Although I'm running the risk of showing just how little I know about US Copyright laws, I am going to ask what may appear to be the "Stupid" question! 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? Thanks - Debbie

At 12:45 AM 11/18/00 -0500, Thatcher family wrote: >One further point, anything found in a government document or official >government record is automatically public knowledge and part of the public >domain. On Saturday, November 18, 2000, Mike and Karen Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. This is true for works of the United States Government. It is NOT > true for other countries and it is not true works of the United States in > other countries. > > 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 copyright code says simply: Title 17 § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Comment: In 1968, the Standard Reference Data Act provided an exception to Section 105, Pub. L. No. 90-396, 82 Stat. 339. Section 6 of that act amended title 15 of the United States Code by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce, at 15 U.S.C. 290e, to secure copyright and renewal thereof on behalf of the United States as author or proprietor "in all or any part of any standard reference data which he prepares or makes available under this chapter," and to "authorize the reproduction and publication thereof by others." See also section 105(f) of the Transitional and Supplementary Provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976, in Part I of the Appendix. Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541. [(f) Subsection (a) of section 290(e) of title 15 is amended by deleting the phrase "section 8" and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase "section 105".] If U.S. government works, other than the one exception described, are declared by law to be uncopyrightable, then it would seem to me that they would not hold copyright in other countries, either. In other words, once declared public domain in the originating country, public domain in every country, or the Berne Convention wouldn't have a standard basis for providing protection. If the U.S. government wanted free use in the U.S. but not overseas, they would have to declare copyright but then allow free use by its citizens. Anyone know any more? S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

