Hi all, Compiling information and formatting the compilation doesn't automatically qualify a work for copyright protection. I have the following on a web-page concerning this issue: What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright? http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Compile/compile.htm 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." The Congressional goal was to " 'make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.'" 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" 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 requirement, 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 nonexistent." Originality may occur in the selection of the material to be included in a compilation. If it is truly 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." A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the "author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed." "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."1 Note: The copyright law "states that the term 'compilation' includes collective works." (From my copyright website) Mikle Goad At 09:34 AM 11/1/00 -0600, Bennie White wrote: >Nothing at all, Pat. If someone shows a copyright on compiled public >records such as you described, the copyright would apply only to the >format and the way in which the data was presented, not the actual >data is not copyrighted. I personally have spent many hours at my >county Court House compiling marriage records, deeds, pension >applications, and I claim copyright on my format; however, anyone else >is free to go to the CH and do the same--they may come up with a >better format. > >As far as using the data in copyrighted public record compilations, >no problem! It would be, however, a copyright violation if someone >downloaded the entire file or zeroxed a copy and posted it in a public >place, such as a web page. Now we have a format violation. > >I'm no expert on copyright, and if anything I have stated above is >in error, feel free to sound off at me. > >Bennie

On Wednesday, November 1, 2000, Cliff Lamere <[email protected]> wrote: > There is more than one method to copy records from a website. You can do a > Copy and Paste, or you can capture an image of the entire page. > > I don't know if a copyright violation occurs by simply capturing an image of > the page and transferring it to your computer. My guess is that there would > be, even if you then altered it to uncopyrighted form and applied your own > copyright. Someone else may want to comment on this point. Every time you look at a web page, you are making a copy of it to your computer screen, but also to your local hard disk (first, actually). But this is not only allowed but expected, an "implied consent" of the author by placing it on the web. It is similar to the broadcast of radio, television, etc. Copyright law then allows you to do other things with it for your own personal use such as research. This might include, for example, changing media (html -> electronic text file -- your "Copy and Paste" -- or printing on paper). So, I see no copyright violations here. > It is my impression that the html codes, graphics, tables, links, etc. are > lost during a regular Copy and Paste from a website. That removes a lot of > the "creative" aspects of the webpage. If you are copying public records, > the information in them cannot be copyrighted. A person's introduction or > comments can be, because they are the creative work of the person who posted > the records. If you Copy and Paste only the records and the source (book > title, etc.) of the records, you should not be in any violation. I would submit that taking a public record in (paper) table format and expressing it in (HTML) table format does not constitute a creative work. It is a pretty straightforward process, made even more cut-and-dried by certain tools (e.g. transcribe into Excel, copy and paste Excel into PageMill). But you are quite right that everything else added to the web page could be a creative work. > However, Arthur C.M. Kelly adds his own "Item" number for each record in the > 60+ books of NY vital records that he has published. His index sends you to > that number. This might show some creative effort. If his records were > online, you might not be able to use his column of item numbers. But, > since there is nothing creative about chronologically numbering records, it > would seem to me that you could use the same numbers without copyright > violation. I could be wrong. You certainly wouldn't want to call it an > "item" number, a word he chose because it contained only four letters, which > is the widest his columns go (He stopped at 9999 records in one narrow book > for that reason). His index would most certainly be copyrighted, without that the numbers are useless. If you generated your own index, I agree that you could use the same numbers if you chose to do so. But I don't think the terminology matters (unless he trademarked "item" in this context :-). S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Someone sent me this page. Since I'm not too sure about everything I've been reading, I thought I'd pass it onto this list. You are probably already aware of it but I figured it was important enough for me to send. Title 37--Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights CHAPTER II--COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS http://ww1.access.gpo.gov/GPOAccess/sitesearch/nara_cfr_waisidx_99/37cfr201_99.html Jacquie (California)

