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
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. >> 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. >> 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.
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
On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe I am and nothing will change that. I fail to see how one can say > it's a reproduction--that's completely inaccurate. A reproduction is a copy > of the actual census record--for example, making a copy of a census page > from a microfilm reader/printer. But a transcription is not a reproduction. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "transcribe v. tr. transcribed transcribing transcribes 1. To make a full written or typewritten copy of (dictated material, for example)." Note the operative word here is "copy". Remember, copyright law predates computers, microfilm, or even photographs. It comes from a time when the only way to copy text was by handwriting or setting type in a printing press. In both cases these are transcriptions, by hand. Copies. The medium and method are not relevant, only the format is, and then only if creative. > > Think of it this way: compare how much work went into creating that table > > in the first place, and compare it to the work you put into copying it. > > Generally there is no comparison. > Can't disagree with that, if you are referring to when the census taker > originally wrote the data in. Can't see any relevance here though. Sorry, I was jumping the gun a bit because it's where the argument often ends up in this case. I was talking about the idea that just because someone does some work ("sweat of the brow") they can claim copyright, which I agree wasn't directly relevant. (Let me reiterate that I personally feel it is important to acknowledge such efforts, using kudos instead of dollars in encouraging them.) S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]
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 Bennie White wrote: > > It appears no one on this list seems to have transcribed census data! Let me be more > specific here. US Federal Census records in some cases are very hard to read. The > handwriting sometimes is atrocius (but understandable for the times). I might > interpret a name, date, age, sex, occupation, etc. entry on the census one way and > somebody else who reads it might interpret it another way. My interpretation is > mine! > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright > > > notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? > > > > Wishful thinking? :) > > No, I doubt that. Violators would find out quickly that the copyright meant > exactly what it said. > > > > The only thing that would be protected might possibly be the "minor > > modifications" of your own, assuming they are sufficiently creative and > > really your own. (If the modifications were inspired by or copied from > > someone else, your out of luck.) > > My compilations are my very own and as a genealogist for 23 years, I respect the > hard work of others (unlike many postings I have seen on the web), and have never, > nor ever will, copy someone else's format > > > > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > > > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > > > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > > > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, > > > then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to > > > the highest court. > > > > > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > > > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I > > > not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > > > > > > > I don't think there is a difference between hand copying, mechanical > > copying, or digital copying. In terms of speed and accuracy, of course, > > but not legally. Take for example the USGenWeb Census archives...a literal > > transcription of the census page by page. The data is in the exact > > arrangement found on the canvas sheet. In my view, there is no real > > difference between that file and the microfilm page. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 problem. Even if it looks like mine, if you transcribed the data yourself from the microfilm, you have as much right as I do to > "copyright" it. > > > > (Note that I am a firm believer in proper standards of scholarship and > > crediting sources, but that's a different matter.) > > > > Disclaimer: I only know what I have read...I am not a lawyer. My opinion > > is based on a lay person's reading and understanding of the law, the > > supporting documents put out by the copyright office, and various > > commentaries I have read here and elsewhere. > > I'm not either, but I have compiled census data, and I know my compilation is mine > alone (again, anyone is free to go to the microfilm and do the same--the actual > federal census records are public domain--my compilation is not). > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Freepages, that is free web pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > > > ============================== > > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > > ==== 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
> I disagree about that--it's creative and unique to decipher some of the > census handwriting! :) This is no more creative than translating a book into a foreign language, which at best is considered a "derivative work": A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#101> (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#103> Since you are merely interpreting "preexisting material", you don't gain copyright on it. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]