> Australian copyright guidelines may be different than the US. Scott, you're > one of the experts here, what do you say? I'm not an "expert", just well-read. I don't know anything about Australian copyrights, though. I assume that they are part of the Berne Convention, but they could still have different specifics, e.g. length of term of copyright. Signatories to the Convention agree to enforce copyrights from other signatories, and have common standards for defining copyrighted material. But the length of copyright and other aspects could vary in each country, and apparently there are occasional disputes about whose copyright law holds where. An example I just read about is the "moral copyright", which the U.S. doesn't recognize <http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm>: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. -- The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Article 6bis(1) The example <http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor777777> describes a film by John Huston that was colorized by Turner. Huston's heirs sued in France, which does recognize "moral copyright", and prevented the colorized film's presentation in that country. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Hi Bennie, Tom and Mike Great to hear from you. From Bennie: >I'm a little confused about what you would have in your family history book that >might fit under the copyright (US) rules? If it's just names, dates, places, >compiled by you and from info obtained from family members, I don't see a problem, >IF you have their OK to publish the info in the book. "That" book (as I call it) is about two Phelan sisters from Clonmel, Ireland who migrated to Australia in 1841 and their descendants. Collectively they raised 15 children, most of whom produced rather large families. My database contains almost 9,000 names. Yes, I do have permission from family members to publish their notes and, of course, those precious photographs. So many others have contributed to the history and I have acknowledged each of them. As I did not want to end up with a family history simply about 'hatches, matches and dispatches', I began to add various interesting historical 'snippets' found in so many sources. As time went by these notes expanded and the reader is to be given an insight into historical factors which influenced the lives of their ancestors. Newspaper articles; government records; government gazettes; sentences and paragraphs plucked from various books I have read pertaining to Australian history - etc. From Bennie: >If you are quoting parts of another book somewhere, I think that is OK, too, as long >as you give the source. Of course, another question would come up if you plan to >publish the book for profit. Not publishing 'that' book for profit - my desire is to share my research with those who, like me, descend from these Phelan sisters and to leave behind me the story of our family for those who will come after us. I too, thought it was OK to use the odd paras from other's work, as long as I quote the author and source. That is until I read (and tried to understand) the copyright issues. It seems that I MUST get the permission of the author as well. From Aus. Copyright Council - "Copyright is infringed by a person who reproduces your work without your permission, unless one of the special exceptions in the Copyright Act applies.......Using part of a work may infringe copyright if that part is important to the work - it need not be a proportionally large part. This is a question of fact and degree in each case. The special exceptions allow use of copyright material for purposes such as private study, and for criticism or review." If I use a poem authored by 'Anonymous' - I am not exempt from infringing copyright just because I could not find the author. From Mike: "2. Copyrighted material that appears in United States federal documents is still copyrighted. For instance, if a copyright court case cites material from the work that is alleged to have been infringed, that part of the work that is cited does NOT go into the public domain." Naturally I had not considered I would be discussing my copyright woes with US citizens and I am unable to determine if there are any differences, and, if so, which ones differ. Perhaps one instance (I may be wrong) is where an author has been deceased for over 50 years, it is ok to copy - that's in Aus. In the U.S. I believe the author has to have been deceased for 75 years. Right or wrong? The various 'Information sheets' pulled from Aus. Copyright Council website seem to be telling me that even Government records and newspaper articles are copyrighted. Hence my sudden onset of panic. As I mentioned in my first posting to this newsgroup I am waiting on the arrival of a book I ordered from this council which concentrates on Copyright and Family History. Guess my answers will be there - sure hope so. From Tom: (commenting on Bennie's opinion that it is not a copyright infringement if one quotes the author) "Maybe someday this misconception will go away. Except for the Fair Use exception, copyright-protected material can not be used without permission no matter whether the use is profit or non-profit." THIS is my greatest concern. I have so many little bits 'n pieces written by others and the task of finding all these authors to ask permission is frightening. Stuff like the voyage from Ireland to Australia; this ship; passenger conditions; passenger provisions; criteria to be met as assisted passengers. etc. etc. Some of this I found in Govt. records and old newspapers, some I er, um, - - - borrowed from various authors. What constitutes 'Fair Use' ? From Tom: "First off, be mindful of copyright expiration. Under US law, anything published before 1923 is now public domain." That's 77 years. My understanding is 50 years 'Down Under'. Tom I really appreciate your comments. As I read these trying to absorb, I find myself having to read again as each issue seems awefully complicated. My purpose in joining this newsgroup is to see what others who have published their family history have experienced with regards this copyright question. Am I worrying unnecessarily? Thank you, I appreciate your comments. Regards Kay -----Original Message----- From: Bennie White <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000 3:31 Subject: Re: Copyright & Family History >Kay, don't believe we're gonna get a rise out of Scott, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. >I'm a little confused about what you would have in your family history book that >might fit under the copyright (US) rules? If it's just names, dates, places, >compiled by you and from info obtained from family members, I don't see a problem, >IF you have their OK to publish the info in the book. > >If you are quoting parts of another book somewhere, I think that is OK, too, as long >as you give the source. Of course, another question would come up if you plan to >publish the book for profit. > >I, too, plan to publish a family history in the near future, but copyright issues had >not crossed my mind. > >Australian copyright guidelines may be different than the US. Scott, you're one of >the experts here, what do you say? > >Bennie > > >Kay Clark wrote: >> >> Hi group >> >> A big thank you to Scott, Korene, Bennie and Cliff for letting me know this >> newsgroup is still 'alive'. >> >> I found Copyright newsgroup at Rootsweb, hoping those who have subscribed >> would have done so because they are confused with copyright issues >> pertaining >> to family history research. >> >> As with other subscribers (I guess) I am currently writing a book about my >> family and it's history. >> >> Having spent six solid years having fun collecting information and >> connecting to others throughout the world my research just grew 'n grew >> (just like Topsy!). That book which my rellies have kidded me about writing >> began to materialise before my eyes. My experiences have been interesting, >> to say the least, and fun, at most times; frustrating at others. >> >> It seemed to me that my 'fun' and fascination quickly ended when I began to >> look at copyright issues. Went to the Australian Copyright Council website >> and downloaded the Aus. Copyright Act. Boy oh Boy! Hundreds of pages of >> complicated legal terminology - I wondered if I had incorrectly chose the >> wrong language as a fair deal of this is not in the English language my >> limited knowledge understands. >> >> Since then I have found various booklets published by this same Copyright >> Council and some of these relate to family history. Have ordered a book >> from them and look forward to being able to see just what this copyright >> caper is all about! >> >> My need soon became evident that I should communicate with others who are >> "in the same boat". >> >> My question at this stage: >> Are you all interested in copyright issues in relation to family history? >> >> Have thousands of other questions to ask, but will wait to see if this >> booklet answers any of these. >> >> I could be wrong, but think the copyright laws in Australia differ from >> those in the U.S. >> >> Writing 'that' book, for me was fun - perhaps publishing the thing is not? >> >> Look forward to hearing from others. >> >> Regards Kay from Sydney, Australia >> >> ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >> Threaded archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ >> >> ============================== >> The only real-time collaboration tool that allows you and other family >> members to create a FREE, password-protected family tree. >> http://www.ancestry.com/oft/login.asp > >______________________________

