dore <RootsLady@email.msn.com> CC: BOARD-L <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com>, CC-L <USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org> Subject: Use of USGW logo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim and Members of the Advisory Board, I would appreciate clarification of the approval of use of the USGW Project logo by websites which are not member sites of the project. Specifically, have rights of the logo design been assigned to the USGW Project by thet designer? Has the logo been registered as a trademark of the USGW Project? If so, are we in a position to threaten enforcement of rights, which would necessitate pursuing civil litigation? (have we got money to do this?) I am further concerned by the appearance of disparity in who is allowed or not allowed to make use of the logo. Rootsweb.com, Inc. displays the USGW logo on EACH of its county "resource" pages, and claims on each of its county resource pages to be a SPONSOR of the USGW Project. When did the USGW Project begin aceepting commercial business sponsorships, and what are the details of the sponsorship agreement with Rootsweb.com, Inc? To whom are sponsorships offered, and what are the requirements? I would appreciate clarification on the matters of USGW Project logo use, as well as commercial sponsorships of the USGW Project. Thank you, Sandy cc for Vance Co, NC -------- Original Message -------- Subject: USGW-CC-L: USGenWeb Project Logo Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:33:56 -0700 From: C Hammett <carhammett@mindspring.com> Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org To: Tim.Stowell@mindspring.com, Coordinator@mindspring.com,USGenWeb Project <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org Dear Mr. Stowell: Since the USGenWeb Project has apparently officially approved the use of the USGenWeb Project logo on non-USGenWeb Project sites by commercial corporations linking to the USGenWeb Project, I respectfully request clarification as to why USGenNet, a nonprofit corporation, is not accorded the same privilege (see below). USGenNet's reason for including the USGenWeb Project Logo on the below-referenced page was for clarity (lest anyone confuse USGenNet, a service organization, with the USGenWeb Project itself). Sincerely, Carole Hammett, Recording Secretary United States Genealogy Network, Inc. http://USGenNet.Org/ Co-Coordinator Warren Co, TNGenWeb Project http://www.tngennet.org/warren/ ===== Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 01:26:06 -0500 To: webmaster@usgennet.org From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Subject: http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html Cc: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Dear Sir or Madam: Please remove the USGenWeb logo from http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html . This is our official copyrighted logo to be used only on officially approved USGenWeb sites. You may however use one of the logos shown at http://www.usgenweb.org/friends/friendslogo.html . You prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@chattanooga.net Chattanooga, TN National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - http://www.usgenweb.org --part1_95.9e2e8.25ae8c9b_boundary--

You are right on this issue, Tina. Being that I am the person who started The Tombstone Project and have been representing it on the Board for most of the Board's existence, maybe I should speak my mind on this. When I began the Project, now three years ago, little was being done to archive cemetery surveys. This bothered me a lot and the Project actually began as a Memorial Day tie in to try and get people to survey cemeteries and submit them to the archives while they were visiting. I ALWAYS considered the Archives to the proper place for storage of all records of this type for posterity's sake. It just made sense to me then and still does to me now. I don't believe that records belong on county web sites (unless they are also archived). The Archives is the central repository for all important historical and genealogical records for the USGenWeb Project. Well, the Tombstone Project was a huge success, so I decided to continue it as a permanent thing. All records that were sent to me were deposited in the Archives. I did, as a courtesy to researchers, link to surveys that were not archived, but I continued to encourage people to contribute their surveys to our repository. The Project did not begin as an off shoot of the Archives Project, but I more or less made it into one because of my beliefs. (I have the same opinions on Census Records, but that is another discussion). That is a bit of the history. The Tombstone Project is probably too large now to be handled by one volunteer in each state who is also the Archives coordinator. Maybe in some states it would work, but not in others. To be done right, it needs its own volunteer group making sure that files are uploaded, updated, etc. But, I do consider it to be an "Archives" Project from the standpoint that I believe ALL records should be in our central repository. Pam TVick65536@aol.com wrote: > > > 4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the > Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). > > I, also consider the Tombstone Project a subsidiary of the USGenWeb Archives > Project. Placing it within the USGenWeb Archives would only raise the > question of representation on the board. > > Tina Vickery