It appears no one on this list seems to have transcribed census data! Let me be more specific here. US Federal Census records in some cases are very hard to read. The handwriting sometimes is atrocius (but understandable for the times). I might interpret a name, date, age, sex, occupation, etc. entry on the census one way and somebody else who reads it might interpret it another way. My interpretation is mine! Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright > > notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? > > Wishful thinking? :) No, I doubt that. Violators would find out quickly that the copyright meant exactly what it said. > > The only thing that would be protected might possibly be the "minor > modifications" of your own, assuming they are sufficiently creative and > really your own. (If the modifications were inspired by or copied from > someone else, your out of luck.) My compilations are my very own and as a genealogist for 23 years, I respect the hard work of others (unlike many postings I have seen on the web), and have never, nor ever will, copy someone else's format > > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, > > then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to > > the highest court. > > > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I > > not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > > > > I don't think there is a difference between hand copying, mechanical > copying, or digital copying. In terms of speed and accuracy, of course, > but not legally. Take for example the USGenWeb Census archives...a literal > transcription of the census page by page. The data is in the exact > arrangement found on the canvas sheet. In my view, there is no real > difference between that file and the microfilm page. > > 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. > > 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 problem. Even if it looks like mine, if you transcribed the data yourself from the microfilm, you have as much right as I do to "copyright" it. > > (Note that I am a firm believer in proper standards of scholarship and > crediting sources, but that's a different matter.) > > Disclaimer: I only know what I have read...I am not a lawyer. My opinion > is based on a lay person's reading and understanding of the law, the > supporting documents put out by the copyright office, and various > commentaries I have read here and elsewhere. I'm not either, but I have compiled census data, and I know my compilation is mine alone (again, anyone is free to go to the microfilm and do the same--the actual federal census records are public domain--my compilation is not). > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Freepages, that is free web pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2
Scott Anderson wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > > compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically > > the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications > > of my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and > > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. > > If all you made are minor modifications to the table format, especially if they are "obvious" or a simple rearrangement, I sincerely doubt if it qualifies as copyrightable. Remember, as Tom Thatcher pointed out, the purpose of copyright is to protect creativity. I disagree on that point, I'm sorry. > > > Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation > > published (including my own)? > > FUD = Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Make them think it is copyrighted, even if it isn't. You have nothing to lose by doing so. Not true! It's put there to keep someone from reproducing it and selling it for profit. If the original compiler is selling these publications, it would affect his financial status. That's the only reason I ever show a copyright on my works. Making a copy of a page for personal research is OK, but not the whole book. > > > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the > > compiler, then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will > > take them to the highest court. > > And you would probably lose. It doesn't matter if it is hand copied or machine >copied. 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. > > Now, if your table was full of notes such as corrections, alternate spellings, >references to other data, etc. a mechanical reproduction would be unlikely to separate >those out, and you would probably have a case. I have numerous annotations on my census transcriptions made from personal observations. In fact, for my 1840 census, I devised a completely different method of showing the various age groupings. I used letters of the alphabet. > > > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am > > I not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > > No, you are not. It is a (mostly) straightforward copy, and even if it involves some >judgement on your part (e.g. as to the spelling), you are still trying to make an >accurate reproduction. I believe I am and nothing will change that. I fail to see how one can say it's a reproduction--that's completely inaccurate. A reproduction is a copy of the actual census record--for example, making a copy of a census page from a microfilm reader/printer. But a transcription is not a reproduction. > > Think of it this way: compare how much work went into creating that table in the first place, and compare it to the work you put into copying it. Generally there is no comparison. Can't disagree with that, if you are referring to when the census taker originally wrote the data in. Can't see any relevance here though. > > Scott > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > ============================== > 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