Jessie, I appreciate your concern. But the information in question is public record and could be found by anyone willing to dig for it. The information to which you refer, while possibly embarrassing, just might be the clue that someone needs to break through that "brick wall." I was having trouble connecting a great great grandmother to her parents until I met a cousin from the same family. This cousin's ancestress, a sister to my great great grandmother, murdered her husband. Without the records of this murder neither she nor I would have been able to connect to my great great great grandparents. Margaret McCleskey, Arlington, TX Jessie Blalock wrote: > > This is what I've assumed, but lately I've been trying to get a > straight answer on this, and haven't been able to. (I suppose I > could get one if I were to spend big buck$ to hire a copyright > lawyer.) > > I'm in the process of writing a book which is based on records in > the National Archives, specifically Civil War pension records. > Those are comprised primarily of court affidavits and depositions, > and also on the bureaucratic documents of the Pension > Department, which was part of the Department of the Interior. > > One of my concerns is that the descendants of the soldiers might > object to the facts that were documented in their pension > applications. (Some of the personal data contained therein could > potentially be construed as "embarrassing".) > > Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated. > > Jessie Blalock > > > At 12:45 AM 11/18/00 -0500, Thatcher family wrote: > > >One further point, anything found in a government document or official > > >government record is automatically public knowledge and part of the public > > >domain. > > http://users.rootsweb.com/~tn4cav/index.html > > ==== 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

This is what I've assumed, but lately I've been trying to get a straight answer on this, and haven't been able to. (I suppose I could get one if I were to spend big buck$ to hire a copyright lawyer.) I'm in the process of writing a book which is based on records in the National Archives, specifically Civil War pension records. Those are comprised primarily of court affidavits and depositions, and also on the bureaucratic documents of the Pension Department, which was part of the Department of the Interior. One of my concerns is that the descendants of the soldiers might object to the facts that were documented in their pension applications. (Some of the personal data contained therein could potentially be construed as "embarrassing".) Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Jessie Blalock > At 12:45 AM 11/18/00 -0500, Thatcher family wrote: > >One further point, anything found in a government document or official > >government record is automatically public knowledge and part of the public > >domain. http://users.rootsweb.com/~tn4cav/index.html

> 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>

At 12:45 AM 11/18/00 -0500, Thatcher family wrote: >One further point, anything found in a government document or official >government record is automatically public knowledge and part of the public >domain. A couple of comments. 1. This is true for works of the United States Government. It is NOT true for other countries and it is not true works of the United States in other countries. 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 2. Copyrighted material that appears in United States federal documents is still copyrighted. For instance, if a copyright court case cites material from the work that is alleged to have been infringed, that part of the work that is cited does NOT go into the public domain. Mike Goad http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm

> If you are quoting parts of another book somewhere, I think that is OK, too, > as long as you give the source. Of course, another question would come up > if you plan to publish the book for profit. Maybe someday this misconception will go away. Except for the Fair Use exception, copyright-protected material can not be used without permission no matter whether the use is profit or non-profit. > Australian copyright guidelines may be different than the US. Scott, > you're one of > the experts here, what do you say? > In general, the Berne Convention (an international treaty) makes copyright laws of most countries pretty similar to one another. >> >> It seemed to me that my 'fun' and fascination quickly ended when I began to >> look at copyright issues. Went to the Australian Copyright Council website >> and downloaded the Aus. Copyright Act. Boy oh Boy! Hundreds of pages of >> complicated legal terminology - I wondered if I had incorrectly chose the >> wrong language as a fair deal of this is not in the English language my >> limited knowledge understands. >> >> Since then I have found various booklets published by this same Copyright >> Council and some of these relate to family history. Have ordered a book >> from them and look forward to being able to see just what this copyright >> caper is all about! >> What exactly is the cause of your concern? First off, be mindful of copyright expiration. Under US law, anything published before 1923 is now public domain. Copyright protects creative expression. Therefore, in general, copyright does not protect facts. Copyright can protect the arrangement of facts in a narrative or other format, but not the underlying facts themselves. Thus, you will find many biographies written about famous people, all of which include the same facts about their lives. The biographies are protected by copyright, but the underlying facts are not. (Of course, it is both good scholarship and proper etiquette to cite the sources for the facts you use.) One further point, anything found in a government document or official government record is automatically public knowledge and part of the public domain. Any photographs you plan to publish will be protected by a copyright held by the photographer or his/her heir (who, for these purposes, you can assume is the current owner of the photograph). You will need the permission of the copyright holder. Since this is a family history, I assume you already have permission to use photos that were shared with you, or such permission would be easy to get. For a privately published family history with a small print run, it is probably safe to assume that by sharing photos with you, the owner is giving implied consent to publish. And of course, old photos are public domain. Any stories written by other family members will also be protected by a copyright owned by the author. Again, since this is family, permission to include the story may be implied, or is easy to get. And if not, you can always re-write it. Basically, I can't really think of too many copyright issues with family histories. My own project includes a number of old photos and my great-great-grandfather's manuscript, all of which predate 1900. I am including a 1966 manuscript by my great-grandmother, which she wrote with the explicit purpose of recording and sharing family stories. The only thing I plan to include that could conceivably violate someone's copyright is a cemetery photo taken in 1927 and sent to my gg-grandfather by a distant cousin. Maybe you can tell us some of your specific concerns. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

Kay, don't believe we're gonna get a rise out of Scott, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. I'm a little confused about what you would have in your family history book that might fit under the copyright (US) rules? If it's just names, dates, places, compiled by you and from info obtained from family members, I don't see a problem, IF you have their OK to publish the info in the book. If you are quoting parts of another book somewhere, I think that is OK, too, as long as you give the source. Of course, another question would come up if you plan to publish the book for profit. I, too, plan to publish a family history in the near future, but copyright issues had not crossed my mind. Australian copyright guidelines may be different than the US. Scott, you're one of the experts here, what do you say? Bennie Kay Clark wrote: > > Hi group > > A big thank you to Scott, Korene, Bennie and Cliff for letting me know this > newsgroup is still 'alive'. > > I found Copyright newsgroup at Rootsweb, hoping those who have subscribed > would have done so because they are confused with copyright issues > pertaining > to family history research. > > As with other subscribers (I guess) I am currently writing a book about my > family and it's history. > > Having spent six solid years having fun collecting information and > connecting to others throughout the world my research just grew 'n grew > (just like Topsy!). That book which my rellies have kidded me about writing > began to materialise before my eyes. My experiences have been interesting, > to say the least, and fun, at most times; frustrating at others. > > It seemed to me that my 'fun' and fascination quickly ended when I began to > look at copyright issues. Went to the Australian Copyright Council website > and downloaded the Aus. Copyright Act. Boy oh Boy! Hundreds of pages of > complicated legal terminology - I wondered if I had incorrectly chose the > wrong language as a fair deal of this is not in the English language my > limited knowledge understands. > > Since then I have found various booklets published by this same Copyright > Council and some of these relate to family history. Have ordered a book > from them and look forward to being able to see just what this copyright > caper is all about! > > My need soon became evident that I should communicate with others who are > "in the same boat". > > My question at this stage: > Are you all interested in copyright issues in relation to family history? > > Have thousands of other questions to ask, but will wait to see if this > booklet answers any of these. > > I could be wrong, but think the copyright laws in Australia differ from > those in the U.S. > > Writing 'that' book, for me was fun - perhaps publishing the thing is not? > > Look forward to hearing from others. > > Regards Kay from Sydney, Australia > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > The only real-time collaboration tool that allows you and other family > members to create a FREE, password-protected family tree. > http://www.ancestry.com/oft/login.asp

