I have been on this list for sometime and never entered in. I am someone who has copied many census reports for people and figured out many wills and land grants. I did discover this site on copyright and laws from the US Copyright Office http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html and http://www.cyndislist.com/copyrite.htm Don't know if it helps answer any questions or not. Barbara

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

> Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > I would say that you are correct in saying that no one can copy your > > entire compilation. But someone else could view the microfilm and make > > their own compilation without violating anyone's copyright. On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > That is what I've been trying to get across all through this thread. I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. We've been talking about just those portions that are unannotated, direct transcriptions of public records. (I was given the impression that this constitutes a large portion of the compilation, though.) S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Industrious effort in collecting data does not copyright make. Improper interpretations by lower courts led them to create in case law a so-called "sweat of the brow" doctrine in case law. Below is information from the Supreme Court ruling on "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc." which was a ruling on compilations (phone books). I have the opinion on this case on a page on my copyright site at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike The "sweat of the brow" doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement--the compiler's original contributions--to the facts themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement was independent creation. A subsequent compiler was "not entitled to take one word of information previously published," but rather had to "independently wor[k] out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the same common sources of information.".... "Sweat of the brow" courts thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom of copyright law--that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Decisions of this Court applying the 1909 Act make clear that the statute did not permit the "sweat of the brow" approach.... Without a doubt, the "sweat of the brow" doctrine flouted basic copyright principles. Throughout history, copyright law has "recognize[d] a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy." ...But "sweat of the brow" courts took a contrary view; they handed out proprietary interests in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by relying upon the facts contained in prior works. In truth, "[i]t is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts ... [is] designed to prevent." ... "Protection for the fruits of such research ... may in certain circumstances be available under a theory of unfair competition. But to accord copyright protection on this basis alone distorts basic copyright principles in that it creates a monopoly in public domain materials without the necessary justification of protecting and encouraging the creation of 'writings' by 'authors.' " Congress took another step to minimize confusion by deleting the specific mention of "directories ... and other compilations" in s 5 of the 1909 Act. As mentioned, this section had led some courts to conclude that directories were copyrightable per se and that every element of a directory was protected. In its place, Congress enacted two new provisions. First, to make clear that compilations were not copyrightable per se, Congress provided a definition of the term "compilation." Second, to make clear that the copyright in a compilation did not extend to the facts themselves, Congress enacted s 103. The definition of "compilation" is found in s 101 of the 1976 Act. It defines a "compilation" in the copyright sense as "a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship" (emphasis added). The purpose of the statutory definition is to emphasize that collections of facts are not copyrightable per se. It conveys this message through its tripartite structure, as emphasized above by the italics. The statute identifies three distinct elements and requires each to be met for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: (1) the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and (3) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement, of an "original" work of authorship. "[T]his tripartite conjunctive structure is self-evident, and should be assumed to 'accurately express the legislative purpose.' "

On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Margaret McCleskey <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's be sure that I understand. If I view the census, make my own > compilation or transcription and make my own index; I have not violated > any copyright. Is that correct? Correct. > I am, however, not sure how two or more indices of the same set of facts > could be unique. They don't have to be unique or even novel, only original. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected] Admin, {C{offield,ollosky,ranston,ummins},OHGuerns,USAGen}[email protected] USGenWeb Coordinator, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/

The don't have to necessarily be different. As long as you yourself compiled the data from the original microfilm of the census, no violation. The fact that someone else had already used the same original records to compile their version has no bearing on it. Bennie Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > Let's be sure that I understand. If I view the census, make my own > compilation or transcription and make my own index; I have not violated > any copyright. Is that correct? > > I am, however, not sure how two or more indices of the same set of facts > could be unique. > > Margaret >

That is what I've been trying to get across all through this thread. Bennie "W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > > that's very correct. > > David Samuelsen > > Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > > > Bennie, > > > > I would say that you are correct in saying that no one can copy your > > entire compilation. But someone else could view the microfilm and make > > their own compilation without violating anyone's copyright. > > > > Margaret > >