on 11/21/00 9:33 AM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically > the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications of > my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright > notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? Wishful thinking? :) The only thing that would be protected might possibly be the "minor modifications" of your own, assuming they are sufficiently creative and really your own. (If the modifications were inspired by or copied from someone else, your out of luck.) > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, > then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to > the highest court. > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I > not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > I don't think there is a difference between hand copying, mechanical copying, or digital copying. In terms of speed and accuracy, of course, but not legally. Take for example the USGenWeb Census archives...a literal transcription of the census page by page. The data is in the exact arrangement found on the canvas sheet. In my view, there is no real difference between that file and the microfilm page. 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. 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. (Note that I am a firm believer in proper standards of scholarship and crediting sources, but that's a different matter.) Disclaimer: I only know what I have read...I am not a lawyer. My opinion is based on a lay person's reading and understanding of the law, the supporting documents put out by the copyright office, and various commentaries I have read here and elsewhere.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically > the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications > of my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. If all you made are minor modifications to the table format, especially if they are "obvious" or a simple rearrangement, I sincerely doubt if it qualifies as copyrightable. Remember, as Tom Thatcher pointed out, the purpose of copyright is to protect creativity. > Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation > published (including my own)? FUD = Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Make them think it is copyrighted, even if it isn't. You have nothing to lose by doing so. > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the > compiler, then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will > take them to the highest court. And you would probably lose. It doesn't matter if it is hand copied or machine copied. Now, if your table was full of notes such as corrections, alternate spellings, references to other data, etc. a mechanical reproduction would be unlikely to separate those out, and you would probably have a case. > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am > I not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! No, you are not. It is a (mostly) straightforward copy, and even if it involves some judgement on your part (e.g. as to the spelling), you are still trying to make an accurate reproduction. Think of it this way: compare how much work went into creating that table in the first place, and compare it to the work you put into copying it. Generally there is no comparison. Scott
I disagree about that--it's creative and unique to decipher some of the census handwriting! :) Bennie [email protected] wrote: > > I am not a copyright expert by any means, but I would > think that the "format" would have to be creative and > unique. Following the format of the original document is > neither creative nor unique. > > Margaret McCleskey
Not true. When you were in school if you handcopied another student's home work, was that not cheating? If you looked on another student's test paper and copied, by hand, his answer onto your test paper, was that not cheating? Margaret McCleskey, > Scott Anderson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > > > compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically > > > the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications > > > of my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and > > > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. > > > > If all you made are minor modifications to the table format, especially if > they are "obvious" or a simple rearrangement, I sincerely doubt if it qualifies > as copyrightable. Remember, as Tom Thatcher pointed out, the purpose of > copyright is to protect creativity. > > I disagree on that point, I'm sorry. > > > > > > Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation > > > published (including my own)? > > > > FUD = Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Make them think it is copyrighted, even if > it isn't. You have nothing to lose by doing so. > > Not true! It's put there to keep someone from reproducing it and selling it for > profit. If the original compiler is selling these publications, it would affect > his > financial status. That's the only reason I ever show a copyright on my works. > Making > a copy of a page for personal research is OK, but not the whole book. > > > > > > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > > > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > > > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > > > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the > > > compiler, then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will > > > take them to the highest court. > > > > And you would probably lose. It doesn't matter if it is hand copied or machine > >copied. > > 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. > > > > Now, if your table was full of notes such as corrections, alternate spellings, > >references to other data, etc. a mechanical reproduction would be unlikely to > separate >those out, and you would probably have a case. > > I have numerous annotations on my census transcriptions made from personal > observations. In fact, for my 1840 census, I devised a completely different > method > of showing the various age groupings. I used letters of the alphabet. > > > > > > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > > > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am > > > I not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > > > > No, you are not. It is a (mostly) straightforward copy, and even if it > involves some >judgement on your part (e.g. as to the spelling), you are still > trying to make an >accurate reproduction. > > I believe I am and nothing will change that. I fail to see how one can say it's > a > reproduction--that's completely inaccurate. A reproduction is a copy of the > actual > census record--for example, making a copy of a census page from a microfilm > reader/printer. But a transcription is not a reproduction. > > > > > Think of it this way: compare how much work went into creating that table in > the first place, and compare it to the work you put into copying it. Generally > there is no comparison. > > Can't disagree with that, if you are referring to when the census taker > originally > wrote the data in. Can't see any relevance here though. > > > > Scott > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > > > ============================== > > 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 > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/ >
