I think it is FamilyDiscovery that charges and sells. On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:31:18 -0500 Margaret McCleskey <[email protected]> writes: > Are we sure that we are talking about the right web site (Kindred > Konnections)? There is another, one whose name I can't find right > now, > that I have read about recently that is selling access to links to > other > web sites. The name, as I recall, is similar to ancestry.com (but > is > not them). > > Margaret > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > > > > > I will be most glad if somebody just send us simple instructions > for > > > setting up robots.txt file. > > > > Here is the META tag; copy this into your html file in between the > <HEAD> > > and </HEAD> tags (you only need to do this for the main page, > usually named > > index.html) > > > > <META name="robots" content="noindex"> > > > > The robots.txt protocol is explained at this site > > > > <http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/exclusion.html> > > > > However, it explains that the robots.txt file only works when it > is > > installed in the root directory of the server. If your personal > homepage is > > hosted by another site (like rootsweb, or your ISP) putting a > robots.txt > > file in your own directory will not work (according to the site). > > > > The other problem is that the robots.txt and META robot tags are > voluntary. > > If KK is really indexing other sites and then charging people to > see them > > through their frame, they probably don't respect anti-robot > protocols > > anyway. > > > > I'm going to try that no frames javascript, though. Thanks! > > > > -- > > Tom Thatcher > > [email protected] > > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> > > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Support RootsWeb - > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > > > ============================== > > Visit ROOTS-L, the Internet's oldest and largest genealogical > > mailing list: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/roots-l/ > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Search over 64,000,000 records in the Social Security Death Index: > http://ssdi.rootsweb.com >
Are we sure that we are talking about the right web site (Kindred Konnections)? There is another, one whose name I can't find right now, that I have read about recently that is selling access to links to other web sites. The name, as I recall, is similar to ancestry.com (but is not them). Margaret Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > > I will be most glad if somebody just send us simple instructions for > > setting up robots.txt file. > > Here is the META tag; copy this into your html file in between the <HEAD> > and </HEAD> tags (you only need to do this for the main page, usually named > index.html) > > <META name="robots" content="noindex"> > > The robots.txt protocol is explained at this site > > <http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/exclusion.html> > > However, it explains that the robots.txt file only works when it is > installed in the root directory of the server. If your personal homepage is > hosted by another site (like rootsweb, or your ISP) putting a robots.txt > file in your own directory will not work (according to the site). > > The other problem is that the robots.txt and META robot tags are voluntary. > If KK is really indexing other sites and then charging people to see them > through their frame, they probably don't respect anti-robot protocols > anyway. > > I'm going to try that no frames javascript, though. Thanks! > > -- > Tom Thatcher > [email protected] > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Visit ROOTS-L, the Internet's oldest and largest genealogical > mailing list: > http://www.rootsweb.com/roots-l/
yes we are talking about the right site. The other one you're talking about is familydiscovery.com and they don't index pedigrees, just link and frame other sites, passing them off as their own. W. David Samuelsen Margaret McCleskey wrote: > > Are we sure that we are talking about the right web site (Kindred > Konnections)? There is another, one whose name I can't find right now, > that I have read about recently that is selling access to links to other > web sites. The name, as I recall, is similar to ancestry.com (but is > not them). > > Margaret > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > > > > > I will be most glad if somebody just send us simple instructions for > > > setting up robots.txt file. > > > > Here is the META tag; copy this into your html file in between the <HEAD> > > and </HEAD> tags (you only need to do this for the main page, usually named > > index.html) > > > > <META name="robots" content="noindex"> > > > > The robots.txt protocol is explained at this site > > > > <http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/exclusion.html> > > > > However, it explains that the robots.txt file only works when it is > > installed in the root directory of the server. If your personal homepage is > > hosted by another site (like rootsweb, or your ISP) putting a robots.txt > > file in your own directory will not work (according to the site). > > > > The other problem is that the robots.txt and META robot tags are voluntary. > > If KK is really indexing other sites and then charging people to see them > > through their frame, they probably don't respect anti-robot protocols > > anyway. > > > > I'm going to try that no frames javascript, though. Thanks! > > > > -- > > Tom Thatcher > > [email protected] > > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> > > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > > > ============================== > > Visit ROOTS-L, the Internet's oldest and largest genealogical > > mailing list: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/roots-l/ > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Search over 64,000,000 records in the Social Security Death Index: > http://ssdi.rootsweb.com
> > I will be most glad if somebody just send us simple instructions for > setting up robots.txt file. Here is the META tag; copy this into your html file in between the <HEAD> and </HEAD> tags (you only need to do this for the main page, usually named index.html) <META name="robots" content="noindex"> The robots.txt protocol is explained at this site <http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/exclusion.html> However, it explains that the robots.txt file only works when it is installed in the root directory of the server. If your personal homepage is hosted by another site (like rootsweb, or your ISP) putting a robots.txt file in your own directory will not work (according to the site). The other problem is that the robots.txt and META robot tags are voluntary. If KK is really indexing other sites and then charging people to see them through their frame, they probably don't respect anti-robot protocols anyway. I'm going to try that no frames javascript, though. Thanks! -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>
> 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. If you don't want something to be public knowledge, you shouldn't put it on a public web site. There are META headers you can insert into your html files to specify that you do not want your site indexed. But compliance is voluntary; an index site does not have to respect your request not to index your files. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>
Can anyone on this list tell me if this is true??? Thanks for your help, Please reply to me privately:-) Cindy Listen to the Angels! The Quackenbosch/Quackenbush Family Page http://genweb.net/~cindy/Quackenbush/index.html The Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus Web Page http://genweb.net/~cindy/Anneke/page0.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Cindy <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: WHY???] > Dear Cindy, > > Our site is in the process of indexing names from the entire internet. > Though we also have more than 45 million pedigree names that are > displayed > from our site. The names that we have indexed from the web only point to > the links on the web from which they came. > > Our indexing robot is the same activity in which other search engines > are engaged. Most people are aware they can use other search engines to > obtain the link to your data and when we show a link in our free > Ancestral Archive Index we show which links come from the Internet. At > this point a patron can decide if they want to use another Search Engine > which derives its income from advertisers to find your site or if they > want to use our service to find your site. Our service includes 30 plus > million other searchable pedigree linked names that cannot be found > through other search engines. > > Our indexing of the web falls under the fair use doctrine of > copyright law. A parallel would be the company Chemical Abstracts > Service in Columbus, OH. They maintain an index to numerous abstracts > of copyrighted research work. A scientist subscribes to the service to > make his searching easier. The scientist could use other methods of > finding the data such as scanning numerous scientific publications but > having a searchable index saves him time and effort. As I mentioned > earlier the information is provided free in the Ancestral Archive Index. > It shows that the data is found on the Internet. At that point the user > can decide for himself if he wants to use another search engine or our > service. > Users can get into the subscription services area free by doing an > extraction. > > 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. > > Sincerely, Cindy > [email protected] >
Inconnect.com - that is KindredKonnection. They are rogue of the worst kind. They index and link, then in turn frame your site, and charge $$ to see your site. Some complaints had been made against KindredKonnections and reported on other mailing lists. Some of sites KK indexed included those at Rootsweb, infuriating some webmasters already as it is. Need to install killer javascript to break out of their frames. Here it is. This must be entered exact this way. however, somebody else needs to provide robots.txt which contains information telling unauthorized robots not to index your site. <HTML> <HEAD> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"> <!-- Hide script from old browsers if (top.location !