Let's be sure that I understand. If I view the census, make my own compilation or transcription and make my own index; I have not violated any copyright. Is that correct? I am, however, not sure how two or more indices of the same set of facts could be unique. Margaret Margaret Scott Anderson wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (I have a cemetery inscription compilation at the printers as we speak- > > > copyrighted, I might add). > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, I wrote: > > That's very different. You put that together yourself, so you deserve a > > copyright on it and protection for it. > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Margaret McCleskey <[email protected]> wrote: > > What if I go to a cemetery, plot it, walk it, and record the burials > > there then put the information into a book? The information on the > > stones is a form of public record available to anyone who visits the > > cemetery, death records for some states are on line, obituaries are in > > the newspaper, funeral home records are available for searching by > > anyone. It seems to me that, here, again only the format and index if > > there is one are copyrightable. The facts are not. > > That is correct. By definition of copyright, it only applies to the expression (format), not to the facts themselves. > > This is in contrast to the census tables, whose format preexisted and which Bennie appears to have copied unchanged for some of his books. > > His index would be copyrighted in both cases. > > S R C A > cott obert ranston nderson > [email protected] > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Freepages, that is free web pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog

On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > > (I have a cemetery inscription compilation at the printers as we speak- > > copyrighted, I might add). On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, I wrote: > That's very different. You put that together yourself, so you deserve a > copyright on it and protection for it. On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Margaret McCleskey <[email protected]> wrote: > What if I go to a cemetery, plot it, walk it, and record the burials > there then put the information into a book? The information on the > stones is a form of public record available to anyone who visits the > cemetery, death records for some states are on line, obituaries are in > the newspaper, funeral home records are available for searching by > anyone. It seems to me that, here, again only the format and index if > there is one are copyrightable. The facts are not. That is correct. By definition of copyright, it only applies to the expression (format), not to the facts themselves. This is in contrast to the census tables, whose format preexisted and which Bennie appears to have copied unchanged for some of his books. His index would be copyrighted in both cases. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

that's very correct. David Samuelsen Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > Bennie, > > I would say that you are correct in saying that no one can copy your > entire compilation. But someone else could view the microfilm and make > their own compilation without violating anyone's copyright. > > Margaret > > Bennie White wrote: > > > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > > > on 11/21/00 12:44 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > I seriously doubt I would lose if I pressed it. It matters a great deal! Hand > > > > copying is the author's work; machine copying is someone else's work. > > > > > > There is a difference between work and creation. Between copying and > > > origination. No matter how many times I hand-copy the Declaration of > > > Independence, I will never gain a special right to it. And, I am sorry to > > > say, not matter how long it takes you to copy a census, it still belongs to > > > the people. > > > > Well, I'm NOT sorry to say that my compilation of the census belongs to me. I see we > > have different opinions here, so I will stand by mine and you stand by yours--the > > American way, right? > > > > > One thing which hasn't been discussed is that copyright, as a form of > > > ownership, is not only the right to receive credit (and compensation), it > > > is the right to withhold publication if you desire. If you truly had a > > > copyright over the census, you could prevent anyone else from using it > > > except through your transcriptions. > > > > I DO NOT claim to hold a copyright over the census--just my compilation of it. And > > my copyright does in fact prohibit anyone from copying MY entire compilation. Again, > > different views. I stand by mine. > > > > > That, as we all will realize, is ridiculous. > > > > > > Without the right to withhold, copyright is meaningless. > > > > > > ==== 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 > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Searchable archives at > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > > > ============================== > > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1 > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Freepages, that is free web pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > ============================== > Search over 600 million names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

Scott, 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. David Scott Anderson wrote: > > > BTW, I'm sure I have seen a copyright notice posted on some AIS indexes I > > have used over the years. Or did I? Maybe it was just in the "Introduction?" > > An index is a creative work, and so copyrightable (and even so by a different person who comes along later and creates one based on another person's work -- derivative but original expression). > > > Sorry to have been so disagreeable, but I will NEVER submit that my > > compilation of the entire censuses are not protected by copyright. > > Then some day you may learn an expensive legal lesson. > > I assume that you have sold a number of your books, which means that they are useful to others. I therefore hope you have recovered your costs and even made some extra. But I doubt you will make a mint off of them, and their apparent noncopyrightability is one reason why. > > S R C A > cott obert ranston nderson > [email protected] > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!

There's the case of census copyright infringement that was settled out of court. I know because I was in that case and my company won once the court questioned the offender about the source of his work. The copyright is NOT applied to transcription itself. Only to the hidden markers and introductions. That is why you see two unique formats used by two companies out in the market - AIS and Precision Indexing. The formats they used can not be infringed upon by any others. And as for cemetery compilation - only parts that is copyrighted is the WAY you arrange the compilation, NOT the cemetery marker facts and the compilation has to be ORIGINAL. David Samuelsen Bennie White wrote: > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > on 11/21/00 12:48 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > > > > >> Wishful thinking? :) > > >> > > > No, I doubt that. Violators would find out quickly that the copyright meant > > > exactly what it said. > > > > Got an example? If you look carefully at most sites that sell access to > > such information, they rely on a license agreement that says if you violate > > the agreement (by, for example, copying off large amounts of data) you can > > lose your access privileges. Why is that provision there? Because most of > > the material on those sites is not copyright protected, and the lawyers know > > it, even if the average user does not. > > I don't have an example, but I'll bet you can find some in the US court records > somewhere. Copyright infringement is a hot subject these days. I can't comment either way on the pay sites because I do not know. Don't believe it > has anything to do with what we were talking about. > > By the way, if I ever find out any of my books have been duplicated (reproduced, if > I may use the term)--I'll have a first-hand example for you (I have a cemetery > inscription compilation at the printers as we speak--copyrighted, I might add). > > > >> Think of some of the different ways I could acquire your census data: I could > > >> go to the microfilm and transcribe it myself. I could make an electronic copy > > >> of your web page. I could print out your web page and give it to my secretary > > >> to type. Or I could read your web site out loud into a dictaphone, and have a > > >> stenographer transcribe the tape, a typist type it out from the steno pad, a > > >> clerk scan it using OCR software, and a web designer format it and post it on > > >> my web site. > > > > > You're partially right--No problem with your first and last "ways". However, > > > when my census data was posted to my website (it is no longer because of > > > robbers), it clearly had copyright notices posted. If you make an electronic > > > copy of my pages, you have violated copyright. I am referring here to entire > > > censuses, not just one page. I had the entire 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, census > > > for my county posted and parts of the 1880 and 1900. This obviously involved > > > a number of .HTML pages. > > > > It's a specious argument. First of all, you can stamp "copyright" on > > anything you want but it doesn't mean it's protected by copyright law. > > The process by which the copying occurs does not matter in the slightest > > bit. > > I do know this is in the current copyright law (may not be exact wording): Any > original work (compilation or otherwise) created by the author becomes protected by > copyright from the moment it is created. In fact, under the current law, the > copyright notice is not even required to be shown. Getting down to the nitty > gritty, these messages we on the list are compiling (original work) are covered > under copyright and we all have violated the law by quoting passages. Extreme > example, I know, but nevertheless, covered under the law. > > > >> In each case the result is the same, and the final content of my site will > > >> not differ in any material way from either your site or the original census > > >> page. The method of copying has no relevance. > > >> > > > Yes, it will. If you used your first and last methods, you have created the > > > work yourself > > > > No, I haven't. I copied it using a different method. Here again, the > > mechanism is not important. By your argument, if I find a printed copy > > of the source code for Microsoft Word in the trash, and type it in to my PC, > > and compile it, then I not only own a legal copy of MS Word, but I can sell > > it for profit, since I own the copyright. Copying something manually does > > not give you special rights that vanish if you copy it through technology. > > Sorry, strongly disagree again, but again this is getting nowhere. I stand by my > arguments. > > > > ==== 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 > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

Whew! I thought I was alone here! Thanks, Margaret--I agree 100% with your statements. Bennie Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > Bennie, > > I would say that you are correct in saying that no one can copy your > entire compilation. But someone else could view the microfilm and make > their own compilation without violating anyone's copyright. > > Margaret >

Bennie, I would say that you are correct in saying that no one can copy your entire compilation. But someone else could view the microfilm and make their own compilation without violating anyone's copyright. Margaret Bennie White wrote: > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > on 11/21/00 12:44 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I seriously doubt I would lose if I pressed it. It matters a great deal! Hand > > > copying is the author's work; machine copying is someone else's work. > > > > There is a difference between work and creation. Between copying and > > origination. No matter how many times I hand-copy the Declaration of > > Independence, I will never gain a special right to it. And, I am sorry to > > say, not matter how long it takes you to copy a census, it still belongs to > > the people. > > Well, I'm NOT sorry to say that my compilation of the census belongs to me. I see we > have different opinions here, so I will stand by mine and you stand by yours--the > American way, right? > > > One thing which hasn't been discussed is that copyright, as a form of > > ownership, is not only the right to receive credit (and compensation), it > > is the right to withhold publication if you desire. If you truly had a > > copyright over the census, you could prevent anyone else from using it > > except through your transcriptions. > > I DO NOT claim to hold a copyright over the census--just my compilation of it. And > my copyright does in fact prohibit anyone from copying MY entire compilation. Again, > different views. I stand by mine. > > > That, as we all will realize, is ridiculous. > > > > Without the right to withhold, copyright is meaningless. > > > > ==== 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 > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

Okay, let's consider those sites that have information posted along with a statement that it is copyrighted. Right now on Rootsweb, you can find Texas Vital Records posted: Death, Birth (before 1950), Birth (after 1950), Divorce, and Marriage. Their site says that this information is copyrighted. However, the State of Texas posted most of that information on its site before Rootsweb did and has it available for purchase on CD. If there is a copyright here, it seems to me that it belongs to the State of Texas. Margaret Bennie White wrote: > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > on 11/21/00 12:48 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > > > > >> Wishful thinking? :) > > >> > > > No, I doubt that. Violators would find out quickly that the copyright meant > > > exactly what it said. > > > > Got an example? If you look carefully at most sites that sell access to > > such information, they rely on a license agreement that says if you violate > > the agreement (by, for example, copying off large amounts of data) you can > > lose your access privileges. Why is that provision there? Because most of > > the material on those sites is not copyright protected, and the lawyers know > > it, even if the average user does not. > > I don't have an example, but I'll bet you can find some in the US court records > somewhere. Copyright infringement is a hot subject these days. I can't comment either way on the pay sites because I do not know. Don't believe it > has anything to do with what we were talking about. > > By the way, if I ever find out any of my books have been duplicated (reproduced, if > I may use the term)--I'll have a first-hand example for you (I have a cemetery > inscription compilation at the printers as we speak--copyrighted, I might add). > > > >> Think of some of the different ways I could acquire your census data: I could > > >> go to the microfilm and transcribe it myself. I could make an electronic copy > > >> of your web page. I could print out your web page and give it to my secretary > > >> to type. Or I could read your web site out loud into a dictaphone, and have a > > >> stenographer transcribe the tape, a typist type it out from the steno pad, a > > >> clerk scan it using OCR software, and a web designer format it and post it on > > >> my web site. > > > > > You're partially right--No problem with your first and last "ways". However, > > > when my census data was posted to my website (it is no longer because of > > > robbers), it clearly had copyright notices posted. If you make an electronic > > > copy of my pages, you have violated copyright. I am referring here to entire > > > censuses, not just one page. I had the entire 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, census > > > for my county posted and parts of the 1880 and 1900. This obviously involved > > > a number of .HTML pages. > > > > It's a specious argument. First of all, you can stamp "copyright" on > > anything you want but it doesn't mean it's protected by copyright law. > > The process by which the copying occurs does not matter in the slightest > > bit. > > I do know this is in the current copyright law (may not be exact wording): Any > original work (compilation or otherwise) created by the author becomes protected by > copyright from the moment it is created. In fact, under the current law, the > copyright notice is not even required to be shown. Getting down to the nitty > gritty, these messages we on the list are compiling (original work) are covered > under copyright and we all have violated the law by quoting passages. Extreme > example, I know, but nevertheless, covered under the law. > > > >> In each case the result is the same, and the final content of my site will > > >> not differ in any material way from either your site or the original census > > >> page. The method of copying has no relevance. > > >> > > > Yes, it will. If you used your first and last methods, you have created the > > > work yourself > > > > No, I haven't. I copied it using a different method. Here again, the > > mechanism is not important. By your argument, if I find a printed copy > > of the source code for Microsoft Word in the trash, and type it in to my PC, > > and compile it, then I not only own a legal copy of MS Word, but I can sell > > it for profit, since I own the copyright. Copying something manually does > > not give you special rights that vanish if you copy it through technology. > > Sorry, strongly disagree again, but again this is getting nowhere. I stand by my > arguments. > > > > ==== 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 > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