Only if you are the only person with the ability to decipher those census records. > I disagree about that--it's creative and unique to decipher some of the census > handwriting! :) > > Bennie > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > I am not a copyright expert by any means, but I would > > think that the "format" would have to be creative and > > unique. Following the format of the original document is > > neither creative nor unique. > > > > Margaret McCleskey > > > ==== 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 >
At 08:33 AM 11/21/00 -0600, Bennie White wrote: >I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative >expression......does not >protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I >not being >creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! Hi all, The following information on compilations is from my copyright website at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright? The law identifies three distinct elements, all of which must 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. Collection and assembling facts and information isn't enough. Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted if the originality requirement, "an original work of authorship," is met. "The point was emphasized with regard to compilations to ensure that courts would not repeat the mistake of the 'sweat of the brow' courts by concluding that fact-based works are treated differently and measured by some other standard." (Feist) The Congressional goal was to " 'make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.'" (Feist) The Supreme Court, in reviewing the law, has concluded "that the statute envisions that there will be some fact-based works in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection" (Feist) in any way at all. The originality requirement is not very stringent. In fact, the selection or arrangement methods that others have used may unknowingly be used; "novelty is not required." For the originality requirment, the author needs only to make the arrangement or selection independently, without copying the selection or arrangement from another work, and it must display some minimal level of creativity. While most factual compilations will pass this test, there will be a small number of works "in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistant." (Feist) Originality may occur in the selection of the material to be included in a compilation. If it is truely original, the selection may be a part of the protected portion of a compilation. On the other hand, if the selection of the material is made through the use of formulas, procedures, or other non-original techniques, protection of the selection is not likely. Such acts of selection "are not acts of authorship, but techniques for the discovery of facts." (bellsouth) A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the "author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed." (Feist ) "One of the most important points here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright... has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material."
I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications of my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to the highest court. I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! Bennie ---------------------------------------------------- Bennie White [email protected] Homepage: http://www.netpathway.com/~bennie/index.html ClarkeCoMS: http://www.egroups.com/group/ClarkeCoMS Thatcher family wrote: > > > I retrieved a segment of the 1880 Federal Census > > from a microfilm at a historical library and > > copied the section relating to an entire city. Is > > there a problem if I were to type that Census > > record into a database, using the same format as > > the original Census and post it to the internet or > > publish that data under my own copyright? > > > > Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be copyrighted, there's no problem. > > Census data fails at least three tests of copyright: it is too old, it is > public information that anyone can look up, and it is a Federal government > document and thus "property of the people." > > If you republish the information (in whatever format), you may be entitled > to copyright protection, but only towards whatever parts of the publication > contain your original, creative expression. > > Copyright protects the original creative expression of authors; it does not > protect the labor of the author or researcher. > > -- > Tom Thatcher > [email protected] > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> >
Hello Tom Your explanation of 'Fair Use' sure has helped me to understand. It seems to me that interpretation of these copyright laws is the answer. Regards Kay -----Original Message----- From: Thatcher family <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000 11:36 Subject: Re: Copyright & Family History >> What constitutes 'Fair Use' ? > >I have not looked up the US rules on Fair Use, which would not necessarily >apply anyway. The reason for the Fair Use exemption is that Copyright is >supposed to encourage creative expression, not stifle it. So it is possible >to use another person's copyrighted work to help you in your own, as long as >your use is "fair." > >In the US, Fair Use takes into account four criteria: purpose of the use >(such as education or research); scope of the use in relation to the whole; >the nature of the original work; and the effect of the copying on the market >value of the original. > >What you are doing is clearly research, and including portions of old >newspaper articles is certainly not going to damage the market value of the >modern day newspaper, assuming it even exists. > >>Newspaper articles; government records; government gazettes; sentences and >>paragraphs plucked from various books I have read pertaining to Australian >>history - etc. > >Assuming the Fair Use principle exists under Australian law (and even if >its not written in the law there may be case law precedents which assume it >exists) I can't see any of the examples you mention above failing the Fair >Use test. > > > >-- >Tom Thatcher >[email protected] ><http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> ><http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> > >______________________________