=self.location) { top.location = self.location } // End hiding script from old browsers --> </SCRIPT> <TITLE>***</TITLE> </HEAD> I will be most glad if somebody just send us simple instructions for setting up robots.txt file. W. David Samuelsen Ghost Hunter wrote: > > Can anyone on this list tell me if this is true??? > > Thanks for your help, > Please reply to me privately:-) > Cindy > > Listen to the Angels! > > The Quackenbosch/Quackenbush Family Page > http://genweb.net/~cindy/Quackenbush/index.html > > The Anneke Jans and Everardus Bogardus Web Page > http://genweb.net/~cindy/Anneke/page0.htm > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Cindy <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Fwd: WHY???] > > > Dear Cindy, > > > > Our site is in the process of indexing names from the entire internet. > > Though we also have more than 45 million pedigree names that are > > displayed > > from our site. The names that we have indexed from the web only point to > > the links on the web from which they came. > > > > Our indexing robot is the same activity in which other search engines > > are engaged. Most people are aware they can use other search engines to > > obtain the link to your data and when we show a link in our free > > Ancestral Archive Index we show which links come from the Internet. At > > this point a patron can decide if they want to use another Search Engine > > which derives its income from advertisers to find your site or if they > > want to use our service to find your site. Our service includes 30 plus > > million other searchable pedigree linked names that cannot be found > > through other search engines. > > > > Our indexing of the web falls under the fair use doctrine of > > copyright law. A parallel would be the company Chemical Abstracts > > Service in Columbus, OH. They maintain an index to numerous abstracts > > of copyrighted research work. A scientist subscribes to the service to > > make his searching easier. The scientist could use other methods of > > finding the data such as scanning numerous scientific publications but > > having a searchable index saves him time and effort. As I mentioned > > earlier the information is provided free in the Ancestral Archive Index. > > It shows that the data is found on the Internet. At that point the user > > can decide for himself if he wants to use another search engine or our > > service. > > Users can get into the subscription services area free by doing an > > extraction. > > > > 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. > > > > Sincerely, Cindy > > [email protected] > >
Dick Eastman's news item (Online Genealogy Newsletter) No need to comment on this item. Just for your information. W. David Samuelsen - A Challenge to the Recent Copyright Act The U.S. courts are now wrestling with a legal issue that may impact many genealogists' access to republished records. The U.S. Congress passed the so-called "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" on October 27, 1998. This act, sponsored by the late singer- songwriter and congressman, extended protection by 20 years for cultural works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50"; works made by or for corporations, known as "works made for hire," got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced. The law ensured that the estates of writers and composers would continue to collect royalties from the artists' works. It was also crucial for large publishing houses and movie studios like Disney and Warner Bros., which rely on revenues from licensing their old copyrighted products. For instance, the character of Mickey Mouse was copyrighted in 1928 as Steamboat Willie and would have entered the public domain in 2004. That would be a problem for Disney as their consumer products division and theme parks helped bring in $8 billion in 1998. The loss of the copyright probably would dilute their revenue stream. All this sounds like a great idea. However, the new act's implementation has had a negative impact on many people. Some claim that the new law is little more than corporate welfare. Eric Eldred and nine co-plaintiffs -- including Higginson Books (a publisher of genealogy and history reprints) and the American Film Heritage Association - have filed a complaint against the government with the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig is handling the case pro bono. Lessig has two major gripes with the Bono law. First, he says it infringes on Eldred's freedom of speech: "The extension takes works that would have entered the public domain and privatizes them improperly; the result is like a tax on freedom of expression. Eldred can't publicly utter these words now without paying a penalty imposed by the government." Bono also violates the Constitution, Lessig says, because it flunks the copyright clause's "incentive" requirement. Since you can't give an incentive to a corpse - and the new law extended protection retroactively to works created by authors now dead - it fails the litmus test. "The Supreme Court has consistently said the primary purpose of copyright is not to give authors some particular benefit, but to protect the public domain," says Lessig. "Extensions can't be retroactive, because the Constitution gives Congress the right to grant exclusive rights only if those rights create incentives to produce more speech. Extending these benefits retroactively doesn't serve any purposes the copyright clause was designed for." The impact to genealogists can be found by looking at co-plaintiff Higginson Book Company. The company, managed by Laura Bjorklund, is a for-profit sole proprietorship that reprints books based on consumer demand in fields such as genealogy, historic maps, local and county history, and the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. It focuses on books originally printed in small editions that are no longer in print and therefore difficult to obtain from any other source. Ms. Bjorklund and her employees carefully research any book published after 1922 to determine whether or not it is copyrighted, which is often very difficult, given the type of rare books in which they specialize. The Copyright Extension Act prevented works published in 1923 from entering the public domain at the end of 1998. Because of the difficulties in tracking the authors or heirs of such old works, the Act effectively means that Higginson Book Company will be unable to reprint any books copyrighted in 1923 for another 20 years. For more information, look at the following URLs: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ (earlier info) http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/ (most recent info) My thanks to Richard J. Yanco for letting me know about the two Web sites