What if I go to a cemetery, plot it, walk it, and record the burials there then put the information into a book? The information on the stones is a form of public record available to anyone who visits the cemetery, death records for some states are on line, obituaries are in the newspaper, funeral home records are available for searching by anyone. It seems to me that, here, again only the format and index if there is one are copyrightable. The facts are not. Margaret Scott Anderson wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > > (I have a cemetery inscription compilation at the printers as we speak- > > copyrighted, I might add). > > That's very different. You put that together yourself, so you deserve a copyright on it and protection for it. > > > I do know this is in the current copyright law (may not be exact wording): > > Any original work (compilation or otherwise) created by the author becomes > > protected by copyright from the moment it is created. In fact, under the > > current law, the copyright notice is not even required to be shown. Getting > > down to the nitty gritty, these messages we on the list are compiling > > (original work) are covered under copyright and we all have violated the law > > y quoting passages. Extreme example, I know, but nevertheless, covered > > under the law. > > The quoting falls under fair use, so no copyright violation. > > S R C A > cott obert ranston nderson > [email protected] > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1

> BTW, I'm sure I have seen a copyright notice posted on some AIS indexes I > have used over the years. Or did I? Maybe it was just in the "Introduction?" An index is a creative work, and so copyrightable (and even so by a different person who comes along later and creates one based on another person's work -- derivative but original expression). > Sorry to have been so disagreeable, but I will NEVER submit that my > compilation of the entire censuses are not protected by copyright. Then some day you may learn an expensive legal lesson. I assume that you have sold a number of your books, which means that they are useful to others. I therefore hope you have recovered your costs and even made some extra. But I doubt you will make a mint off of them, and their apparent noncopyrightability is one reason why. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > (I have a cemetery inscription compilation at the printers as we speak- > copyrighted, I might add). That's very different. You put that together yourself, so you deserve a copyright on it and protection for it. > I do know this is in the current copyright law (may not be exact wording): > Any original work (compilation or otherwise) created by the author becomes > protected by copyright from the moment it is created. In fact, under the > current law, the copyright notice is not even required to be shown. Getting > down to the nitty gritty, these messages we on the list are compiling > (original work) are covered under copyright and we all have violated the law > y quoting passages. Extreme example, I know, but nevertheless, covered > under the law. The quoting falls under fair use, so no copyright violation. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

David, I stand corrected about my statement that no one on the list has compiled census. I have used AIS many times and found them quite useful. But aren't we talking indexes here? BTW, I'm sure I have seen a copyright notice posted on some AIS indexes I have used over the years. Or did I? Maybe it was just in the "Introduction?" Hey, if the AIS indexes are not protected by copyright, why can't I reproduce all the pages and make my own book and sell it? I would probably have a big lawsuit on my hands! Sorry to have been so disagreeable, but I will NEVER submit that my compilation of the entire censuses are not protected by copyright. Bennie "W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > > Bennie, > > You assumed wrong! > > I have been doing it for 20 years plus (for AIS/AGES). I know what > it take to copyright a work or not. > > The ONLY portion that is copyrighted is something that was NOT in > original census data. That is the markers. Exact transcription is > NOT copyrightable at all. And the introduction is copyrightable. > > W. David Samuelsen >

on 11/21/00 12:44 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > I seriously doubt I would lose if I pressed it. It matters a great deal! Hand > copying is the author's work; machine copying is someone else's work. There is a difference between work and creation. Between copying and origination. No matter how many times I hand-copy the Declaration of Independence, I will never gain a special right to it. And, I am sorry to say, not matter how long it takes you to copy a census, it still belongs to the people. One thing which hasn't been discussed is that copyright, as a form of ownership, is not only the right to receive credit (and compensation), it is the right to withhold publication if you desire. If you truly had a copyright over the census, you could prevent anyone else from using it except through your transcriptions. That, as we all will realize, is ridiculous. Without the right to withhold, copyright is meaningless.