> I retrieved a segment of the 1880 Federal Census > from a microfilm at a historical library and > copied the section relating to an entire city. Is > there a problem if I were to type that Census > record into a database, using the same format as > the original Census and post it to the internet or > publish that data under my own copyright? Let me add one more comment. I didn't notice the word "database" the first time I read the letter. It is my understanding that if the construction of the database involves a significant amount of creative input--decisions like how it is indexed, how it can be searched, what kind of indexes you build, and how much value is added to the census by your creativity and originality--then you might be entitled to copyright protection with respect to the database. The underlying facts still can not be copyrighted. I have no idea what standard would be applied to determine whether your database was creative enough to qualify for protection. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>
> I retrieved a segment of the 1880 Federal Census > from a microfilm at a historical library and > copied the section relating to an entire city. Is > there a problem if I were to type that Census > record into a database, using the same format as > the original Census and post it to the internet or > publish that data under my own copyright? > Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be copyrighted, there's no problem. Census data fails at least three tests of copyright: it is too old, it is public information that anyone can look up, and it is a Federal government document and thus "property of the people." If you republish the information (in whatever format), you may be entitled to copyright protection, but only towards whatever parts of the publication contain your original, creative expression. Copyright protects the original creative expression of authors; it does not protect the labor of the author or researcher. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>
I am not a copyright expert by any means, but I would think that the "format" would have to be creative and unique. Following the format of the original document is neither creative nor unique. Margaret McCleskey > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > compiling > census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically the same > structure as the original document, with some minor modifications of my own). > While > I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and cannot be copyrighted, > my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright notices posted on most > every > census compilation published (including my own)? > > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it into > a > similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it would > probably be > OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of each page, then puts > into > a book format with their name on it as the compiler, then woe to them! If it's > my > work they have ripped off, I will take them to the highest court. > > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does not > protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I not > being > creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > > Bennie > ---------------------------------------------------- > Bennie White [email protected] > Homepage: http://www.netpathway.com/~bennie/index.html > ClarkeCoMS: http://www.egroups.com/group/ClarkeCoMS > > > Thatcher family wrote: > > > > > I retrieved a segment of the 1880 Federal Census > > > from a microfilm at a historical library and > > > copied the section relating to an entire city. Is > > > there a problem if I were to type that Census > > > record into a database, using the same format as > > > the original Census and post it to the internet or > > > publish that data under my own copyright? > > > > > > > Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be copyrighted, there's no problem. > > > > Census data fails at least three tests of copyright: it is too old, it is > > public information that anyone can look up, and it is a Federal government > > document and thus "property of the people." > > > > If you republish the information (in whatever format), you may be entitled > > to copyright protection, but only towards whatever parts of the publication > > contain your original, creative expression. > > > > Copyright protects the original creative expression of authors; it does not > > protect the labor of the author or researcher. > > > > -- > > 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 > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com >
At 09:30 AM 11/20/00 -0500, Scott Anderson wrote: > > The prohibition on copyright protection for United States > > Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection > > of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other > > countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for > > denying such protection to United States Government works in > > foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making > > licenses for the use of its works abroad. > > Historical and Revision Notes > > House Report No. 94-1476 > >I wonder if this is "the law" or if it is just some House committee's >musings on the subject? The information which I quoted is from the United States Code site's page on 17 USC Sec. 105 at http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+9+5++%27fair%20use%27 The Historical and Revision Notes that accompany the code is often a good reference for studying what Congress's intent was. It is NOT the law, of course, but it is part of the bases for the law, as I understand it. Most of the code, which I regularly reference, can be accessed from a link on my web site entitled "Linked Index to the U.S. Copyight Code." My site is at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike