All that can be covered by copyright is the content in a work that has originality. Facts, by their nature, do not have originality. Information, as contained in legal documents such as deeds and wills, do not have originality. They just exist. **Originality** is the key. Copyright protection is intended for ORIGINAL works of authorship (which does include art, photos, etc.). Most of the information in genealogy consists of facts and information. You cannot own (or copyright) facts and information. As an example, much of what I am writing here is original expression because I am creating it from what I know and putting together an e-mail message. Therefore, much of this message is protected by copyright as I write it. However, the underlying facts and rules that make up copyright law cannot be copyrighted. The questions that Evelyn wrote cannot be copyrighted by me. >1. Can a person claim she has copyrights to all the information, >because a family member died and left her all of her records. All works created in the United States in the last 20 plus years are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. Unpublished works created before that time are eligible for copyright protection. Material that is copyrighted and unpublished original works can be inherited. The copyright transfers to the heirs. But in genealogy, that only covers that part which is derived from original authorship. Again, facts and information cannot be copyrighted. >2. How can she say the other people who had worked with the one who died > did not have the rights to use it and then say all of the > information was stolen > when they used it. People can say what they want to. That doesn't make it true. >4. Who has the copyright on pictures. The woman who died gave copies of > pictures to others from her originals to use. Now the one who is > working on > the papers, state they are hers and cannot be used.? Whoever took the pictures is the "author" of the photo, technically. You have the copyright on any photos you took. >5.. On pictures you gave to the dead woman, can the one who is finishing her > work use them anyway she wants and claim they are hers. See #4 above >6. Can she copyright all of these records, pictures, as she said her >copyright > lawyer has done for her. All works created in the United States in the last 20 plus years are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. A copyright lawyer cannot copyright what is already copyrighted. While registration of copyright is not required, works can be registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, which is under the Library of Congress. That doesn't mean she's done this. If she had she would have some sort of documentation. Also, you would be able to find out from the copyright office if this has been done. A person cannot copyright something that is already copyrighted or something that is in the public domain. I have a site on copyright at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike Goad

