This is copied-and-pasted because forwarding creates an attachment. Alexandra J.A.I.L. News Journal ____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California May 16, 2001 Union Tribune By Kathryn Balint STAFF WRITER May 13, 2001 Who owns the law? Not the public, at least in the latest court battle over copyright infringement on the Internet. Turns out, the text of the public laws in question belongs to a private, but influential, organization. That's what a federal judge and an appeals court say. ... Government at the local, state and federal levels increasingly is enacting laws that have been written and copyrighted by private entities. Consider: California and 47 other states have building laws that are copyrighted by one of three nonprofit organizations. .... "By its very nature, the law belongs to the public," said Malla Pollack, associate professor of law at Northern Illinois University. "For some reason, the U.S. courts do not seem to take seriously the public domain." The question of who owns the law arose from a homespun Website operated out of Denison, Texas, a little more than an hour's drive from Dallas. It started when retired airline pilot Peter Veeck, 60, set out to renovate a dilapidated building in downtown Denison. He paid $300 for a copy of the region's building code, 1,000 pages of construction laws that dictate everything from how wide a door must be to how far apart nails must be spaced. Veeck -- "it rhymes with wreck," he says, borrowing a line from late White Sox owner Bill Veeck -- figured he'd do everyone a favor and post the building code on his Web site. No sooner did he get the code up on the Net than he received a threatening e-mail from a lawyer. The lawyer claimed a nonprofit group by the name of the Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. owned the copyright to that set of laws. "Copyright?" Veeck asked. "How can you have a copyright on the law? I was brought up in school to believe the law was public domain." Veeck hired attorney Eric Weisberg, who thought the case would be a slam dunk. "As far as I'm concerned," Weisberg recalls telling his client, "there can't be a copyright of the law." That was three years ago. Since then, a federal judge and two out of three judges sitting on an appeals panel have ruled that a private organization can, and does, own the copyright to the local building laws. "It's counterintuitive," Weisberg said. "It's outrageous." .... Starting in the late 1920s, contractors and other construction professionals worried that government was lax about updating building codes. So they formed nonprofit organizations, such as the Southern Building Code Congress, to draft the kind of highly technical, up-to-date regulations they felt were needed to ensure public safety. They encouraged state and local governments to adopt the regulations, at no charge. The catch? The organizations retained the copyright to the text. .... Anyone wanting a copy of the law had to -- and still has to -- buy it from the organization. Try finding California's building code on the state's Website. "The first thing people do is go online to look for Title 24," said state code analyst Michael Nearman, referring to the state's building code by its official number. "They find Title 21, 22, 23 and 25 and go 'Hmmm.' Title 24 is just not there." One of the most common questions he gets is "Why isn't it on the Web?" The answer, of course, is that California doesn't own the copyright to that particular law. "We explain to people, and they get real upset about it in most cases because they feel like they're paying for this in taxes, so why should they pay for it again?" Nearman said. .... The building code isn't cheap. A printed copy costs $738. .... The Veeck case personifies the intersection where private copyrights and the public domain collide. Veeck has asked all 18 judges of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider his arguments. More than three dozen law professors, from California to Connecticut, have weighed in with briefs on his side. "Every time I bring up this case to other academic professionals, they all say that such a ruling is impossible," said Pollack, the law professor. "But such a ruling happened." She thinks the case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court because, she says, it raises fundamental issues about due process. The way things stand, Pollack said, citizens have no choice but to pay a private organization to get a copy of a law they're required to obey. "Basically, government is agreeing to allow a private party to make as much money as it can by picking its own price and selling copies of the law to people who need them," Pollack said. The Southern Building Code Congress said in court papers it expects to sell $6.7 million worth of building codes over the next 10 years. Like it or not, more and more laws are becoming private property. .... Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/sun/news/news_1n13own.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- If you have followed what has just been set forth above, you will have figured out one reason why we have such a proliferation of unconstitutional laws. Allow me to recap my understanding of what you have just read. [I am going to insert my own points not proffered by the above article by placing it in brackets.] I am a building contractor. I need to drum up new business for my contracting corporation. In order to do this, I write up a shopping list of new laws that I want on the books to increase my business. I set up a "non-profit" corporation, and copyright my new laws to this "non-profit." I take these new laws to the legislators and convince them that my shopping list of new laws is good for everyone. [The$e legi$lator$ $ee my point.] Now everyone is required to comply with my new laws, and need copies of my copyrighted laws in order to build anything, but they cannot get the law except from me. Since I am the only source from which people can get the law, I can charge just as much as I want for it. I have no competitors. With my government-protected monopoly, I make handsome windfall profits from the people not only just off the sale of the copies of my law they must have to comply, but also off the momentous contracts it brings to my contracting corporation. If anyone tries to make it easy for the people to get the law, such as placing the law on the internet, I threaten them with a lawsuit [because they are cutting into the profits of my non-profit corporation]. When I get to court, I just show the judge my copyright monopoly on the law, and I win hands down. [Thus, me and the judges have a cozy conspiracy going against all the people, and there is not a darn thing the people can do about it. So what if I make regular large campaign donations to the re-election fund of the judges. Have fun building throughout any of the 48 states of which I hold a monopoly, and thanks for your patronage!] Did I recap this properly? J.A.I.L. For Judges, where are you? I Am -Ron Branson- J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 To subscribe or be removed: [email protected] E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join Open forum to make your voice heard [email protected] "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><

I need your advice in regard to reproducing the reproduced. as well as your interpretation of a statement made by a curator. In 1983, as a compliment from the White House, I received a reproduction of a painting of the First Lady Mrs. Monroe. Attached was the White House curator's letter. It says no reproduction without the painting owner's permission. My question is: Does the curator mean that I cannot reproduce the reproduced? If in this regard, what about thousands and an artist who reproduce Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa are not penalized for copying. Though not related to him, my great aunt was allowed by the director of the Louvre in Paris in 1920s to sit in the grand hall of the said museum to copy -- albeit the different size -- a painting by Francois Boucher (1700s). Students from different schools in the USA would come to the National Gallery of Art (NGA) to copy the masters' paintings and would then exhibit their works -- "so as to show faculty, staff, and the community what they have learned from copying in the NGA. All of them, including my great aunt, did not ask the masters' or the painting owners' permission. They are not be penalized either for copying as long as they sign their own names on their works -- rather than falsely using the masters' names on them (forgery). Does the White House curator, therefore, make a conflict by allowing himself to reproduce the painting and then by not allowing me to scan the reproduced picture of the painting? Regards, Jean

There are really multiple issues here. First - If one takes a photo of an old photo or scans the old photo, there is no originality involved and originality is required for copyright. Therefore, there is no new copyright. Second - Old photos may not be in the public domain even if they were created before the threshold year of 1923. If they were created before January 1, 1978 and never PUBLISHED, they are protected by copyright until at least the end of next year. If they are published by the legitimate copyright holder before the copyright expires, the copyright is extended to at least the end of 2047. On Jan. 1, 2003, all published works by authors (photographer, sculptors, etc.) who died during 1932 or earlier will enter the public domain. In 2004, the works of those who died in 1934 will go into public domain and so on. Third - The nature of historical material of any type means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine. If the use of the photographs is limited and is unlikely to result in loss of revenue to the owner of the copyright, then use of the photos is likely "fair use." Mike http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm At 12:58 PM 4/29/01 -0500, maryann wrote: >When an old, pre 1923 picture is posted on the Internet, is this >picture under copyright since the person who posted it recently took >or scanned a picture of the original picture. > >What I am asking is if an old picture is posted on the net, can >someone else copy it and then legally make more copies of it to sell >or give away. > >Mary Ann > > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate >your heritage! >http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

When an old, pre 1923 picture is posted on the Internet, is this picture under copyright since the person who posted it recently took or scanned a picture of the original picture. What I am asking is if an old picture is posted on the net, can someone else copy it and then legally make more copies of it to sell or give away. Mary Ann

On Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:06 AM, Mike and Karen Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > Much of the warnings found in a software license agreement are to inform > the end user of their rights and limitations under copyright and other > laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Such software > licenses cannot preempt the law, though. They cannot restrict the use of > information from the software any more than the information would be > restricted if it came from a book, newspaper, or magazine. Any software > statement or license that implies otherwise is misleading. Sure they can restrict the use of the information, public domain or otherwise. They are not required by any law to provide this information to you. If the license is written as a nondisclosure agreement, and if you then access the information and use it outside the bounds of the agreement, you can be sued. (Whether they will find it worthwhile or not is another question.) Scott

Data existing on a CD doesn't have any more copyright protection than any other source of information. Using CDs for lookups does not infringe upon copyrights so long as the material provided is limited in scope. Such use is allowed under the "fair use" principle of copyright law. As well, the producer of the CDs may not have a legitimate claim to copyright protection for much of the material on their CDs. Some of the things that they can't claim copyright on: 1 - facts or information perceived to be facts; no one can claim copyright protection for facts 2 - public domain material; once in the public domain, always in the public domain 3 - material that is copyrighted by others Item 3 applies to CDs or other data sources that are compilations of material submitted by individuals. Unless the copyright is specifically assigned to the compiler, the copyright for the material still resides with the original author. Any infringement would be infringing upon the right of the original author, not the right of the publisher of the CD. Compilations of factual material are only protected under copyright law if there is originality in the selection and/or arrangement of the material. CDs or databases that incorporate ALL of the material submitted to them probably do not meet the originality requirement for selection. It is also unlikely that they meet the originality criteria for originality if the information is arranged in a fairly standard format, such as is found in a family's pedigree. Thus the producers of a CD consisting solely of material solicited from others probably have very little legitimate claim to copyright over any of the material on the CD. (This being said, I DO NOT recommend trying to copy all of the material on one of the CDs.) Much of the warnings found in a software license agreement are to inform the end user of their rights and limitations under copyright and other laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Such software licenses cannot preempt the law, though. They cannot restrict the use of information from the software any more than the information would be restricted if it came from a book, newspaper, or magazine. Any software statement or license that implies otherwise is misleading. I've been on the internet for over 5 years now. Lookups for information on these CDs has been asked for and has been provided for all of that time. I have yet to hear of any legal attempt by any CD producer to stop them. (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the information presented here is my own interpretation of copyright law as I understand it. It does not and is not intended to constitute any sort of legal advice.) Mike Goad http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm

I was asked to post a private exchange with regard to the following statement: > > Can You Copyright Your Data? by Dick Eastman > > .... > > "For instance, if the original records of a town are difficult > > to read because of faded ink or poor penmanship, an expert > > historian with proper experience may be able to decode the > > information properly and then publish that interpretation of > > the original records. The interpretation involved constitutes > > originality and therefore may be copyrighted." On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:56 PM, Cliff Lamere <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope that this is incorrect. If the person interpteting the > handwriting ends up with data, they are presenting it as > factual. If they have done a really good job, it will be > entirely factual. How can their interpretation be > copyrightable? Isn't a person's interpretation just part of > the "sweat of the brow" that the US Supreme Court (1991) said > was not protected by copyright? > > I don't see anything original in interpreting something to be > what was actually written. If so, just interpreting bad > microfilms or photocopies could be claimed as a reason for > copyright of facts. I agree with you. I was being partially facetious when I said "which may verge on a completely original work of authorship :-)." To the extent it is a factual presentation of data, it is not copyrightable; to the extent it is a presentation of conclusions drawn in a scholarly fashion, it is copyrightable. Scott

you will need to contact Camilla who is the top lady in the FreeBMD project and she is based in England and she know more about the index in question. David Samuelsen "Scott R. Anderson" wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:16 PM, Patricia Tidmarsh <[email protected]> wrote: > > I dont know where she copied them from while she was in England. I had > > There are free British BMD records online at Rootsweb through 1899 > > Somewhere I remember reading that British records are not in the public > > domain and something about 100 year limit for facts?? > > Facts are never copyrightable. > > Most U.S. government records are automatically public domain. This is not true of most other countries, including the U.K., which provides for Crown Copyright on government-produced documents (see <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/>). But like other copyrights it does eventually expire. I can't say for certain when, though, and because it can vary from country to country, I must backtrack on the pre-1923 date I mentioned which is for U.S. works. > > There is some information on UK copyright available at <http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/index.htm> and at <http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/copyright/index.htm>. I don't know the exact nature of the British Index, but who created it and the date it was created is relevant. > > It also sounds like a database, and at <http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/morecopy.htm> they mention that "Databases may receive copyright protection for the selection and arrangement of the contents. In addition, or instead, database right may exist in a database. This is an automatic right and protects databases against the unauthorised extraction and re-utilisation of the contents of the database. Database right lasts for 15 years from the making but, if published during this time, then the term is 15 years from publication." Note that "Database right" doesn't exist in the U.S., though many people have argued for it. > > S R C A > cott obert ranston nderson > [email protected] > Admin, {C{offield,ollosky,ranston,ummins},OHGuerns,USAGen}[email protected] > USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/ > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

My apologies for sending this note to the list. I just don't know your name or email address, or I would have written you privately. I recently un- subscrib ed my old email address and s ubbed my new one. All was well. I received only one post of all messages. However, now I'm getting TWO copies of all posts to this list. I suspect that RootsWeb has loaded a backup copy of something that also includes my old email address, but I don't know for sure. Would you please write me privately so I can have you check if the old address is still subbed? The old address still works too as Prodigy gave me a free month, hoping that I'll change my mind I guess. Patricia

Can You Copyright Your Data? by Dick Eastman .... "For instance, if the original records of a town are difficult to read because of faded ink or poor penmanship, an expert historian with proper experience may be able to decode the information properly and then publish that interpretation of the original records. The interpretation involved constitutes originality and therefore may be copyrighted." I hope that this is incorrect. If the person interpteting the handwriting ends up with data, they are presenting it as factual. If they have done a really good job, it will be entirely factual. How can their interpretation be copyrightable? Isn't a person's interpretation just part of the "sweat of the brow" that the US Supreme Court (1991) said was not protected by copyright? I don't see anything original in interpreting something to be what was actually written. If so, just interpreting bad microfilms or photocopies could be claimed as a reason for copyright of facts. Cliff

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:29 PM, Neal Caskey <[email protected]> wrote: > >Can You Copyright Your Data? > - Dick Eastman > .... >For instance, if the original records of a town are difficult >to read because of faded ink or poor penmanship, an expert >historian with proper experience may be able to decode the >information properly and then publish that interpretation of >the original records. The interpretation involved constitutes >originality and therefore may be copyrighted. I would point out that one must separate "editorial" interpretation of some words in a document from the scholarly work described above, which may verge on a completely original work of authorship :-). >At first glance one would think that most of the genealogy data >published on CD-ROM or online would be free of copyright. >However, a closer look at the copyright laws reveals a >different picture. Publishers of CD-ROM and online databases >have two weapons available to protect their data. The first is >originality, added by the electronic search capabilities of >their product. That is, the capability to find a specific >record within 2 or 3 seconds in a large database constitutes >"originality in selecting" records and is, therefore, covered >by copyrights. The original data is still public domain, but >the use of the producer's electronic search capabilities places >restrictions on what you can do with the output. This is really dubious. The search engine itself is certainly copyrightable, but it is just a tool used by the *individual* who selects the search criteria, so the data it produces cannot be copyrightable on that basis. The statement above is like saying that the copyright on every document you produce with Microsoft Word belongs to Microsoft, since you used their tools to produce it. On the other hand, the format of the output may be subject to copyright, if there is some originality there. Simple tabular data in general is not original, though. > The second weapon is the software license. Whether you use a CD-ROM > database or search genealogy information on the Web, you still > are bound by the legal terms and conditions specified by the > company who produced the software involved. In short, you cannot use their > software for purposes other than what they allow. This, on the other hand, is lock-solid. Even if the information is public domain, they can require you to keep private what they're going to show you before they show it to you. This is not a copyright issue, it is a contractual agreement. >In general, copying a small amount of a work is considered fair >use unless it is the heart of the work. Going back to the >earlier example of responding to lookup requests on newsgroups >or message boards, such activities would appear to infringe on >the heart of the work and also to have a major impact on "the >market value of the work." The person receiving the information >from you is less likely to purchase his or her own copy of the >work, so you have illegally impacted the market value of the >work in question. But you can always recast the information in your own format (unless you are subject to a license agreement). >Extracting a bit of text from a long work seems to be proper >under the fair use provision. For instance, in this newsletter, >you will often see me quote a few sentences from a longer work, >such as a program's help file or a Web site's description of >its services. My belief is that such a quote falls under the >fair use section on news reporting. The amount of text quoted >is small in relation to the whole work and would appear to have >no impact on the market value of the work. Of course, I always >attribute the work and then give a reference as to where the >reader can find the original. Not to mention that it is being used as part of a larger original work. This "springboard to further creativity" is one the main rationales for fair use. > Beware, however, of the less than expert material that you also find online. That would be me :-). It may also be the author of this article. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected] Admin, {C{offield,ollosky,ranston,ummins},OHGuerns,USAGen}[email protected] USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/

The following appeared on Ancestory.Com and is very informative on copyright protection. Can You Copyright Your Data? - Dick Eastman About once a week or so I receive an e-mail from a person who feels "ripped off." Each e-mail comes from someone who spends a lot of time and effort collecting genealogy information about their ancestry and then decides to share it with others. Some time later, that person finds the same information re-posted elsewhere, apparently by someone else who "ripped off" the information from the first person. The usual questions are: "Is this legal? Can he do that?" and "Isn't my data copyrighted?" There are numerous other questions about copyrights in the genealogy community. If I find information in a book, can I legally copy that information and then republish it elsewhere? How about looking up genealogy information on a CD-ROM disk and then sending the results to someone else? I also hear complaints about genealogy data being offered for free that later ends up on a CD-ROM disk being sold by a commercial company. Questions about copyrights arise time and again. There are no quick and easy answers to these questions. However, we can examine the facts and the laws involved to at least narrow the discussion down a bit. I will focus only on copyright laws in the United States. The laws in other countries will probably be similar but obviously will vary in details. First we have to define what is a copyright. A copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce a "work of authorship," to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies of the work, to perform the work, and to publicly display the work. A work of authorship must be "original" and must be fixed in a "tangible medium of expression" in order to be protected. Genealogy publications, both electronic and printed, generally fall into the "literary works" category. The phrase "public domain" refers to all works that are not covered by copyright. This includes works that were never covered by copyright or any works on which the copyrights have expired. All books, music and other works published in the United States before 1923 are public domain. If you have a copy of a genealogy book published before 1923, you may freely copy anything from that book and republish it. Items published from 1923 through 1977 were covered by copyrights if the author placed a clear copyright notice on the original work. Most books published in 1923 and later do display a copyright claim. Those copyrights lasted for 28 years, plus the copyright holder could obtain an extension for up to 67 additional years. Those works may or may not still be under copyright today. If the original copyright holder is now deceased, his or her heirs may have renewed the copyright. Therefore, you must be careful before copying data from works created in those years. Unfortunately, there is no central copyrights database to check. In 1978, the U.S. copyright laws were changed in such a manner as to make almost everything copyrighted unless specifically released to the public domain by the author. While the wording of the law is a bit complex, the results are simple: you won't be able to copy that information for many years yet without the copyright holder's permission. There is an excellent chart that explains when copyrighted works pass into the public domain. This chart was created by Dennis S. Karjala, Professor of Law, Arizona State University and can be found at www.progenealogists.com/copyright_table.htm While data printed after 1978 generally is copyrighted, there still are exceptions. Certain things can never be copyrighted, such as ideas, facts, events, news of the day, concepts, principles, Laws of Nature, or discoveries. (I will avoid mentioning patents and trademarks, as those generally are not an issue with genealogy information.) Also not copyrightable are blank forms, plain calendars, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources. Facts cannot be copyrighted, nor can "lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources." A simple listing of dates and places of birth, marriage, and death cannot be copyrighted. These facts are public domain (in the United States but not always in other countries) and the mere republication of these facts results in more public domain data. Keep this in mind when you publish your genealogy information online or on paper. If you simply publish facts taken from public records, your publication is not copyrighted. However, if you add biographies and personal notes and other information you found by researching non-public records, the extra information you added probably does fall under copyright protection. A compilation is a collection of works or data that receives copyright protection whether or not the works it contains fall under copyright laws. A book that contains transcribed records is a compilation. Until 1991, compilations were protected by copyrights as the authors had expended considerable effort to compile them into a new work. However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out this "sweat of the brow" theory in its decision, "Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service," (499 U.S. 340). Since then, the U.S. National Genealogical Society and other organizations have worked diligently to have genealogy compilations covered by copyrights. In fact, the copyrights seem to hold up if the compilation includes originality in selecting, arranging, explaining or interpreting the original data. For instance, if the original records of a town are difficult to read because of faded ink or poor penmanship, an expert historian with proper experience may be able to decode the information properly and then publish that interpretation of the original records. The interpretation involved constitutes originality and therefore may be copyrighted. Conversely, simply republishing data already published earlier generally does not fall under copyright. If you reprint a book containing a compilation of vital records and the original book was printed before 1923, your new publication is not copyrighted. This is true even if you rearrange the data. At first glance one would think that most of the genealogy data published on CD-ROM or online would be free of copyright. However, a closer look at the copyright laws reveals a different picture. Publishers of CD-ROM and online databases have two weapons available to protect their data. The first is originality, added by the electronic search capabilities of their product. That is, the capability to find a specific record within 2 or 3 seconds in a large database constitutes "originality in selecting" records and is, therefore, covered by copyrights. The original data is still public domain, but the use of the producer's electronic search capabilities places restrictions on what you can do with the output. The second weapon is the software license. Whether you use a CD-ROM database or search genealogy information on the Web, you still are bound by the legal terms and conditions specified by the company who produced the software involved. In short, you cannot use their softwa! re for purposes other than what they allow. If you see a request on a newsgroup or message board from someone asking for a "look up" of specific data for them on a particular CD-ROM, don't do it! If you post the reply, you will have broken copyright laws and may find yourself on the receiving end of an unpleasant legal document. When in doubt, consult the copyrights and the software license of the CD-ROM or online database that you are using. The different producers have different terms and conditions. Some, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may allow for limited copying. Other producers do not allow for any copying at all. I am not aware of any major producer of genealogy data that allows for freely copying all the data. You should also be aware of one exception to the otherwise stringent copyright laws, called "fair use." Fair use allows for non-infringing copying of a copyrighted work for such purposes as comment, criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In determining whether such use is fair, courts consider 1.. the purpose of the work (commercial or non-commercial) 2.. the nature of the work 3.. the amount used in relation to the whole work 4.. the effect of the use on the market value of the work. In general, copying a small amount of a work is considered fair use unless it is the heart of the work. Going back to the earlier example of responding to lookup requests on newsgroups or message boards, such activities would appear to infringe on the heart of the work and also to have a major impact on "the market value of the work." The person receiving the information from you is less likely to purchase his or her own copy of the work, so you have illegally impacted the market value of the work in question. Some people will say, "I don't charge for it, so it's legal." Wrong! Ask any lawyer. You are infringing upon the copyrights whether you receive compensation or not. Extracting a bit of text from a long work seems to be proper under the fair use provision. For instance, in this newsletter, you will often see me quote a few sentences from a longer work, such as a program's help file or a Web site's description of its services. My belief is that such a quote falls under the fair use section on news reporting. The amount of text quoted is small in relation to the whole work and would appear to have no impact on the market value of the work. Of course, I always attribute the work and then give a reference as to where the reader can find the original. Let's return to the original question about your data being copyrighted. Let's assume that you post genealogy information online. Your information consists of names, dates and places. That information was obtained from public and private records. You have published facts, and facts are not covered by copyright. Someone else may legally take your data and republish it as they see fit. Yes, they may even charge for this. That may not be the answer you wanted, but the U.S. copyright laws specifically state that facts cannot be copyrighted. But you say, "Hold on! I added originality with my diligent research and interpretation." Well, you may be correct. However, I think you will have a difficult time proving that in court if your data simply consists of names, dates and places. Those who print books or large electronic texts generally enjoy more protection. Most of the ones I have seen do show originality and added value. Most genealogy books have extensive explanations in the text that give not only the data but also the reasons why the author believes the data to be correct. Most authors write extensively about the conditions of the times and about the events of the ancestors' lives. As such, these books would seem to fall under copyright protection. For this discussion, I will use the word "book" to include both printed and electronic texts. Keep in mind, however, that just because a publication is copyrighted, you cannot assume that everything in the publication enjoys copyright protection. Those names, dates and places listed in the book are still facts, and as you now know, facts cannot be copyrighted. The accompanying text that explains why John is believed to be the son of Peter and Mary instead of the son of a different couple will be protected, however. The above answers are brief and only cover the questions I hear most often. A full discussion of copyright laws would fill several of these newsletters, so I will not go further. Luckily, you can find lots of expert material online. Beware, however, of the less than expert material that you also find online. Sites that I respect include "Who Owns Genealogy?" by Gary B. Hoffman at www.genealogy.com/genealogy/14_cpyrt.html "Horror On The Web" by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, C.G. www.ancestry.com/columns/myra/Shaking_Family_Tree10-29-98.htm "Copyrights & Wrongs" by Mark Howells www.oz.net/~markhow/writing/copy.htm Other articles that are not specific to genealogy but which contain information that applies to all areas of copyright law include: "10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained" By Brad Templeton www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "Copyright & Fair use" by Stanford University Libraries fairuse.stanford.edu/ "Copyright and Fair Use in the Digital Age Q&A with Peter Lyman" by the Educom Review Staff www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewarticles/30132.html "Copyright on the Internet" by Thomas G. Field, Jr.: www.fplc.edu/tfield/copyNet.htm U.S Copyright Office Web site lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ Please visit my web site for genealogy links, books and other useful info. http://ourkin.webnota.com/

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:16 PM, Patricia Tidmarsh <[email protected]> wrote: > I dont know where she copied them from while she was in England. I had > There are free British BMD records online at Rootsweb through 1899 > Somewhere I remember reading that British records are not in the public > domain and something about 100 year limit for facts?? Facts are never copyrightable. Most U.S. government records are automatically public domain. This is not true of most other countries, including the U.K., which provides for Crown Copyright on government-produced documents (see <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/>). But like other copyrights it does eventually expire. I can't say for certain when, though, and because it can vary from country to country, I must backtrack on the pre-1923 date I mentioned which is for U.S. works. There is some information on UK copyright available at <http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/index.htm> and at <http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/copyright/index.htm>. I don't know the exact nature of the British Index, but who created it and the date it was created is relevant. It also sounds like a database, and at <http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/morecopy.htm> they mention that "Databases may receive copyright protection for the selection and arrangement of the contents. In addition, or instead, database right may exist in a database. This is an automatic right and protects databases against the unauthorised extraction and re-utilisation of the contents of the database. Database right lasts for 15 years from the making but, if published during this time, then the term is 15 years from publication." Note that "Database right" doesn't exist in the U.S., though many people have argued for it. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected] Admin, {C{offield,ollosky,ranston,ummins},OHGuerns,USAGen}[email protected] USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:36 AM, Patricia Tidmarsh <[email protected]> wrote: > >Have a list member who has copied information from British Index while she >was in England. Information is 1836-1870. Can she post the information >to the list? The information may always be posted, just not necessarily in the format in which it was published in a copyrighted document. Anything published before 1923 is out of copyright, and there are no restrictions. When was the index published? S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected] Admin, {C{offield,ollosky,ranston,ummins},OHGuerns,USAGen}[email protected] USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/

Have a list member who has copied information from British Index while she was in England. Information is 1836-1870. Can she post the information to the list? TIA

My father was interviewed in 1994 - this interview was part of the Brasstown Carver's documentation project which was a part of Southern Highlander's Handcraft Guild Folklife documentation project. The grant funding was from the folklife section of the NC Arts Council. They gave my dad a copy of the recorded interview. Now that he is gone, I have his copy. Is it copyright infringement if I put a written transcript of the interview on the web? Carol Don't let another child be hurt by ignorance, educate yourself about Tourette Syndrome. www.tsa-usa.org --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.236 / Virus Database: 114 - Release Date: 3/5/01

Thanks, Mike, for your response and help. Michael Allison ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike and Karen Goad <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 8:08 PM Subject: Re: FAIR USE???

Hi all, Fair Use To ease the conflict between scholarly growth and the copyright owner's rights, the law includes a right of "fair use" which allows limited copying without consent. The limits of fair use are not well defined, intentionally left so by Congress. Fair use is very applicable to scholarship and research, both of which are very important attributes of genealogy. Fair use is a privilege that is also a source of confusion. The statute is ambiguous, fair use depending on each case's circumstances. Four factors are considered: Purpose of the use, including non-profit educational use Nature of the copyrighted work Amount of copying Effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the original work Most universities and libraries have fair use policies for activities such as copying materials for research or for classes. Few guidelines exist for use of materials in publications that are "scholarly" in nature. Legal challenges to the fair use of materials in such works is not often seen in court. The costs of litigation and attorney fees make that prohibitive. SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER is whether or not a work is actually copyrighted. Some material that is assumed to be copyrighted may actually be public domain: The reference I used for the following information is "The Copyright Handbook - How to Protect and Use Written Works" by Attorney Stephen Fishman, Copyright 2000. Some U.S. works between 1923 and 1989 never were copyrighted. Works published in the United States before March 1, 1989, without a valid copyright notice automatically entered the public domain. Works published in the United States before January 1, 1978, entered the public domain if not registered with the copyright office, even if it had a proper copyright notice. Works published in the U.S. or a foreign country before January 1, 1964, entered the public domain if the copyright was never renewed by filing a renewal application during the 28th year after publication. The Copyright Office estimates that only about 15 percent of those works from before 1964 were actually renewed. Most of those that were renewed were renewed because they continued to have some sort of economic value. Copyright duration: works created after 1977 by individuals - life of the author plus 70 years works for hire - 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever occurs first works created, published, and properly copyrighted from 1923 to 1963 - 95 years from the date of publication if they were properly renewed works created, published, and properly copyrighted from 1963 to 1977 - 95 years whether renewed or not works created, before 1978, but not published - at least until December 31, 2002, and often much longer Mike Goad http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm At 06:23 PM 3/11/01 -0800, Michael Allison wrote: >I wonder if someone might be willing to help me out. I'm a manager of a >county genealogy e-mail list, but not the typical list such as you find on >Rootsweb. This is an incredibly busy group with a variety of member >service and resources. Since we were founded in January of 2000, we've >already posted almost 19,000 message to the list (a lot of mail and a lot >of data). In this very active group we have large attached files coming >over the list, as well as a members' only website with downloadable files >and historical photos shared with other members. There is an amazing level >of information shared within the group. And of course there is increased >potential for problems with copyright issues. > >Recently we've been raising awareness of copyright issues. Several members >have asked for a simple, clear-cut, lay explanation of "fair use" to use >as a general rule of thumb. While I do understand some of this, I don't >feel equipped to attempt to explain it. Nor can I find the right words to >explain it. > >Would one of you with strong working knowledge of fair use be willing to >offer me a simple, brief paragraph or two that I could share with the >members of that list. I would sincerely appreciate any help I can get. > >Sincere thanks if anyone can help with this! >Michael Allison > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Check out the new communities at RootsWeb >http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > >============================== >The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! >http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

I wonder if someone might be willing to help me out. I'm a manager of a county genealogy e-mail list, but not the typical list such as you find on Rootsweb. This is an incredibly busy group with a variety of member service and resources. Since we were founded in January of 2000, we've already posted almost 19,000 message to the list (a lot of mail and a lot of data). In this very active group we have large attached files coming over the list, as well as a members' only website with downloadable files and historical photos shared with other members. There is an amazing level of information shared within the group. And of course there is increased potential for problems with copyright issues. Recently we've been raising awareness of copyright issues. Several members have asked for a simple, clear-cut, lay explanation of "fair use" to use as a general rule of thumb. While I do understand some of this, I don't feel equipped to attempt to explain it. Nor can I find the right words to explain it. Would one of you with strong working knowledge of fair use be willing to offer me a simple, brief paragraph or two that I could share with the members of that list. I would sincerely appreciate any help I can get. Sincere thanks if anyone can help with this! Michael Allison

Posted by the LINK surname listowner. AR --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Helen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:25:20 -0500 Subject: [LINK-L] Copyrights and Internet Message-ID: <[email protected]> Someone posted the URL for the Ten Myths about Copyrights on another mail list, and I have just finished reading this excellent website which is directed to Internet Copyright. Since genealogy is one of those places where a lot of information "changes hands", I invite all of you to take a few mintues to read this. I learned a lot. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html Helen ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.