Hi group A big thank you to Scott, Korene, Bennie and Cliff for letting me know this newsgroup is still 'alive'. I found Copyright newsgroup at Rootsweb, hoping those who have subscribed would have done so because they are confused with copyright issues pertaining to family history research. As with other subscribers (I guess) I am currently writing a book about my family and it's history. Having spent six solid years having fun collecting information and connecting to others throughout the world my research just grew 'n grew (just like Topsy!). That book which my rellies have kidded me about writing began to materialise before my eyes. My experiences have been interesting, to say the least, and fun, at most times; frustrating at others. It seemed to me that my 'fun' and fascination quickly ended when I began to look at copyright issues. Went to the Australian Copyright Council website and downloaded the Aus. Copyright Act. Boy oh Boy! Hundreds of pages of complicated legal terminology - I wondered if I had incorrectly chose the wrong language as a fair deal of this is not in the English language my limited knowledge understands. Since then I have found various booklets published by this same Copyright Council and some of these relate to family history. Have ordered a book from them and look forward to being able to see just what this copyright caper is all about! My need soon became evident that I should communicate with others who are "in the same boat". My question at this stage: Are you all interested in copyright issues in relation to family history? Have thousands of other questions to ask, but will wait to see if this booklet answers any of these. I could be wrong, but think the copyright laws in Australia differ from those in the U.S. Writing 'that' book, for me was fun - perhaps publishing the thing is not? Look forward to hearing from others. Regards Kay from Sydney, Australia

Hi! I have just subscribed to this newsgroup and need to know if I am alone here. Happy Hunting Kay Clark - from the shores of Botany Bay, NSW, Australia - forever rellie searching: BALL; FORSYTH; GILMOUR; HARBUTT; MANNING; PHELAN; RYALS; TWIST E-mail: [email protected]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2000, Kay Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > I have just subscribed to this newsgroup and need to know if I am alone > here. I'm here. A copyright tidbit for you I just read at <http://www.flatline.org.uk/~silas/source/pcm.htm> (where the author incorrectly applies today's law to earlier works): The tune for "Happy Birthday" was written by Mildred J. Hill who died in 1916. At the time authors received copyright for 28 years + 28 years if renewed, therefore it is certainly out of copyright by now. However, the words for "Happy Birthday" were written by Patty Smith Hill in 1935 and if renewed (?) are still under copyright, until 2030 (an extra 19 years was added in 1976, and another 20 years was added in 1998). So be careful about those public performances! :-) S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

[email protected] thought you would be interested in this article at Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/). - - - - - - - - - - - - Court to decide online copyright case By Laurie Asseo http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2000/11/06/copyright/index.html &nbsp; - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Thursday, November 2, 2000, Mike Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > The 1976 Act further identifies those specific elements of a work not > eligible for copyright protection: "In no case does copyright protection > for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, > process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, > regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or > embodied in such work."1 Just to add, these "ideas", etc., if original, not obvious, and not already in public use, could be used to obtain a patent. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

At 10:18 PM 11/2/00 -0800, Tom Thatcher wrote: >> BUT, the compiler could get a valid >> copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an >> introduction. > >The copyright would only apply to the introduction. I wonder if it also applies to a mistake intoduced by the compiler. It certainly helps the compiler to recognize his work when it's propagated without giving him credit. I've heard that mapmakers have been known to introduce fictitious features, deliberately, for that very purpose, but I don't know if that's fact or fiction. Glenn

The only time that there is protection is if the work meets the requirements for originality for a 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. "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." (17 USC Sec. 103) Mike At 11:30 PM 11/2/00 -0500, Cliff Lamere wrote: >Is there any legal protection for these compilers? I had read once or >twice that people could copy part of a book and republish it as long as >the author/compiler's sales were not impacted negatively. Does that apply >here? It may have been an issue of fair use. BUT, fair use would only >apply to copyrighted compilations. BUT, the compiler could get a valid >copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an >introduction. The copyright wouldn't protect the facts (baptism records) >from being copied, but maybe a copyright for the book would prevent others >from doing anything to reduce their sales. Any comments?

Let us say that someone compiles all of the baptism records of a certain church from the first record through1900. They publish it and are hoping to receive profits from the sales. Feist vs Rural was a US Supreme Court case in 1991which made it clear that the facts of a compilation cannot be copyrighted. I interpret that overall decision to mean that I can publish the same baptism records if I want to compete for sales with the other compiler (but see last paragraph below). I also believe that I could probably scan all of the other compiler's pages into my computer, use an OCR program to convert them to text, then publish them in the same chronological order and format that the compiler used, which was nothing but the same arrangement as was in the church register or in the same arrangement that is used by many other compilers (nothing original). I could probably publish these either in book form or on the internet, thus greatly reducing the sales and perhaps insuring that the compiler will perhaps not even recover the publication costs. This is not fair to the compiler who spent so much time ("sweat of the brow") and invested money in the project. If it happened very often, people would be discouraged from tackling such a project for profit. And it is these people that often have the highest standards for accuracy. We will get fewer transcribed compilations, and often of a lower standard. Is there any legal protection for these compilers? I had read once or twice that people could copy part of a book and republish it as long as the author/compiler's sales were not impacted negatively. Does that apply here? It may have been an issue of fair use. BUT, fair use would only apply to copyrighted compilations. BUT, the compiler could get a valid copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an introduction. The copyright wouldn't protect the facts (baptism records) from being copied, but maybe a copyright for the book would prevent others from doing anything to reduce their sales. Any comments? Cliff

> This is not fair to the compiler who spent so much time ("sweat of the > brow") and invested money in the project. In a word, too bad. > Is there any legal protection for these compilers? Some genealogy web sites have a licensing agreement; basically, a contract between the site and the user in which the site agrees to provide certain information and the user agrees not to reproduce the information. If the user violates the agreement, his subscription can be canceled. > I had read once or > twice that people could copy part of a book and republish it as long as the > author/compiler's sales were not impacted negatively. This is a common misconception. Copyright is the right to control how, when, and in what manner your creative product is copied, performed, or displayed (subject to the Fair Use exceptions, which do not, as I recall, take economic value into account). The economic loss to the author may determine the amount of court-awarded damages, but does not affect the author's rights. > BUT, the compiler could get a valid > copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an > introduction. The copyright would only apply to the introduction. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

Hi all, Originality is a requirement for a work to be copyrighted. It doesn't matter how much work one has put into a compilation. If originality isn't there, it's not protected. The Labor of Authors http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Labor_/labor_.htm The Labor of Authors A common perception of the law of copyright is that it serves to protect the labors of the author, especially in the area of factual compilations. Some court decisions, in fact, misapplied the copyright act of 1909, developing a new judicial theory to justify protection of factual compilations. This theory, known as "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection," in effect said that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine was seriously flawed in many ways. The most obvious was the extension of copyright beyond selection and arrangement, which is the compiler's original contribution, to the facts, themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement is totally independent creation where the facts in any copyrighted work could not be used by others unless independently discovered or collected. " 'Sweat of the brow' courts 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 enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress dropped the reference to 'all the writings of an author' and replaced it with the phrase 'original works of authorship.'"1 This made the originality requirement explicit, which Congress announced as "merely clarifying existing law."1 The 1976 Act further identifies those specific elements of a work not eligible for copyright protection: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."1 This is "universally" understood to also prohibit any copyright in facts. This identification of specific elements not eligible for copyright protection was declared by Congress to be a clarification of prior law. "Just as the copyright law does not protect 'industrious collection,' it affords no shelter to the resourceful, efficient, or creative collector.... The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts."2 footnotes 1. Feist vs Rural 2. BellSouth vs. Donnelly Mike Goad