There is more than one method to copy records from a website. You can do a Copy and Paste, or you can capture an image of the entire page. I don't know if a copyright violation occurs by simply capturing an image of the page and transferring it to your computer. My guess is that there would be, even if you then altered it to uncopyrighted form and applied your own copyright. Someone else may want to comment on this point. It is my impression that the html codes, graphics, tables, links, etc. are lost during a regular Copy and Paste from a website. That removes a lot of the "creative" aspects of the webpage. If you are copying public records, the information in them cannot be copyrighted. A person's introduction or comments can be, because they are the creative work of the person who posted the records. If you Copy and Paste only the records and the source (book title, etc.) of the records, you should not be in any violation. However, Arthur C.M. Kelly adds his own "Item" number for each record in the 60+ books of NY vital records that he has published. His index sends you to that number. This might show some creative effort. If his records were online, you might not be able to use his column of item numbers. But, since there is nothing creative about chronologically numbering records, it would seem to me that you could use the same numbers without copyright violation. I could be wrong. You certainly wouldn't want to call it an "item" number, a word he chose because it contained only four letters, which is the widest his columns go (He stopped at 9999 records in one narrow book for that reason). Cliff Bennie White wrote: > Nothing at all, Pat. If someone shows a copyright on compiled public > records such as you described, the copyright would apply only to the > format and the way in which the data was presented, not the actual > data is not copyrighted. I personally have spent many hours at my > county Court House compiling marriage records, deeds, pension > applications, and I claim copyright on my format; however, anyone else > is free to go to the CH and do the same--they may come up with a > better format. > > As far as using the data in copyrighted public record compilations, > no problem! It would be, however, a copyright violation if someone > downloaded the entire file or zeroxed a copy and posted it in a public > place, such as a web page. Now we have a format violation. > > I'm no expert on copyright, and if anything I have stated above is > in error, feel free to sound off at me. > > Bennie > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Hi List > > > > I have noted that a number of people who have typed up Records from the > > Vital Records Dept. in various area's (Such as Marriage, Births, Deaths, > > etc..) note that they have a copyright on them. > > > > Please explain to me how Public Records can be copyrighted by a person and > > what would prevent anyone else from using them or going to the Courthouse > > copying and than typing up the same? > > > > Thank you > > Pat > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Threaded archives at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > > > ============================== > > Search over 600 million names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/search > > ==== 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/search

On Wednesday, November 1, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as using the data in copyrighted public record compilations, > no problem! It would be, however, a copyright violation if someone > downloaded the entire file or zeroxed a copy and posted it in a public > place, such as a web page. Now we have a format violation. But if they downloaded someone else's formatted text file and displayed some or all of the data in a different format...no copyright violation. The particular medium used (paper, electronic text, photograph, GIF, etc.) is not a format. For that reason, companies who provide such transcriptions often use licensing to control access (e.g. Lexus/Nexus), or use techniques to prevent access to wholesale chunks of the data (e.g. Ancestry.com). It would, however, be unethical IMHO to not acknowledge the source of the data if you didn't get it from original records (not to mention a good idea in case your actual source got something wrong). S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]

Hi List I have noted that a number of people who have typed up Records from the Vital Records Dept. in various area's (Such as Marriage, Births, Deaths, etc..) note that they have a copyright on them. Please explain to me how Public Records can be copyrighted by a person and what would prevent anyone else from using them or going to the Courthouse copying and than typing up the same? Thank you Pat

Nothing at all, Pat. If someone shows a copyright on compiled public records such as you described, the copyright would apply only to the format and the way in which the data was presented, not the actual data is not copyrighted. I personally have spent many hours at my county Court House compiling marriage records, deeds, pension applications, and I claim copyright on my format; however, anyone else is free to go to the CH and do the same--they may come up with a better format. As far as using the data in copyrighted public record compilations, no problem! It would be, however, a copyright violation if someone downloaded the entire file or zeroxed a copy and posted it in a public place, such as a web page. Now we have a format violation. I'm no expert on copyright, and if anything I have stated above is in error, feel free to sound off at me. Bennie [email protected] wrote: > > Hi List > > I have noted that a number of people who have typed up Records from the > Vital Records Dept. in various area's (Such as Marriage, Births, Deaths, > etc..) note that they have a copyright on them. > > Please explain to me how Public Records can be copyrighted by a person and > what would prevent anyone else from using them or going to the Courthouse > copying and than typing up the same? > > Thank you > Pat > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > Search over 600 million names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/search

Dear List, I wanted to post this yesterday but computer and email trouble wouldn't let me. A few days ago I asked about this book and it's lack of a copyright stamp. I've been working on a "test" web page for the book's INDEX and other lists I've found in it. I had a mailing list of people interested in the topic of the Prohibition Era and notified them about my "test" page. Below, I've copied and pasted messages I've rec'd and sent since writing my list of folks. I'd like this list to double check "my rights" pertaining to gov't printed material and give me a final feedback. As I was trying to answer the "librarian", I was writing as I understood other people.....use of words like: uncopyrightable, public domain, lack of copyright stamp, etc. Thanks so much for your time and expertise in this confusing issue. Most sincerely, Jacquie (California) #################### First message I rec'd: "Hi Jacquie! Your website is coming along. Being the librarian that I am, I'm impressed that you've thought about and honored copyright laws and sought permission to scan and post the index." ============= My response: Hi,,,,,,,,, As far as the government's book, "Rum War At Sea", here's what I found in the Library of Congress: LC Control Number: 64061298 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Brief Description: Willoughby, Malcolm Francis. Rum war at sea by Malcolm F. Willoughby. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964] xii, 183 p. illus., col. maps (on lining papers) ports. 24 cm. CALL NUMBER: HJ6645 .W55 Copy 1 -- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms -- Status: Not Charged There's no numbers in the book itself that I can find anywhere. It just says the Treasury Department, US Coast Guard, Government Printing Office, 1964. I also joined the "copyright" mailing list through rootsweb and was told that this book was considered a government document that was uncopyrightable and since there's no copyright stamp, the book is in the "public domain". Jacquie ============= Second response I rec'd from the same person in #1: Hey... The info you got from both LC and the copyright list is correct. In the copy of the record you found in LC's catalog, the line in the brackets, beginning with [Washington... is the publishing information. The fact that te record states Government Printing Office (GPO) as the publisher tells you/me/us that the item is indeed a government document. The federal government centralized document publishing, reproduction and distribution many years ago and put the GPO in charge of all of it. By law, these items do not qualify for copyright status and are in the public domain. What this means, is that you can do almost anything with that item and not be held for violation of copyright law. Of course, we ALLLLLLLL know that it's just good and honest research to cite all sources, but....as a librarian I've seen some shady things in the past. The copyright list might be able to give you more info re: government docs. On the book, you wrote that it says... "Treasury Department, US Coast Guard, Government Printing Office, 1964". This means that the GPO is the publisher/distributer and that the document was produced by the USCG under the Dept. of Treasury. Have fun, ******** =============

Hi, Something's not working well in my mail system (and my computer). I had to unsubscribe - never got back a notice about that. I just tried to re-subscribe and nothing back on that either. Please let me know as I have a question. Jacquie

I visited your page, but the only scanned image on it which I could view was the permission letter at the bottom. The first and second scanned page of the index started to display, and then disappeared, finally when the page was completely loaded, the only scanned page on it that was viewable to me was the letter. I have 256mb memory, so should not have run out of system memory to view the page. I am using MSIE 5.0 Tricia At 10:03 PM 10/21/00 -0700, Jacqueline Baral wrote: >Good evening all, > >Please excuse if this is a repeat message. I had a family emergency >since the 18th and I've lost track of everything I've done just before >or since the 18th. I wanted to let those interested know that the New >York publisher approved my request to reprint the index to the book "The >Black Ships: Rumrunners of Prohibition" for genealogical use. It was one >of the books I used to do lookups. Here's the URL if you are interested >in searching the book's index, >http://home.earthlink.net/~jacquiebaral/Rumrunners1.html ----- > >Have a great evening, >Jacquie (USA, California) > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >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

Good evening all, Please excuse if this is a repeat message. I had a family emergency since the 18th and I've lost track of everything I've done just before or since the 18th. I wanted to let those interested know that the New York publisher approved my request to reprint the index to the book "The Black Ships: Rumrunners of Prohibition" for genealogical use. It was one of the books I used to do lookups. Here's the URL if you are interested in searching the book's index, http://home.earthlink.net/~jacquiebaral/Rumrunners1.html ----- Have a great evening, Jacquie (USA, California)

Good morning List(s), I received written permission yesterday from the publisher, Little, Brown & Company in New York to post the INDEX of their book, "The Black Ships, Rumrunners of Prohibition" (copyright 1965 & 1979) to the Internet as a genealogical resource. I found the publisher's web site and followed the rules they had set up. I was so surprised and extremely happy at the same time. It will take me a while to transcribe the pages but hopefully I'll have it done in a week or so; then interested persons may ask me for lookups after the work is finished. Just thought I'd pass this good news onto my lists. Regards to all, Jacquie (USA, California)

At 01:20 AM 10/17/00 -0400, Tom Thatcher wrote: >I see nothing has appeared on the list yet. Did you get a private answer? The following is what I sent to Jacquie ( Ihad intended it to go to the list): Hi, The book is in the public domain for at least 2 reasons. (1) All U.S. Government documents are in the public domain. EXCEPTION: any portion of U.S. Government documents that are from copyrighted non-government sources remain copyrighted. An example might be the text from a novel quoted in a copyright infringement court case. (2) In the year your book was apparently published, a valid copyright notice was required for any protected work published in the United States. Any work that failed to have the copyright notice automatically went into the public domain upon publication. Since the book is in the public domain, anything from it may be used for web pages or other uses. Additional copyright related information can be found at my copyright webpages: http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike Goad Check out http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/ for other genealogy related resources such as copyright issues, DAR Patriot Index lookups, Cousins Cross-reference table and more. >My book in question has no copyright mark in it. This is what is written >inside: >Treasury Department >United States Coast Guard >United States >Government Printing Office >Washington : 1964 >For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing >Office >Washington D.C., 20402 - Price $2.00 > >The book was "authored" by a Commander USCGR (T) and who's name also >appears on the Preface. The Foreword is written and signed by an Admiral >of the U.S. Coast Guard. As I understand the workings of this book, it's >suppose to be the Coast Guard's version of the "rum wars" that took >place during 1920 to 1935. > >LC Control Number: 64061298 >Type of Material: Book (Print, Microfilm, Electronic, etc.) >Brief Description: Willoughby, Malcolm Francis. >Rum war at sea by Malcolm F. Willoughby. >[Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964] >xii, 183 p. illus., col. maps (on lining papers) ports. 24 cm. >CALL NUMBER: HJ6645 .W55 >Copy 1 >-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading >Rms >-- Status: Not Charged > >Is this book, "Rum War At Sea" an uncopyrightable government document? >And is it considered "public domain" regardless of it's 1964 date? The >reason I'm looking into this issue is because (as a family historian and >a helpful researcher to others like myself) - I'd like to transcribe an >APPENDIX A in the book that lists vessels' names and what happened to >them, so that family researchers who may be hunting for information to >verify their existence. Also, would I be able to transcribe the INDEX to >a homepage so other's might be able to use it as a genealogical or >historical research tool? > >Thank you very much for your time. I really do appreciate it. >Regards, >Jacquie Baral

Yes, but other opinions would be welcome too. This book is considered public domain due to being written and published by the government and there's no copyright mark. Tom Thatcher wrote: > > I see nothing has appeared on the list yet. Did you get a private answer? > > on 10/15/2000 10:44 PM, Jacqueline Baral at [email protected] > wrote: > > > My book in question has no copyright mark in it. This is what is written > > inside: > > Treasury Department > > United States Coast Guard > > United States > > Government Printing Office > > Washington : 1964 > > For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing > > Office > > Washington D.C., 20402 - Price $2.00 > > There are three points which I think are involved. First, any document > published before 1989 without proper notice of copyright is assumed to be > public domain. > > Second, I think that government works are automatically public domain since > they are public property. I know that government employees can not patent > new technologies developed as part of their jobs. I assume, although I have > not verified it, that the same is true of published works done as part of > someone's government job. > > However, the problem here is that Cmdr. Willoughby may have been acting as a > private citizen, especially since he was retired. The fact that the > government printing office printed to book does not necessarily mean it is a > government document. It would depend on the arrangement at the time--if he > was hired or contracted to write the book, then it becomes a "work for > hire," and the copyright would normally go to the person or company that > hired him, and since that would be the government, then it is likely to be > public domain. > > The third point is that the material you wish to transcribe (vessels' names > and fates) is public property--either the information was publicly > available, or it was in government records, which amounts to the same thing. > No matter how much effort went in to searching and compiling the > information, it can't be copyrighted. > > The bottom line is that Cmdr. Willoughby's unique and creative way of > telling the story of the Rum Wars is probably not copyright protected, and > the material in the appendix is definitely not copyrighted. > > -- > Tom Thatcher > [email protected] > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

I see nothing has appeared on the list yet. Did you get a private answer? on 10/15/2000 10:44 PM, Jacqueline Baral at [email protected] wrote: > My book in question has no copyright mark in it. This is what is written > inside: > Treasury Department > United States Coast Guard > United States > Government Printing Office > Washington : 1964 > For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing > Office > Washington D.C., 20402 - Price $2.00 There are three points which I think are involved. First, any document published before 1989 without proper notice of copyright is assumed to be public domain. Second, I think that government works are automatically public domain since they are public property. I know that government employees can not patent new technologies developed as part of their jobs. I assume, although I have not verified it, that the same is true of published works done as part of someone's government job. However, the problem here is that Cmdr. Willoughby may have been acting as a private citizen, especially since he was retired. The fact that the government printing office printed to book does not necessarily mean it is a government document. It would depend on the arrangement at the time--if he was hired or contracted to write the book, then it becomes a "work for hire," and the copyright would normally go to the person or company that hired him, and since that would be the government, then it is likely to be public domain. The third point is that the material you wish to transcribe (vessels' names and fates) is public property--either the information was publicly available, or it was in government records, which amounts to the same thing. No matter how much effort went in to searching and compiling the information, it can't be copyrighted. The bottom line is that Cmdr. Willoughby's unique and creative way of telling the story of the Rum Wars is probably not copyright protected, and the material in the appendix is definitely not copyrighted. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

Dear List, I was just informed about this mailing list from another list. So please excuse me if I seem confused - which I am. I'll try to ask my question(s) in a reasonable way and hopefully someone can give me answer. I've been researching copyright of older or out-of-print books. One military year book for 1919 has passed muster and is going online through USGenWeb. Now, due to tracing my family's tree I've become thoroughly involved in the Prohibition Era and have started collecting "rare/hard to find" books through online book stores. My book in question has no copyright mark in it. This is what is written inside: Treasury Department United States Coast Guard United States Government Printing Office Washington : 1964 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington D.C., 20402 - Price $2.00 The book was "authored" by a Commander USCGR (T) and who's name also appears on the Preface. The Foreword is written and signed by an Admiral of the U.S. Coast Guard. As I understand the workings of this book, it's suppose to be the Coast Guard's version of the "rum wars" that took place during 1920 to 1935. Finding the US Coast Guard's web site, I found these pages of their history: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/collect.html http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/h_rumwar.html - "Books on the Prohibition Era.....The Coast Guard has published Rum War at Sea by a retired Commander, Malcolm F. Willoughby. This deals strictly with the service during the era. It is the only serious, systematic attempt to deal with the Coast Guard’s role in enforcement and it is extremely useful and well done." Another site I was suggested to visit is: ......"How do I find out whether the book is in the public domain?"........ http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/okbooks.html "But most books enter the public domain either because they are not copyrightable (e.g. certain government documents), or because their copyrights expire." I also found this government site : http://lcweb.loc.gov/catalog/ - and found this information pertaining to my book in question: LC Control Number: 64061298 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microfilm, Electronic, etc.) Brief Description: Willoughby, Malcolm Francis. Rum war at sea by Malcolm F. Willoughby. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964] xii, 183 p. illus., col. maps (on lining papers) ports. 24 cm. CALL NUMBER: HJ6645 .W55 Copy 1 -- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms -- Status: Not Charged Is this book, "Rum War At Sea" an uncopyrightable government document? And is it considered "public domain" regardless of it's 1964 date? The reason I'm looking into this issue is because (as a family historian and a helpful researcher to others like myself) - I'd like to transcribe an APPENDIX A in the book that lists vessels' names and what happened to them, so that family researchers who may be hunting for information to verify their existence. Also, would I be able to transcribe the INDEX to a homepage so other's might be able to use it as a genealogical or historical research tool? Thank you very much for your time. I really do appreciate it. Regards, Jacquie Baral

Copyright for unpublished works confuses me, <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#hlc> I assume these writings have never been published before. In that case (if I read the documentation correctly) the copyright on works written before 1978 and never published is the life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years total for anonymous works, EXCEPT that copyright will not expire before December 31, 2002 in any case. If the work is published before 2002, the copyright is automatically extended to 2047. Why? I have no idea. Presumably, if I found an unpublished Mozart concerto in my grandmother's attic and published it before 2003, I could be sued by Mozart's heirs for royalties. Madness. Practically, I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you file it away in a library-type setting you aren't offending any copyrights because you aren't making copies. If you publish this history (in a book or on a web site) and someone objects, he/she must be able to prove that he/she is in fact the author, or the author's legal heir. I doubt there would be enough money involved for the author to think it worthwhile suing you for damages. You can also take the facts from the history and rewrite it in your own words, after which you will own the copyright to the rewritten history and can choose to donate it to the parish or make it public domain or whatever. Simple facts, and things which are (or were) public knowledge, can not be copyrighted. Only the individual creative expressions of the author can be copyrighted, and if you rewrite it, that creativity is yours. I don't see how the membership status of the donors' ancestors has any bearing one way or another. on 10/4/2000 3:19 PM, [email protected] at [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > I've just taken over a parish archive. Someone wants to share a history of a > church. > The submitter has 5 pages of information of which the source is unknown. The > person also had relatives that attended the church in the late 1800's. This > is my first > experience with accepting information from a submitter. Thanks for any advice > on this subject.

Hi, I've just taken over a parish archives page. Someone wants to share a history of a church. The submitter has 5 pages of information of which the source is unknown. The person also had relatives that attended the church in the late 1800's. This is my first experience with accepting information from a submitter. Thanks for any advice on this subject. Karen Mason File Manager LaGenWeb Morehouse Parish Archives

Hi, I've just taken over a parish archive. Someone wants to share a history of a church. The submitter has 5 pages of information of which the source is unknown. The person also had relatives that attended the church in the late 1800's. This is my first experience with accepting information from a submitter. Thanks for any advice on this subject.

--=====================_333259013==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:31 PM 9/28/00 -0400, Tom Thatcher wrote: > > Can anyone on this list tell me if this is true??? > > >> No one needs to get your permission to provide a link to your site. > >> According to web caselaw the fact that you have provided a links to your > >> data implies that you give permission for someone to link to it. We are > >> not selling your data we are only providing an index to links on the web > >> as explained in the previous paragraph. In fact the links provide more > >> traffic to your site and therefore it is considered a benefit by the > >> courts.> > >Well, that part is perfectly true. The whole point to the web is to allow >things to be linked together. While it is true that the original purpose of the web was to allow things to be linked together, much of the web now exists to make money for someone. That means there are lawyers involved, and that means nothing is certain. Whether you can link to a site without that site's permission is a hotly debated issue. You can get a flavor for some of the arguments at <http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo> and at Brad Templeton's "Top 10 myths on copyright explained" site that has a separate page on "Linking Rights" <http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html>. There have been several cases brought charging people with illegally linking to web sites, most often when the content of the linked web site is inserted in a frame on the second web site. See, for example, Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. and Shetland Times Ltd. v. Dr. Jonathan Willis and Zetnews Ltd. and Washington Post v. TotalNews. As far as I know, these have all been settled out of court, and so there is no statement one way or the other as to the legality of the practice. There may be a chance that what these people are doing is illegal. The big question is whether you feel like finding a lawyer and suing them. That is the only way you will find out for sure. On a different matter, the original posting quoted the letter from the company stating that "Our indexing of the web falls under the fair use doctrine of copyright law." My guess as a non-lawyer is that this may not be true. To index your web page, they have to make a copy of it with their robot. Since you own the copyright on the page, you can control how and when people make a use of the material. If I were a judge evaluating the fair use factors, I would find in your favor on purpose, amount, and economic impact. I might only find for them on the nature of the material. The wild card in all of this is whether they are actually using your creative expression. If all they are taking are the facts you may have uncovered (birth, marriage, death, etc.) they may be ok. In short, if you registered your web pages and put a notice on them that people can copy them only for non-comm