On Thursday, December 28, 2000, evelyn sell <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Can a person claim she has copyrights to all the information, > because a family member died and left her all of her records. Information cannot be copyrighted. No ifs, ands, or buts. Only the original expression of that information can be copyrighted. > 2. How can she say the other people who had worked with the one who died > did not have the rights to use it and then say all of the information was > stolen when they used it. It doesn't matter who worked with whom, the information, if given freely from one person to another, is not "stolen". > 3. Can this person use your name, dates, full copies of birth > certificates, marriage license, to put in a book they are supposed to be > finishing up for the dead person. ( I thought all living people were > supposed to be put as private etc. Or how does this work to post family > members. I don't think there is anything you can do about this situation. There is a convention that living people should either be excluded (my preference) or else no information besides name and relationship be published about them. But it is simply a convention, not a law. Once someone has given information to another person, they cannot control how that person uses it. But remember, vital records like marriage licenses are public records to which anyone has access. Putting them together in a book or publishing it on the web might make the access easier, though. Courtesy would dictate observance of the person's wishes here, but it sounds like your situation is long past that :-). > 4. Who has the copyright on pictures. The woman who died gave copies of > pictures to others from her originals to use. Now the one who is working on > the papers, state they are hers and cannot be used.? The estate of the deceased has the copyright. It should then be the executor of the estate (or trustee if they exist) who can decide how those pictures are used. The pictures given to others can only be republished if that was the stated desire of the copyright holder (or subsequently the estate). This might be hard to establish if there is no written evidence that the deceased has authorized this. But if it isn't brought to the attention of the executor/trustee, they might not notice. > 5.. On pictures you gave to the dead woman, can the one who is finishing her > work use them anyway she wants and claim they are hers. No, they belong to the deceased's estate, but you (or others) retain the copyright, and can attempt to prevent any further copying. The doctrine of fair use might seem to allow their use within a larger work, but this has been successfully fought in court based on the significance of the included work (its relative fraction of the compiled work is irrelevant). Photos seem to be considered pretty significant. But only a court battle would determine this. > 6. Can she copyright all of these records, pictures, as she said her > copyright lawyer has done for her. These items were copyrighted by their authors when they were created. The author can at best claim a "compilation" copyright. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Evelyn, None of the factual information can be copyrighted. Nobody can copyright the names of the people, or their dates of birth, baptism, marriage or death. They cannot copyright the places where any of these things occurred, or the names or the sources from which the information was taken. Nobody can copyright the relationships between people in a family tree. "1. Can a person claim she has copyrights to all the information, because a family member died and left her all of her records." NO. "2. How can she say the other people who had worked with the one who died did not have the rights to use it and then say all of the information was stolen when they used it." She can say what she wants, but the other people DO have a right to use the same information in a book or even to put it on a website. They did not steal it. Think of it this way. If any of the data came from a church record, what makes any of you think that you could take the information and copyright it, thereby preventing even the church from publishing it? If anyone owns a copyright, it would be the church. But even they don't own it, because the information is factual and cannot be copyrighted. Therefore, nobody could steal something that can't be owned. Questions 3-6. Someone else will have to answer those. I would say this, however. The lady you have been talking about may not have a lawyer at all. Ask who her lawyer is so that your lawyer can contact the person (even though you don't have a lawyer of your own). I'll bet you don't get an answer. The way that you worded her statement about her lawyer copyrighting the records and pictures for her makes me believe that she is bluffing. There is no way that a lawyer would say that he could copyright the records for her. Cliff evelyn sell wrote: > CAN Anyone give me some answers to these questions. > > When people have worked together for ages and they have the same family informaton > and the same records copied from Courthouses etc(whether you got them or they did > but shared then) and you was all working on the same families be stopped from > using them. > > Questions. > 1. Can a person claim she has copyrights to all the information, > because a family member died and left her all of her records. > > 2. How can she say the other people who had worked with the one who died > did not have the rights to use it and then say all of the information was stolen > when they used it. > > 3. Can this person use your name, dates, full copies of birth certificates, > marriage license, to put in a book they are supposed to be finishing up for > the dead person. ( I thought all living people were supposed to be put as > private etc. Or how does this work to post family members. > > 4. Who has the copyright on pictures. The woman who died gave copies of > pictures to others from her originals to use. Now the one who is working on > the papers, state they are hers and cannot be used.? > 5.. On pictures you gave to the dead woman, can the one who is finishing her > work use them anyway she wants and claim they are hers. > > 6. Can she copyright all of these records, pictures, as she said her copyright > lawyer has done for her. > I have been reading up on copyright and I know you cannot copy word for > word what someone else writes. > > I hope someone can answer some of these questions. And I hope these > questions make sense.? > > Thanks > Evelyn > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/

CAN Anyone give me some answers to these questions. When people have worked together for ages and they have the same family informaton and the same records copied from Courthouses etc(whether you got them or they did but shared then) and you was all working on the same families be stopped from using them. Questions. 1. Can a person claim she has copyrights to all the information, because a family member died and left her all of her records. 2. How can she say the other people who had worked with the one who died did not have the rights to use it and then say all of the information was stolen when they used it. 3. Can this person use your name, dates, full copies of birth certificates, marriage license, to put in a book they are supposed to be finishing up for the dead person. ( I thought all living people were supposed to be put as private etc. Or how does this work to post family members. 4. Who has the copyright on pictures. The woman who died gave copies of pictures to others from her originals to use. Now the one who is working on the papers, state they are hers and cannot be used.? 5.. On pictures you gave to the dead woman, can the one who is finishing her work use them anyway she wants and claim they are hers. 6. Can she copyright all of these records, pictures, as she said her copyright lawyer has done for her. I have been reading up on copyright and I know you cannot copy word for word what someone else writes. I hope someone can answer some of these questions. And I hope these questions make sense.? Thanks Evelyn

The real key to copyright is that the only aspect of a work that can be protected is that part which is ORIGINAL by or from the author or creator of the work. Facts are not original... thus cannot be copyrighted. Under copyright laws today in the United States, "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation (17 USC Sec. 302)," which means that as I write this, this message is, or at least those parts that have originality, protected by copyright law. I use a copyright statement on the bottom of many of the Web pages that I have. The most descriptive statement that I have it is located at the bottom of http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/ I also have a Web page devoted to copyright and U.S. genealogy. It is located at: http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike Goad At 04:55 PM 12/27/00 -0600, Deah wrote: >Hello, > I just subbed to the list. I have some questions regarding copyright >issues with my web pages. Never having had to worry about it before, I'm a >little lost. > I cannot keep people from taking things, but feel if I at least post >something and they do, then the sin is on their heads. > I have no objection to people using information they might find. That's >the biggest reason I started building the site. It has been difficult for >many of us to find information on our family, and it is my hopes that in >doing this site, it will make it easier for the next person who comes along. > We as a family are very willing to share, all anyone has to do is ask. I >have concerns about places that glean information from sites to use, then >charge someone else for that information. > I want to go about this the right way. Also there is some written things >that I feel would be better copyrighted, as well as some photos. > I welcome any suggestions as I don't want to mess this up. If someone >could look at my home page, as found below, then give me some feedback, I >sure would appreciate it. I still have a lot more work to do to the pages, >and this is only the beginning. >May you be blessed, >Deah > >Rootsweb Mailing List Administrator >http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >My Website: "The Chisham Family" >http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~chisdid/ > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Threaded archives at >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > >============================== >The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! >http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

Hello, I just subbed to the list. I have some questions regarding copyright issues with my web pages. Never having had to worry about it before, I'm a little lost. I cannot keep people from taking things, but feel if I at least post something and they do, then the sin is on their heads. I have no objection to people using information they might find. That's the biggest reason I started building the site. It has been difficult for many of us to find information on our family, and it is my hopes that in doing this site, it will make it easier for the next person who comes along. We as a family are very willing to share, all anyone has to do is ask. I have concerns about places that glean information from sites to use, then charge someone else for that information. I want to go about this the right way. Also there is some written things that I feel would be better copyrighted, as well as some photos. I welcome any suggestions as I don't want to mess this up. If someone could look at my home page, as found below, then give me some feedback, I sure would appreciate it. I still have a lot more work to do to the pages, and this is only the beginning. May you be blessed, Deah Rootsweb Mailing List Administrator http://www.rootsweb.com/ My Website: "The Chisham Family" http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~chisdid/

Hello, I am new to this list, and sincerely hope I don't breach any rules. My question is this ~ can somebody make a posting to a mailing list, quoting from a book, and giving all credit and references (a small passage) ? From my Uni days we all quoted small passages giving full credit, and I presumed this was UK law. Surely, this is better than just re wording somebody else's work and not giving any credit at all? Would appreciate your advice. Many thanks, Jan [email protected]

> I wonder if you could help me. > > I have a book on inter-library loan. It is a out of print book and > contains pictures of my family from the late 1700's to early 1800's. > > Can I legally scan these pictures and keep for my own use? > > Can I legally email them to several of my family members that also have > and interest? If the book was published before 1923 then its copyright protection has expired, and so has the copyright on the art. Even if the book is more recent, the copyright only protects whatever content was originally written or created by the author. He does not hold the copyright to the old paintings unless he painted them. It is possible that the paintings, even though they are very old, may still be protected by a copyright belonging to the original painter or painters. This is because there are some funny rules regarding works created a long time ago but not published until recently, and I don't know if these rules apply in this case. It depends on the date of first publication (which is not necessarily this particular book) and other things, and I don't have time to look it up. In any case, the painter is long dead, and the copyright, if it exists, would be divided up among his currently living heirs. So the images are most likely out of copyright (public domain) and you can do whatever you want with them. There is a tiny chance they might still be protected by a copyright held by the painter's heirs, which, from a practical standpoint, is unenforceable. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

I am not a legal expert, but I would think that if you were just sharing them with family members there would be no problem. If you include them in a book, it wouldn't hurt to try to get permission. At the very least, I would cite the source. Does the book give a source? Margaret Thatcher family wrote: > > > I wonder if you could help me. > > > > I have a book on inter-library loan. It is a out of print book and > > contains pictures of my family from the late 1700's to early 1800's. > > > > Can I legally scan these pictures and keep for my own use? > > > > Can I legally email them to several of my family members that also have > > and interest? > > If the book was published before 1923 then its copyright protection has > expired, and so has the copyright on the art. > > Even if the book is more recent, the copyright only protects whatever > content was originally written or created by the author. He does not hold > the copyright to the old paintings unless he painted them. > > It is possible that the paintings, even though they are very old, may still > be protected by a copyright belonging to the original painter or painters. > This is because there are some funny rules regarding works created a long > time ago but not published until recently, and I don't know if these rules > apply in this case. It depends on the date of first publication (which is > not necessarily this particular book) and other things, and I don't have > time to look it up. In any case, the painter is long dead, and the > copyright, if it exists, would be divided up among his currently living > heirs. > > So the images are most likely out of copyright (public domain) and you can > do whatever you want with them. There is a tiny chance they might still be > protected by a copyright held by the painter's heirs, which, from a > practical standpoint, is unenforceable. > > -- > Tom Thatcher > [email protected] > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

> Would a family member own the copyright even if they didn't write the > obituary, but simply supplied the information? Does the fact that they > paid for it make any difference? If so, what happens in the case of the > free placement in some newspapers of obituaries written by the funeral director? The person who wrote it is the only one entitled to claim copyright, no matter who supplied the basic facts. Whether or not there was a cost to print it is irrelevant. I suspect Cliff is right in suggesting that most funeral directors wouldn't care if the obituary was republished elsewhere without their permission. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

When my parents died, the funeral home did indeed send the obituary to the newspaper. They sent the copy that I provided. Then someone from the newspaper called me and we went through the information, for clarification, prior to publication. Margaret Cliff Lamere wrote: > > I talked with a knowledgeable person at the local newspaper. He told me that newspapers are only allowed to copyright an obituary if they wrote it, as in the case with a well-known person. > > I know that frequently a person simply supplies information to a funeral director who writes the obituary. This happens about 75% of the time according to one funeral director. It is interesting that the local newspapers will not accept an obituary except from a funeral home, because false obituaries have been published or submitted at some times in the past. > > So, the obituary is usually in the funeral director's words. I phoned two funeral directors and one told me that even at the local association meetings this subject has not come up in 30 years. I was told that funeral directors do not claim a copyright. A second funeral director agreed that he doesn't claim a copyright. > > Locally, there are three newspapers. One accepts obituaries only if they are paid items. They call them ads. They print as much as you want to pay for. The other two papers publish them free, but edit the obituary to their style and length. > > Would a family member own the copyright even if they didn't write the obituary, but simply supplied the information? Does the fact that they paid for it make any difference? If so, what happens in the case of the free placement in some newspapers of obituaries written by the funeral director? > > Cliff > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

I talked with a knowledgeable person at the local newspaper. He told me that newspapers are only allowed to copyright an obituary if they wrote it, as in the case with a well-known person. I know that frequently a person simply supplies information to a funeral director who writes the obituary. This happens about 75% of the time according to one funeral director. It is interesting that the local newspapers will not accept an obituary except from a funeral home, because false obituaries have been published or submitted at some times in the past. So, the obituary is usually in the funeral director's words. I phoned two funeral directors and one told me that even at the local association meetings this subject has not come up in 30 years. I was told that funeral directors do not claim a copyright. A second funeral director agreed that he doesn't claim a copyright. Locally, there are three newspapers. One accepts obituaries only if they are paid items. They call them ads. They print as much as you want to pay for. The other two papers publish them free, but edit the obituary to their style and length. Would a family member own the copyright even if they didn't write the obituary, but simply supplied the information? Does the fact that they paid for it make any difference? If so, what happens in the case of the free placement in some newspapers of obituaries written by the funeral director? Cliff

I wonder if you could help me. I have a book on inter-library loan. It is a out of print book and contains pictures of my family from the late 1700's to early 1800's. Can I legally scan these pictures and keep for my own use? Can I legally email them to several of my family members that also have and interest? Thanks for any help you may give, Dennis Glazener [email protected]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Margaret McCleskey <[email protected]> wrote: > When my parents died, I wrote and submitted to the local newspaper their > obituaries. If there is any copyright here, it should be mine, not the > newspapers. The copyright would be yours, unless you assigned it to the newspaper. You would probably know if you did this, more than likely you didn't. I guess that submission implies consent to publish, much like letters to the editor. In any case, it is copyrighted by somebody. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Michael Allison <[email protected]> wrote: > Genealogical discussion lists often include messages from members who > own published works offering to do look-ups for other members who don't > own a particular book. Do any of you know of any legal risk in such? > Does an author with a copyright on that work have a valid legal > objection? It's certainly obvious that the author is going to lose sales > of the book from that form of sharing.? My instincts tells me there > could be problem. On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Thatcher family <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think so. First of all, that's Fair Use (research). Secondly, its > very similar to what public libraries do for anyone. This can be different from a library for two potential reasons. If the look-up is for a single person and is only a small quantity of material, that would be like research fair-use in a library. But no library would broadcast the book to large numbers of people on a mailing list, and they would also look askance at someone who wanted to copy most or all of a book. On these factors, an author would have to judge where the dividing line is that significantly impacts a books' saleability and makes it worth pursuing a lawsuit (as Margaret pointed out a certain amount might help a book's sales). They would then have to convince a court of law of the same. Of course, if the retrieved information is presented in a different format, there is no copyright violation. Just on general principle I always rewrite when I have looked up information (though I still attribute the source). Scott Anderson [email protected] http://www.physics.emory.edu/faculty/anderson

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Libbie Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm currently working on a compilation of early tax lists for a particular > county. Included are recently discovered documents and long-known, > never-published lists. Let me try out several scenarios and ask your > opinions. > > 1. I simply publish typeset copies of the extant lists. This will take > several hundred pages and include several indexes. Included are a > complicated slave index that is particularly unique to this publication. > Is it protected by copyright laws? I assume that by "[simple] typeset copies of the extant lists", there is no reformatting. In that case, those portions of your book are not copyrighted. But if you take the information from the lists and express it in a different format that shows some creativity, you could claim copyright on that expression of the data. This would also describe any index you construct. In no case can the data itself be copyrighted. > 2. As above, but I add a detailed forward pertaining to the people who > lived in the county during the period as well as an explanation of tax > laws, county history & geography, etc. Is this "more protected"? The lists are still not copyrighted, though your forward would be. > 3. As above, plus I add notes pertaining to each family, drawing heavily > from county court records. This would purely be my own original > compilation. Does the annotation serve to make the entire project > copyright-able? Are my rights as the compiler better protected? I assume that the annotations would be written by you, rather than simple quotes from the court records. If you place such annotations on the same page as the original data, you will be making those sections of the page copyrighted; because of the nature of most copying technologies (i.e. oriented towards entire pages), you will be making it harder (but not impossible) for people to copy the non-copyrighted portions of the page. If the annotations are on separate pages, referenced in the simple lists by, e.g. numeric notes, I don't think that would be enough to make the simple lists copyrighted. The annotations certainly would be. Scott Anderson [email protected] http://www.physics.emory.edu/faculty/anderson

>> 3) I have also seen it asserted that obits are formulaic, and therefore do > not constitute original expression and so are not copyrightable no matter > when they are published. I doubt if this is true in general, but have no way > of knowing how common it is or how one determines if the obit is formulaic. > Does anyone else have some information on this? >> >> S R C A on 11/29/00 8:29 AM, bunnyden at [email protected] wrote: > The editor of our newspaper (Mitchell, Davison County, SD) claims that we > cannot copy obits to the net strictly because they do not charge families > for having obits printed in the newpaper. I can understand his point of > view as the only reason people buy the newspaper in this town is to view the > obits. I realize that most other towns must pay to have an obit published > but does this fact change the copyright laws on the subject? Andie Whether or not the newspaper charges to print obits does not change the status of the obit under copyright law. If an obituary is copyright-protected [*], it can not be reprinted or copied to the net without permission of the publisher, and the publisher (or editor) can make that decision on any grounds he wants to. [*] I am not addressing whether obits are entitled to copyright protection in the first place, although I tend to think they are. --

The editor of our newspaper (Mitchell, Davison County, SD) claims that we cannot copy obits to the net strictly because they do not charge families for having obits printed in the newpaper. I can understand his point of view as the only reason people buy the newspaper in this town is to view the obits. I realize that most other towns must pay to have an obit published but does this fact change the copyright laws on the subject? Andie -----Original Message----- From: Scott Anderson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:25 PM Subject: Re: question >On Wednesday, November 22, 2000, Hinckley <[email protected]> wrote: >> How about old obituaties? Are they copyrighted? Or can they be used only >> before a specific date. Especially since I may want to quote the whole >> obituary. Or is just quoting the source from which they came sufficient? > >I don't think we addressed this issue (at least recently). Speaking again about works subject to U.S. copyright law, > >1) Certainly any obits before 1923 are now public domain and you can copy away. > >2) I have also seen it stated that newspapers rarely renewed copyright after 28 years back when that was required, i.e. if published before 1964. Therefore, it is possible that obits before 1964 are also now public domain. You could contact the newspaper or the copyright office to determine this. The latter has info on this at <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ06.pdf>; it can be quite pricey, even if you are on-site, so you might be better off contacting the newspaper directly, as they may give you permission to reproduce even if it is still under copyright. > >3) I have also seen it asserted that obits are formulaic, and therefore do not constitute original expression and so are not copyrightable no matter when they are published. I doubt if this is true in general, but have no way of knowing how common it is or how one determines if the obit is formulaic. Does anyone else have some information on this? > >S R C A >cott obert ranston nderson >[email protected] >

> Genealogical discussion lists often include messages from members who > own published works offering to do look-ups for other members who don't > own a particular book. Do any of you know of any legal risk in such? >... My instincts tells me there > could be problem. I don't think so. First of all, that's Fair Use (research). Secondly, its very similar to what public libraries do for anyone. Copyright does not exist primarily to protect the marketability of a particular work. Doing look-ups does not infringe upon copyright because it involves tiny portions of a copyrighted work, is for research, and most probably only includes facts which are in the public domain or otherwise unprotected anyway. (cf. all the discussion before Thanksgiving about publishing census and cemetery compilations. Since a look-up involves relaying to another person some particular fact, usually public information anyway, it does not interfere with the author's originality or creativity, so it doesn't infringe.) -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

Michael, I understand what you are saying, but how is that really different from reading a book in a library? Books are very expensive. I wouldn't want to buy one that turned out to be of no use to me. I might buy one based on the results of a "lookup." Margaret Michael Allison wrote: > > Genealogical discussion lists often include messages from members who > own published works offering to do look-ups for other members who don't > own a particular book. Do any of you know of any legal risk in such? > Does an author with a copyright on that work have a valid legal > objection? It's certainly obvious that the author is going to lose sales > of the book from that form of sharing.? My instincts tells me there > could be problem. > Thanks, > Michael Allison > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library