I don't know, Jim, I will have to think on that motion a little. On the surface it seems to me that archival matters should be left with those entrusted to manage them. I do think the Board overstepped on part of M99-4. But the problem that started it all and will always be with us is this. Linda Lewis initiated the Archives Project and the Census Project (CP) with the CP a special project under the Archives before there were Bylaws or an Advisory Board and appointed Kay Mason later as the CP National Coordinator. Anyway, Kay rebelled against Linda's authority. As part of this rebellion, kay asked Rootsweb for directories to house the census software. But instead of using them just for that purpose she used them to store census files out of reach of the Archive file managers and out of reach of any supervision from Linda. I think all you have read Brian's message to this effect last year. He never intended those directories to be used to archive data. In fact, digital storage costs money. The files hold space in the special directories and identical files are stored in the states' archives. And this problem grows with every upload. Initially there was a verbal agreement between Linda Lewis and Dr Brian Leverich concerning digital storage space for the archives. Linda, and her assistant Joy Fisher, are the only two people who have control of those accounts. When Kay pulled that stunt it really violated that agreement. So what we have is the Archives coordinator without the means to effect her control of a part of the Archives. Is it any wonder Linda and the file managers are upset? Now Kay has vanished from the scene and left the wreckage for others to clean up. But it needs to be discussed civilly so all current members understand it. Then perhaps we can craft a solution fair to all. Joe Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > This may be a separate issue, but it ties to this. I believe that we > need to officially say something about motion 99-4. We need to either > make a new motion that makes specific guidelines and drops the "The > Board strongly recommends" or we should declare that directive null and > void and "Strongly recommend" that they get together and solve their > differences. Otherwise, it will always be there, interfering with any > attempt to merge the two Projects. > > I know what I meant when I voted for that motion, but a lot has gone on > between then and now. I'm not so sure any more. What do the rest of > you think? > > Jim -- 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

This may be a separate issue, but it ties to this. I believe that we need to officially say something about motion 99-4. We need to either make a new motion that makes specific guidelines and drops the "The Board strongly recommends" or we should declare that directive null and void and "Strongly recommend" that they get together and solve their differences. Otherwise, it will always be there, interfering with any attempt to merge the two Projects. I know what I meant when I voted for that motion, but a lot has gone on between then and now. I'm not so sure any more. What do the rest of you think? Jim

> 4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). I, also consider the Tombstone Project a subsidiary of the USGenWeb Archives Project. Placing it within the USGenWeb Archives would only raise the question of representation on the board. Tina Vickery

> 2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. I think a good faith and good effort is being made to reconcile the two projects. I would let the involved parties continue to work towards agreement and resolution. > 3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. Kay's absence has been ongoing for many months. I would suggest that Tim contact her and request that she submit her resignation to the board for consideration. Tina Vickery

I agree with Jim on this issue. I believe that this should be handle without the Board's involvement at this time. I do have the faith that the two parties can reach an agreement, and will reach an agreement for the cause of the Project. Gloria, Southwest/South Central CC Rep Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > I think we should combine 002 and 003. I believe that before we do > anything about the vacant Board position, that the two Census projects > should come together on their own and create something bigger and better > than sum of the two projects as they now exist. They should do this > without Board involvement or pressure. They need to realize that they > start with a blank slate. Nothing that the Board has said or might say > should come into play. There are intelligent, worthy Volunteers on both > sides. They know what should be done, ask them nicely to get on with it > and then they can elect a new Board Rep. Maybe we could create them a > list where the major players were subbed as participants and the those > of us that are interested could sub in a read only mode. If it blew up > we would be no worse off than we are now. > > Jim > Alachua County Clerk of the Courts Office > Http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/~clerk/ -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board Personal page http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/gmayfield/index.html TX Tombstone Project Manager http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/Texas/ Texas Surnames http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/txsurnames.html Panola County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txpanola/ Rusk County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/index.htm

I think the intent was to have the Special Projects Coordinator Originally appointed by the AB and then when the Special Project was established and in need of a new Coordinator, the Volunteers would elect one. Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > > One could read the Bylaws as you state above. That the CP and other > Special Project elect their Board Rep there is no question. > > However as far as the Coordinator of the Special Projects is concerned the > Bylaws state that they are appointed by the Advisory Board in Article 13 - > Section 1. > > Section 6 - though does cause difficulty seemingly contradicting Section 1. > > It seems as if in the writing of the Sections regarding the Special > Projects that two positions were being discussed without a clear division > regarding which was being talked about where. > > Tim

In a message dated 01/11/2000 12:51:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: << One could read the Bylaws as you state above. That the CP and other Special Project elect their Board Rep there is no question. However as far as the Coordinator of the Special Projects is concerned the Bylaws state that they are appointed by the Advisory Board in Article 13 - Section 1. Section 6 - though does cause difficulty seemingly contradicting Section 1. It seems as if in the writing of the Sections regarding the Special Projects that two positions were being discussed without a clear division regarding which was being talked about where. >> If you read carefully, Article XIII Section 1 is describing the procedure to be used in the initial creation of a Special Project, while Section 6 describes the method of replacing a Project Coordinator in an existing Special Project, which is true in the instant case. Checking a bit further, the wording of Section 6 is almost identical to that in Article XII, Section 10 which details the methods of replacing a State Coordinator. This procedure has been used a number of times since the initiation of the Bylaws, so I fail to see a cause for confusion in this case. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau