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

----Original Message Follows---- From: Scott Anderson <[email protected]> Reply-To: Scott Anderson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: question Date: 28 Nov 2000 16:25:23 -0500 Scott, I have read about copyrights on obits relative to posting them on various internet servers (genconnect etc), and this seems correct to me. The obituary does have copyright protection as is consistant with the discussion, and thus requires the copyright owners permission to publish. However, the facts contained in the obit (birth date, death date, spouses name, etc) are facts, and not original expressions. The facts are not copyrightable and therefore can be extracted and published without regard to the owner of the copyright on the obit Is that more consistant with your thinking? Bob 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] ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html ============================== Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Peter wrote: >If I were to paraphrase this for genealogists, I might say "Mere listings >of people and their vital statistics as found in census and vital records >are not subject to copyright protection. When the listing is accompanied >by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or >analysis, there may be a basis for copyright protection." I wonder if the >Copyright Office would agree with me? 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? 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"? 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? This project has taken years. While I don't expect to make money on it, I do not want my effort wasted by some person who scans the whole thing and puts it on the web. Opinions please? Libbie Griffin

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]

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. Margaret Scott Anderson wrote: > > 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] > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com

Libbie, Based on my understanding of the law here, my best guess is that part of the book is copyrightable, but the tax lists, themselves, being public record are not. Margaret Libbie Griffin wrote: > > Peter wrote: > >If I were to paraphrase this for genealogists, I might say "Mere listings > >of people and their vital statistics as found in census and vital records > >are not subject to copyright protection. When the listing is accompanied > >by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or > >analysis, there may be a basis for copyright protection." I wonder if the > >Copyright Office would agree with me? > > 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? > > 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"? > > 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? > > This project has taken years. While I don't expect to make money on it, I > do not want my effort wasted by some person who scans the whole thing and > puts it on the web. > > Opinions please? > > Libbie Griffin > > ==== 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

On Monday, November 27, 2000, Peter Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > Copyright only protects original expression, not ideas. The Copyright > Office flyer on this states: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, > formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright > protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by > substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or > directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, > there may be a basis for copyright protection" What I said! > If I were to paraphrase this for genealogists, I might say "Mere listings > of people and their vital statistics as found in census and vital records > are not subject to copyright protection. When the listing is accompanied > by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or > analysis, there may be a basis for copyright protection." I wonder if the > Copyright Office would agree with me? I would. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

At 05:19 PM 11/25/00 -0500, Scott Anderson wrote: >On Saturday, November 25, 2000, Peter Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Recipes cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't prevent > > authors from compiling cookbooks - and it doesn't stop others from taking > > those recipes and using them in new cookbooks. > >I can understand this statement if you are talking about a traditional >("public domain") recipe. But since a recipe is often a non-obvious >selection of items and a set of instructions on how to combine them, why >wouldn't a new, original recipe be copyrighted? It can involve a great >deal of creativity to develop one. It does seem counter-intuitive, doesn't it? But then most copyright law seems counter-intuitive to me... Copyright only protects original expression, not ideas. The Copyright Office flyer on this states: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection" <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl122.pdf>. If I were to paraphrase this for genealogists, I might say "Mere listings of people and their vital statistics as found in census and vital records are not subject to copyright protection. When the listing is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or analysis, there may be a basis for copyright protection." I wonder if the Copyright Office would agree with me? Peter Hirtle [email protected]

On Saturday, November 25, 2000, Peter Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > First, I think Cliff is wrong. It is only federal documents that are in > the public domain; state documents can be copyrighted by the individual > states, depending on the laws of that state. I was wondering about this, too. > I noticed the same thing on a Massachusetts death certificate, which > stated: IT IS ILLEGAL TO ALTER OR REPRODUCE > THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY MANNER. My best guess is that the enabling > legislation, which prohibits reproductions, was intended to prevent > fraud. In drafting it, though, the state legislature wrote with too broad > a pen. They wouldn't be the first to claim a copyright and associated > rights where none exists. Who says they are claiming copyright under the federal statute? They could have their own legislation governing just these documents, as you point out. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

On Saturday, November 25, 2000, Peter Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > Recipes cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't prevent > authors from compiling cookbooks - and it doesn't stop others from taking > those recipes and using them in new cookbooks. I can understand this statement if you are talking about a traditional ("public domain") recipe. But since a recipe is often a non-obvious selection of items and a set of instructions on how to combine them, why wouldn't a new, original recipe be copyrighted? It can involve a great deal of creativity to develop one. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

First, I think Cliff is wrong. It is only federal documents that are in the public domain; state documents can be copyrighted by the individual states, depending on the laws of that state. In reality, while the state might have some copyright claim to the design of the form, I don't think they could exert control over the facts recorded on the form. I noticed the same thing on a Massachusetts death certificate, which stated: IT IS ILLEGAL TO ALTER OR REPRODUCE THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY MANNER. My best guess is that the enabling legislation, which prohibits reproductions, was intended to prevent fraud. In drafting it, though, the state legislature wrote with too broad a pen. They wouldn't be the first to claim a copyright and associated rights where none exists. In the unlikely even that the state chose to sue you for violating what I assume is a state law prohibiting reproductions (with a $100 fine in Massachusetts), your defense might run into problems over jurisdictional issues. You would want the case to be argued in a federal court, where copyright issues are heard. States can't be sued over copyright matters, however, and so it could be that the case would remain in state court where a copyright defense could not be heard. I would ask first before scanning. Peter "I am not a lawyer" Hirtle At 06:59 AM 11/23/00 -0600, maryann wrote: >Until I received death certificates from Pennsylvania, I would have >agreed with Cliff. The certificates included a warning that they were >not to be copied. I have not checked on the legality of this and have >no idea how or why Pennsylvania objects to my making copies. One >death occurred in the 1920's and the other in 1934. > >Cliff wrote: > > You asked if you could scan some old marriage, birth, and death >certificates (for which you paid in order to get the copies) and then >print them in a publication. They would be public documents, so you >could do it. They can't be copyrighted. The Copyright Law of 1976 is >federal and affects all states the same. > > > > > >==== 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

David: If I can read between the lines in your message, there was no court decision in the case you mention; you imply that it was a settlement between the parties that is now sealed. Without a public record to judge, I don't think anyone can use it as precedent. I am particularly surprised that the use of markers was considered to be significant. In Feist, Rural Telephone had included four fictitious names and addresses in order to be able to determine if someone had copied their stuff. The court found that it didn't matter since there was no copyright violation (and the four fictitious addresses were not enough to make the whole text copyrighted). Anyone who reads Feist would have to conclude that much of what genealogists do is compile compilations of facts, and that the facts themselves do not warrant copyright protection. Genealogical work falls squarely into the realm of skilled effort which the Supreme Court found as valuable but not warranting copyright protection. We are comparable to cookbook authors. Recipes cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't prevent authors from compiling cookbooks - and it doesn't stop others from taking those recipes and using them in new cookbooks. The lack of protection for compilations of genealogical information is one reason why certain publishers are pushing for a new form of copyright protection for collections of facts. H.R.354, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, would allow people to extract facts from genealogical databases for non-profit religious purposes, but apparently extraction for non-profit, secular purposes would be forbidden. It might be a boon to the compilers of cemetery transcriptions and census indices, but I think it would be a disaster for genealogy in general. Peter Hirtle At 09:37 PM 11/22/00 -0700, W. David Samuelsen wrote: >classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers >are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original >censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out >of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the >party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. > >And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found >elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If >you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover >their format is different and unique as well. > >David

Maryann, Pennsylvania is probably concerned about forgeries of official documents, rather than protecting a copyright interest. Thats likely why Wisconsin stamps them. Once they are stamped no one would accept them as proof of citizenship, for example. Thats why you are often told for official purposes that a certified copy is required. Bob I'm surprised they didn't stamp it "for genealogical use only" Wisconsin does this. Whenever I send for any certificate I always REQUEST that it be without the seal, always for genealogy purposes. I ordered copies from Pennsylvania and had never had such warning like that because I mentioned that it is for genealogy purposes. Other states - if it don't have the seal, then it can be copied. No seal - not valid for legal purposes. The key difference is "SEAL" David Samuelsen maryann wrote: > > Until I received death certificates from Pennsylvania, I would have > agreed with Cliff. The certificates included a warning that they were > not to be copied. I have not checked on the legality of this and have > no idea how or why Pennsylvania objects to my making copies. One > death occurred in the 1920's and the other in 1934. > > Cliff wrote: > > You asked if you could scan some old marriage, birth, and death > certificates (for which you paid in order to get the copies) and then > print them in a publication. They would be public documents, so you > could do it. They can't be copyrighted. The Copyright Law of 1976 is > federal and affects all states the same. > > ==== 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 ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== Freepages, that is free web pages http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html ============================== The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

I'm surprised they didn't stamp it "for genealogical use only" Wisconsin does this. Whenever I send for any certificate I always REQUEST that it be without the seal, always for genealogy purposes. I ordered copies from Pennsylvania and had never had such warning like that because I mentioned that it is for genealogy purposes. Other states - if it don't have the seal, then it can be copied. No seal - not valid for legal purposes. The key difference is "SEAL" David Samuelsen maryann wrote: > > Until I received death certificates from Pennsylvania, I would have > agreed with Cliff. The certificates included a warning that they were > not to be copied. I have not checked on the legality of this and have > no idea how or why Pennsylvania objects to my making copies. One > death occurred in the 1920's and the other in 1934. > > Cliff wrote: > > You asked if you could scan some old marriage, birth, and death > certificates (for which you paid in order to get the copies) and then > print them in a publication. They would be public documents, so you > could do it. They can't be copyrighted. The Copyright Law of 1976 is > federal and affects all states the same. > > ==== 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

"W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found > elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If > you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover > their format is different and unique as well. On Thursday, November 23, 2000, Cliff Lamere <[email protected]> wrote: > The 1991 U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Feist vs. Rural says this: > "Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it > closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not > the result of copying. To illustrate, [499 U.S. 340, 346] assume that two > poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is > novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable." > > So, with a compilation such as baptism or marriage records, the format > choices are definitely limited. If a person went out of their way to > develop some sort of difference, another person could imagine the same > format. Then, identical formatting of identical records could apparently > produce two valid copyrights. > > Did I err? No, you are correct. But there's a technique that helps to shed light on whether the format is independently original, and that is what is described here: "W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers > are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original > censuses ... So if you claim you came up with the format independently, but the other copyrighter's "false data" shows up in your "independent" work, that's a pretty good sign that you were actually copying theirs. One other aspect of this, unrelated to censuses: some formats are "public domain", having been used for a long, long time and being very widespread. For example, placing name, birth, and death data into a pedigree tree or descendancy tree doesn't gain one a copyright. Someone might claim an "independent" creation of this format, but I think it would be hard to prove. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Until I received death certificates from Pennsylvania, I would have agreed with Cliff. The certificates included a warning that they were not to be copied. I have not checked on the legality of this and have no idea how or why Pennsylvania objects to my making copies. One death occurred in the 1920's and the other in 1934. Cliff wrote: > You asked if you could scan some old marriage, birth, and death certificates (for which you paid in order to get the copies) and then print them in a publication. They would be public documents, so you could do it. They can't be copyrighted. The Copyright Law of 1976 is federal and affects all states the same.

"And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found elsewhere." The 1991 U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Feist vs. Rural says this: "Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, [499 U.S. 340, 346] assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable." So, with a compilation such as baptism or marriage records, the format choices are definitely limited. If a person went out of their way to develop some sort of difference, another person could imagine the same format. Then, identical formatting of identical records could apparently produce two valid copyrights. Did I err? Cliff "W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers > are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original > censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out > of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the > party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. > > And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found > elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If > you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover > their format is different and unique as well. > > David >

Heather, You asked if you could scan some old marriage, birth, and death certificates (for which you paid in order to get the copies) and then print them in a publication. They would be public documents, so you could do it. They can't be copyrighted. The Copyright Law of 1976 is federal and affects all states the same. Cliff Hinckley wrote: > I have certainly heard a lot lately about census records and their use in > family histories, in relation to copyright laws. > > In another area, I am planning on publishing a family history. Last summer > I took a trip to Wisconsin and found some very old marriage, birth, and > death certificates of which I paid for copies. My question is if I can > actually scan these documents into my family history and print them in my > publication. Is this an infringement on copyright? Does the law vary from > state-to-state? > > 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? > > Thanks for any comments, > Heather Hinckley > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!

classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover their format is different and unique as well. David Peter Hirtle wrote: > > At 05:41 PM 11/21/00 -0700, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > >Having worked for AIS, the copyright applied to the entire books > >because of the format and markers used. This was upheld in 1993 as > >part of out of court settlement against the infringers. > > Can you provide a citation for this case? A relevant court decision would > seem to be the simplest way to settle the issue of whether census > transcriptions are a creative product, and hence copyrighted, or are > instead the product of hard work and deep skill, and hence not copyrighted. > > Peter Hirtle > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter B. Hirtle > Co-Director [email protected] > Cornell Institute for Digital Collections 607/255-4033 (ph) > 2B Kroch Library 607/255-9524 (fax) > Cornell University <http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/> > Ithaca, NY 14853 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/

At 05:41 PM 11/21/00 -0700, W. David Samuelsen wrote: >Having worked for AIS, the copyright applied to the entire books >because of the format and markers used. This was upheld in 1993 as >part of out of court settlement against the infringers. Can you provide a citation for this case? A relevant court decision would seem to be the simplest way to settle the issue of whether census transcriptions are a creative product, and hence copyrighted, or are instead the product of hard work and deep skill, and hence not copyrighted. Peter Hirtle [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter B. Hirtle Co-Director [email protected] Cornell Institute for Digital Collections 607/255-4033 (ph) 2B Kroch Library 607/255-9524 (fax) Cornell University <http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/> Ithaca, NY 14853 ----------------------------------------------------------------