As I understand it, if you have the actual records, or copies of them, you may post them as public records cannot be copyrighted. Margaret in Texas > Hi every one > I have been thinking about scanning in some of the documents that I > have like Probate records, Naturalizations, Christenings from church > records, and other to post online so that other people can also see > them. I was wondering if any one could tell me the best possible way to > find out what government records fall under the copyright, and which are > in the public domain? > Thanks for all of your help. > Jason Mendenhall. > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/ >

Hi, Assuming your question is about government records in the United States, this is easy to answer. First, all U.S. government works are in the public domain, except for works created for the government by independent contractors, which MAY be protected by copyright. Works created by state and local government, though, may be covered by copyright. The good news is, though, that the types of things that genealogists are interested in are in the public domain because of the type of "works" that they are. Records document facts and little more. For a work to be covered under copyright, it has have some amount of originality added to it by its author. Mike Goad At 10:34 PM 2/12/01 -0700, jason mendenhall wrote: >Hi every one > I have been thinking about scanning in some of the documents that I >have like Probate records, Naturalizations, Christenings from church >records, and other to post online so that other people can also see >them. I was wondering if any one could tell me the best possible way to >find out what government records fall under the copyright, and which are >in the public domain? > Thanks for all of your help. > Jason Mendenhall. > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! >http://searches.rootsweb.com/

Hi every one I have been thinking about scanning in some of the documents that I have like Probate records, Naturalizations, Christenings from church records, and other to post online so that other people can also see them. I was wondering if any one could tell me the best possible way to find out what government records fall under the copyright, and which are in the public domain? Thanks for all of your help. Jason Mendenhall.

The one's from TLC may very well be a copyright infringement. I just looked at some of my TLC copies and they do not appear to "transcribe" the document. Instead, they "abstract" the pertinent information from it. While it may seem that I am splitting hairs, in a transcription, the intent is to create a record that is as close to the original as possible. While this may require a lot of skill in reading and interpreting the document, it does not incorporate originality into the final product. All that can be copyrighted in a document is that which is original from its creator. In an abstract, however, there is a transformation from the original into a shortened version, abstracting the essential information from the original document. This would likely require more originality than a transcription would, though, in my opinion it may be more like applying a procedure than doing original work. I personally use quite a few documents from books such as TLC's. However, my use of them is very focused to specific surnames and I only post them on my pages devoted to those surnames. This is allowed under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. Posting documents from a book on Lunenberg County to a Lunenburg County web site would likely not qualify as "fair use." Mike Goad At 12:47 PM 2/11/01 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, I was told to ask you whether a posting was an infringement on >copyright.Here is the story. >Last summer I took a trip from Woodbridge,VA to Lumenburg,VA to do some >research on my family tree the White's & Walker's. I found there names in >different deed and will books and the lady at the library xerox the pages for >me.I guess I had about 37 pages copied out of about 25 books. >Anyway about a week ago I said to my self I should share these with others. I >have program called Pagis Pro and I scanned the pages that had full wills,or >deeds on them. I got about 102 of them all together. I typed up a list and >sent the list out for people to request info on the different names in their >family lines. So I did. Some I sent to them to their e-mail address so as not >to tie up the list. I then decided to psot a few each day to the Lunenburg >Co. List. In which I received a letter saying I was infringing on the TLC >Genealogy. I did not know I was doing that as I figured I was not getting >paid for it and it was given to me by the library. So I was told to ask you >about it. I will wait for your word. Thank you, Janet > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Freepages, that is free web pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > >============================== >Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! >http://searches.rootsweb.com/

Hi, I was told to ask you whether a posting was an infringement on copyright.Here is the story. Last summer I took a trip from Woodbridge,VA to Lumenburg,VA to do some research on my family tree the White's & Walker's. I found there names in different deed and will books and the lady at the library xerox the pages for me.I guess I had about 37 pages copied out of about 25 books. Anyway about a week ago I said to my self I should share these with others. I have program called Pagis Pro and I scanned the pages that had full wills,or deeds on them. I got about 102 of them all together. I typed up a list and sent the list out for people to request info on the different names in their family lines. So I did. Some I sent to them to their e-mail address so as not to tie up the list. I then decided to psot a few each day to the Lunenburg Co. List. In which I received a letter saying I was infringing on the TLC Genealogy. I did not know I was doing that as I figured I was not getting paid for it and it was given to me by the library. So I was told to ask you about it. I will wait for your word. Thank you, Janet

© The Department of Redundancy Copyright Department. (Copyright, 2001) When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write. You can write good copy,and copy right,but copyright doesn't mean copy good - it might not be right good copy, right? Now, writers of religious services write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite they write. Conservatives write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric might write right rite, and have the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right. Then it might be copy, good copy, right? Should Thom Wright decide to write, then Wright might write right rite, which Wright has a right to copyright. Copying that rite would copy Wright's right rite, and thus violate copyright, so Wright would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right? Legals write writs which is a right, (or not write writs right), but all writs, copied or not, are writs that are copyright. Judges make writers write writs right. Advertisers write copy which is copyright to the copy writer's company, not the right of the writer to copyright. But the copy written is copyrighted as written, right? Wrongfully copying a right writ, a right rite or copy is not right. I trust that this explains it all sufficiently, and that we may now, perhaps, put an end to this non-Cornich thread? Copyright 2001 Bob Richardson S.P.E.B.S.Q.S.A., Whittier Chapter. If you wish to copy or write this as copy, please be certain to copy right the copy, right? Now back to family business as usual.

Hi All, I think I have a fairly good handle on copyright issues, but I've stumbled onto a real puzzler. I have acquired a copy (about 400 pages) of materials that were collected by a genealogist who wrote a classic history of a prominent American family in the 1920s. The book has been reprinted on several occasions by the Genealogical Publishing Company. The author, who died in the early 1960s, collected correspondence, mostly from readers of the book, which included corrections to errors in the original work, enhanced family lines, etc. Mostly information "contributed to the cause." The author was planning on publishing an addendum to the book, but ill health prevented that. Before dying, the author contributed these papers to the national Family Association for their preservation. However, this association is now defunct, having dissolved in the early 1970s. When the association dissolved, its Historian in turn passed the papers on to a large metropolitan library. They languished in their archives, unknown to the public, for nearly 30 years until I found them last year and obtained copies. So the Gordian Know I must unravel is: who owns the rights to these papers? I suspect the library would have the best argument of ownership, but none of the papers contributed meet the new 90 year standard, either. So its possible that all of the little individual fragments/letters in the papers still belong to the original contributors, or their estates. I am in touch with the current Family Association and several serious researchers of this surname. We are most desirous of getting all of these corrections/additions "out to the family" in some way. I have volunteers willing to transcribe them and a web site willing to post them. But I'm reluctant to move forward. I should add that I have the greatest respect for the original author, and feel that it is quite appropriate that all this material which was so diligently collected with the intent of publishing, somehow get published. I'm not really interested in making money on this, though it would be nice to recoup come of my expenses. Its just a matter of my having a very strong feeling, after having read these documents, that they must get disseminated. I'd sure appreciate any thoughts or words of wisdom any of you might have on this matter. I'm subbed to this list in digest mode, so if you reply directly to the list it may take me a couple of days to get your post and reply to it. Thanks, Larry -- Larry DeFrance, Helena Montana USA Caretaker: The DeFrance Family Home Page - http://www.helenet.com/~larry/fam_home.html The DeFrance Mailing List - [email protected], The Susquehanna River Mailing List - [email protected]

On Wednesday, January 17, 2001, Cliff Lamere <[email protected]> wrote: > "A genealogy consisting merely of transcriptions of public records, such as > census or courthouse records, or transcriptions made from headstones in a > few local cemeteries, are also deemed by the Copyright Office to lack > minimal creativity. On the other hand, the creativity requirement may be > satisfied if the creator of a genealogy compilation USES JUDGEMENT IN > SELECTING MATERIAL FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOURCES (my emphasis)." > > A genealogy is defined by the Random House College Dictionary (1982) as "a > record or account of the ancestry and descent of a person, family, group, > etc." "the study of family ancestries and histories" "lineage". When many people think of a genealogy, they think of a "lineage", i.e. data expressed in a standard (e.g. tree) structure with names and dates, as opposed to a book with many details provided for each family, expressed in your own creative fashion. The former would generally not be protected; the latter may well be, and this is the distinction that the copyright office is trying to make. In the latter case, you still can't prevent someone from taking the raw data and reexpressing it in, e.g. a tree structure, because facts can't be copyrighted. > Including the normal information of birth, marriage and death and all > children for a married couple doesn't show much judgement. However, what if > there were frequently two or three sources of a date or place of birth (or > marriage or death) for some of the people? Now judgement would be required > to "select" the data that will be recorded in a genealogy. If a person > looks at the information on one of the largest sites, that of the Latter Day > Saints, they will find much conflicting data for a single individual that > was submitted by perhaps ten different people. The person must use > judgement to sort these out, and may even compare the data with that of > several other websites (having equally conflicting data) before making a > final judgement. Does this make the genealogy copyrightable? Not if you're just choosing a date and leaving it at that; it's still just a fact. I think the creativity requirement you quote is really talking about something other than dates. For example, your written description of why you chose one date over another would be copyrightable. Including that source description on the same page as the person in question would make it harder for someone to legally copy the data on that page (because of the way photocopiers work), but it wouldn't prevent them from doing so. > A person must choose to include or exclude all of the siblings of ancestors > in their genealogy. I don't think this would make a difference, since it's still a compilation of public records in a standard format. > A person must decide whether to include sources for > major amounts of their data, or just a selected few pieces of data, or none > of their data. By this time, it sounds to me like the genealogy qualifies > for copyright. Again, the copyright only extends to creative expression. As a result you can copyright an extensive genealogy but still have large portions of it be unprotected. > It is not likely to be completely accurate as to the facts, and may even > include wrong people in it. It sounds to me like any serious genealogy > (requiring more than a minimum of research) would be copyrightable. The operative word here is "serious". I've seen many family history books that would qualify in general for copyright protection. But the trees one finds on the Internet (e.g. at LDS) don't. > That having been said, what protection would such a copyright give the > author? Could I also publish a genealogy with all of the same people in it > (presented differently), even if some of them were wrong? I don't think a > valid copyright on a genealogy prevents other people from using the data. > Isn't a valid copyright on a genealogy almost useless to the author? If you publish a book, it keeps people from copying it wholesale and redistributing it. This is also true even if you publish an extensive GEDCOM on the Internet. But you're never going to be able to prevent people from extracting data and including it in their genealogies. Does this make it not worthwhile? There's still enough of a market for your printed genealogy, as is, that you could recover the cost of printing the book by selling it to your cousins. But don't expect to get rich off of it :-). S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Thanks to Mike Goad for providing this excellent quotation and the source it came from. "A genealogy consisting merely of transcriptions of public records, such as census or courthouse records, or transcriptions made from headstones in a few local cemeteries, are also deemed by the Copyright Office to lack minimal creativity. On the other hand, the creativity requirement may be satisfied if the creator of a genealogy compilation USES JUDGEMENT IN SELECTING MATERIAL FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOURCES (my emphasis)." A genealogy is defined by the Random House College Dictionary (1982) as "a record or account of the ancestry and descent of a person, family, group, etc." "the study of family ancestries and histories" "lineage". Genealogies are different from compilations of church baptisms or cemetery gravestones. Assuming that the Copyright Office understood that difference, it sounds like sentence 1 above says that a genealogy is not copyrightable. But, sentence 2 seems to say that most of them would be. It is difficult to imagine a serious genealogy that doesn't satisfy sentence 2. A person constructing a family tree normally would concentrate on their own branch of the tree which descendended from a progenitor. And they would include all generations along the way. Since the ancestors of both members of every set of spouses are also the ancestors of the person constructing the genealogy, they would all be included. No copyright so far, because including everyone doesn't involve much judgement. Including the normal information of birth, marriage and death and all children for a married couple doesn't show much judgement. However, what if there were frequently two or three sources of a date or place of birth (or marriage or death) for some of the people? Now judgement would be required to "select" the data that will be recorded in a genealogy. If a person looks at the information on one of the largest sites, that of the Latter Day Saints, they will find much conflicting data for a single individual that was submitted by perhaps ten different people. The person must use judgement to sort these out, and may even compare the data with that of several other websites (having equally conflicting data) before making a final judgement. Does this make the genealogy copyrightable? A person must choose to include or exclude all of the siblings of ancestors in their genealogy. A person must decide whether to include sources for major amounts of their data, or just a selected few pieces of data, or none of their data. By this time, it sounds to me like the genealogy qualifies for copyright. Personally, I am against copyrighting genealogies even if it can be done. But, the big question is this. With so much conflicting information available in book or internet sources, doesn't a genealogy constitute one person's opinion rather than just a compilation of facts? It is not likely to be completely accurate as to the facts, and may even include wrong people in it. It sounds to me like any serious genealogy (requiring more than a minimum of research) would be copyrightable. That having been said, what protection would such a copyright give the author? Could I also publish a genealogy with all of the same people in it (presented differently), even if some of them were wrong? I don't think a valid copyright on a genealogy prevents other people from using the data. Isn't a valid copyright on a genealogy almost useless to the author? Cliff

>GENEALOGIES. A genealogy consisting merely of transcriptions of public >records, such census or courthouse records, or transcriptions made from >headstones in a few local cemeteries, are also deemed by the Copyright >Office to lack minimal creativity. On the other hand, the creativity >requirement may be satisfied if the creator of genealogy compilation uses >judgment in selecting material from a number of different sources. >------------------ Or, in other words, lie! All those old genealogists we laugh at were onto something: tell the truth, cite your sources and your work won't be protected! Be "creative" and your copyright is safe!! Is that really what you're telling us Mike? Libbie Griffin P.S. I'm only joking, but the more I learn about copyrights, the less anxious I become to publish anything.

> An index that lists all of the names in a compilation in alphabetical order > may not have sufficient originality to be protected if the compilation > itself does not have sufficient originality of selection for protection. Are you sure the copyright status of the original work is relevant? I wouldn't think so, particularly in the case of a compilation. > On the other hand, an index that lists only the most significant names in > that same compilation may cross the threshold and be protected even if the > compilation being indexed isn't. That's the kind of index that always drives me crazy, since it never includes my family. :-) S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

At 12:34 AM 1/16/01 -0500, Scott Anderson wrote: >This implies that any simple index to a book is unprotected, as well. As I see it, it depends upon whether or not the index meets the minimum creativity threshold. An index, in one respect, is simply a list of the page or pages that certain items are on. The selection of what items to include in the index will affect whether or not it is truly protected, as will the nature of the work being indexed. The index to "Hell on the Border - He Hanged Eighty-Eight Men," a book published in 1898 with an index created & copyrighted in 1992, will have more creativity and originality than an index of the 1850 census returns for Richland Township, Madison County, Arkansas. An index that lists all of the names in a compilation in alphabetical order may not have sufficient originality to be protected if the compilation itself does not have sufficient originality of selection for protection. On the other hand, an index that lists only the most significant names in that same compilation may cross the threshold and be protected even if the compilation being indexed isn't. As well, an index of a compilation that has sufficient originality of selection and arrangement to be protected would also likely e protected. Mike

On Monday, January 15, 2001, Mike and Karen Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > A work must be the product of a minimal amount of creativity to be > protected by copyright.... The data contained in a factual compilation need > not be presented in an innovative or surprising way, but the selection > and/or arrangement cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no > creativity whatsoever. If no creativity was employed in selecting or > arranging the data, the compilation will not receive copyright protection. > The SELECTION of the data in a compilation will satisfy the minimal > creativity test if the compiler has: > * chosen less than all of the data in a given body of relevant > material, regardless of whether it is taken from one or more sources, or > * taken all of the data from several different sources and combine > them to form a new work. > The compiler's ARRANGEMENT or coordination of the data in a compilation > will satisfy the creativity requirement as long as the data is ordered into > lists or categories that go beyond the mere mechanical grouping of > data. Alphabetical, chronological or sequential listings of data are > purely mechanical and do not satisfy the minimal creativity requirement. > "Representatives of the Copyright Office have indicated that in their > view the following types of compilations will usually FAIL to satisfy the > minimal creativity requirement: > Street address directories, alumni directories, membership lists, mailing > lists, subscriber lists..., parts lists..., This implies that any simple index to a book is unprotected, as well. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected] Administrator, {C{OFFIELD,OLLOSKY,RANSTON,UMMINS},OHGUERNS}[email protected] USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/

This is a topic that has been discussed here many times. What I found interesting is what Copyright Office representatives had to say about genealogy compilations. The following is from the fifth edition of " The Copyright Handbook - How To Protect And Use Written Works " by Attorney Stephen Fishman, © 2000, Chapter 7, Adaptations and Compilations, pages 7/9 & 7/10: THE MINIMAL CREATIVITY REQUIREMENT: A work must be the product of a minimal amount of creativity to be protected by copyright.... The data contained in a factual compilation need not be presented in an innovative or surprising way, but the selection and/or arrangement cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever. If no creativity was employed in selecting or arranging the data, the compilation will not receive copyright protection. The SELECTION of the data in a compilation will satisfy the minimal creativity test if the compiler has: · chosen less than all of the data in a given body of relevant material, regardless of whether it is taken from one or more sources, or · taken all of the data from several different sources and combine them to form a new work. The compiler's ARRANGEMENT or coordination of the data in a compilation will satisfy the creativity requirement as long as the data is ordered into lists or categories that go beyond the mere mechanical grouping of data. Alphabetical, chronological or sequential listings of data are purely mechanical and do not satisfy the minimal creativity requirement. "Representatives of the Copyright Office have indicated at that in their view the following types of compilations will usually FAIL to satisfy the minimal creativity requirement: Street address directories, alumni directories, membership lists, mailing lists, subscriber lists..., parts lists..., GENEALOGIES. A genealogy consisting merely of transcriptions of public records, such census or courthouse records, or transcriptions made from headstones in a few local cemeteries, are also deemed by the Copyright Office to lack minimal creativity. On the other hand, the creativity requirement may be satisfied if the creator of genealogy compilation uses judgment in selecting material from a number of different sources. ------------------ Mike GoadNotes:(1) The above information is presented here under the "fair use" principle of the copyright law. (2) As I am not an attorney, my comments here are simply my own opinion and do not constitute legal advice.

Hi, I don't see any problem in volunteering to lookup information in references. I think of it this way: If I were a professional genealogist, I would be using any available legitimate reference to provide information to my clients for a price. The key to me, though, is that individual lookups must be limited in nature. For going on 5 years, my wife and I have been doing such lookups in the DAR Patriot Index. We strictly limit the amount of lookups we will do to ensure that our service falls under the "fair use" principle of copyright law. (This lookup service copyright issue was part of my original interest in copyright.) We use a web site to provide access to our service and to explain our limitations. It is located at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/Patriot/patriot.htm . My copyright website is at: http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike Goad http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/ for other genealogy related resources such as copyright issues, DAR Patriot Index lookups, Cousins Cross-reference table and more. At 05:42 PM 1/5/01 -0500, ETM wrote: >The Baca books are much like the Germans to America multi-volume set, >containing names of Czech passengers to America. Are there any problems >with volunteers offering lookups of surnames in these books and providing >information to list subscribers? To my knowledge the books contain >information from passenger lists. I have not actually seen such a volume >and hope someone here might have guidance about them. I do not believe they >contain literary content or comment. > >Elaine > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Check out the new communities at RootsWeb >http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > >============================== >Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate >your heritage! >http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

The Baca books are much like the Germans to America multi-volume set, containing names of Czech passengers to America. Are there any problems with volunteers offering lookups of surnames in these books and providing information to list subscribers? To my knowledge the books contain information from passenger lists. I have not actually seen such a volume and hope someone here might have guidance about them. I do not believe they contain literary content or comment. Elaine

I am writing a short narrative about the history of the land that one of my great great grandfathers owned. For this, I have used as my facts transcriptions of the deeds. These transcriptions were done by one of my cousins. In addition, I have drawn a picture of the plat which shows the various parts as they were sold. Before I publish this narrative, I want to copyright it. How can I do that? I will certainly give credit to my cousin for his work. Margaret McCleskey, Arlington

On Friday, December 29, 2000, maryann <[email protected]> wrote: > Who owns the copyright to pictures and letters of the mid 1920's thru > the 1970's? The authors thereof, or their estates (if extant), or their heirs (if inherited). > I am in possession of many pictures and family letters - literally > hundreds of them. The letters were written by my parents, > grandparents and several aunts and uncles. Most were written by my > mother. All writers are deceased. > > Some of the letters were given to me by parents at different times > before they died. Others were in the house when Mom died. Dad died > before her. The pictures were, for the most part, given to me by my > parents before their death. > > I was the administrator of Mom's estate. None of the other heirs > wanted the letters. I was pleased to have them. Each heir took the > usual things from the house after Mom died - some furniture, dishes, > an old truck and etc. > > .... > > My question is: who owns the copyright on the letters and the > pictures. I believe I own the letters since some were given to me and > others were inherited - but do I own the copyright? No matter who owns the copyright, the physical items are yours, as you inherited them from the previous owners. If the letters' and pictures' previous owners are also their authors, I would say that you also inherited the copyright. Usually this isn't something people pay attention to if the item hasn't been income-earning, but potentially you could own the pictures but not the copyright, if it is divied up that way by the administrator. Being the administrator, you are in the catbird's seat to say that you also inherited the copyright, if appropriate. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

U.S. copyright law protects unpublished works. The copyright statute provides for these the same protection given to any work published since January 1st, 1978. The protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Copyright normally belongs to the creator of a work from the moment it is created. Once the creator of the work has died, the copyright passes to his heirs. Technically, I guess this means that the copyright for each of the letters belongs to the heirs of those who wrote it. It sounds as though you do own the copyright for most of the material, being the estate administrator and that no one else wanted those letters. The only legal problems that I can see with your proposed project would be if one or more of the heirs would file a copyright infringement suit because you used information from a letter that one of their parents (or grandparents) wrote. What is the probability of that? I doubt that any copyright lawyer would take such a case. There is no financial benefit to them and that really what copyright litigation is all about, as I understand it. There are a couple of options, though, that would completely remove any possibility of infringement. One option would be to contact the heirs of the letter writers and get permission from them. As another option, using only excerpts from letters where the copyright is not clearly yours should qualify under the fair use principal of copyright law. Fair use and other aspects of copyright law and the genealogy are discussed on my page at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike Goad http//www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/ for other genealogy related resources such as copyright issues, DAR Patriot Index lookups, Cousins Cross-reference table and more. At 03:48 PM 12/29/00 -0600, maryann wrote: >Who owns the copyright to pictures and letters of the mid 1920's thru >the 1970's? > >I am in possession of many pictures and family letters - literally >hundreds of them. The letters were written by my parents, >grandparents and several aunts and uncles. Most were written by my >mother. All writers are deceased. > >Some of the letters were given to me by parents at different times >before they died. Others were in the house when Mom died. Dad died >before her. The pictures were, for the most part, given to me by my >parents before their death. > >I was the administrator of Mom's estate. None of the other heirs >wanted the letters. I was pleased to have them. Each heir took the >usual things from the house after Mom died - some furniture, dishes, >an old truck and etc. > >Also, there are many pictures of family, homes, and other interesting >things which tell a lot about our family. > >I would like to use excerpts from the letters and write a lengthy >chronology of our family. I don't want to do this unless it can be >shared with all the family and without legal problems on the >copyright. I will only the parts that would not embarrass anyone. > >My question is: who owns the copyright on the letters and the >pictures. I believe I own the letters since some were given to me and >others were inherited - but do I own the copyright? > >I believe this is an unusual collection since there are so very many >letters - literally hundreds! > >Thanks for any help you can give me. > >Mary > > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Freepages, that is free web pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > >============================== >Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: >Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. >http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

Who owns the copyright to pictures and letters of the mid 1920's thru the 1970's? I am in possession of many pictures and family letters - literally hundreds of them. The letters were written by my parents, grandparents and several aunts and uncles. Most were written by my mother. All writers are deceased. Some of the letters were given to me by parents at different times before they died. Others were in the house when Mom died. Dad died before her. The pictures were, for the most part, given to me by my parents before their death. I was the administrator of Mom's estate. None of the other heirs wanted the letters. I was pleased to have them. Each heir took the usual things from the house after Mom died - some furniture, dishes, an old truck and etc. Also, there are many pictures of family, homes, and other interesting things which tell a lot about our family. I would like to use excerpts from the letters and write a lengthy chronology of our family. I don't want to do this unless it can be shared with all the family and without legal problems on the copyright. I will only the parts that would not embarrass anyone. My question is: who owns the copyright on the letters and the pictures. I believe I own the letters since some were given to me and others were inherited - but do I own the copyright? I believe this is an unusual collection since there are so very many letters - literally hundreds! Thanks for any help you can give me. Mary