> A couple of items... When the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was > passed into law, works published through 1923 had passed into the public > domain. Once in the public domain always in the public domain. Picky, picky :) Actually I thought this was true, but wasn't sure about the effects of the various extensions. > The duration of copyright on works created today has crossed the line into > the ridiculous as far as I am concerned. If I live another 50 years, my > copyright protection for what I am writing now will not expire until > December 31, 2120.... The life of the author plush 70 years. > > The US Constitution states "The Congress shall have power: ... To promote > the progress of > science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and > inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" > > I think the Congress is stretching the meaning of "for limited times." > Well, the life+70 years comes from an international treaty, the Berne Convention. As far as the change in US law extending old copyrights from 75 to 95 years, I have it on good authority that the change was the result of massive lobbying by the Walt Disney Corp. which doesn't want Mickey to enter the public domain. You'll probably like this site, <http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/index.html> -- Tom Thatcher [email protected]
> Is the copyright term still for the life of the author plus 50 years? > > I was told recently that a copyright can be renewed. Is this true and if > so, how would we know it had been renewed? > See <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ15a.pdf> for more details. Copyrights for documents published after January 1, 1978 last for the life of the author plus 70 years; anonymous works and works for hire are protected for 95 years after publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. There is no renewal after that. Originally, copyright existed for 28 years, and could be renewed for an additional 28 years. Then the renewal period was raised to 47 years, for a total of 75 years. (Renewal was by filing a form with the copyright office.) Then renewal was made automatic and the total term was raised to 95 years. This means that any document copyrighted before 1903 must be out of copyright because the 95 years was up before the law was changed, and even if the author is still alive, once the copyright is gone and the document becomes public domain it can't be brought back under copyright. Documents copyrighted between 1963 and 1978 get 95 years, with no renewal necessary, because they were still in the original 28 year term when renewal was made automatic. Documents copyrighted between 1903 and 1963 are tricky, and whether or not they are still protected depends on when they were copyrighted and whether or not they were renewed before the end of the 28th year. You can ask the copyright office to do a search; if it was renewed, they will have a record. An important side note: Prior to 1989, if a document did not say specifically in writing in an obvious location "Copyright date Author's Name" then it is assumed to be in the public domain and hence, not copyrighted. I know this is pretty harsh, and it surprised me when I read it, but it's true. <http://www.loc.gov> has a copyright faq and some downloadable pdf files that cover all of this. -- Tom, Sue and Laura Thatcher [email protected]
A couple of items... When the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was passed into law, works published through 1923 had passed into the public domain. Once in the public domain always in the public domain. Works PUBLISHED before Jan 1, 1978, WITHOUT proper copyright notice are in the public domain. The keys to this are "published" and "without copyright notice." The law passed in 1976 made provisions for works published after that date without notice even though notice was required. In 1989, the requirement for copyright notice was removed. Unpublished works are protected by current copyright law and the protection is based on year of creation. No unpublished work will be in the public until December 31, 2002. The duration of copyright on works created today has crossed the line into the ridiculous as far as I am concerned. If I live another 50 years, my copyright protection for what I am writing now will not expire until December 31, 2120.... The life of the author plush 70 years. The US Constitution states "The Congress shall have power: ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" I think the Congress is stretching the meaning of "for limited times." Mike Goad At 07:55 AM 9/8/00 -0400, Tom Thatcher wrote: >This means that any document copyrighted before 1903 must be out of >copyright because the 95 years was up before the law was changed, and even >if the author is still alive, once the copyright is gone and the document >becomes public domain it can't be brought back under copyright. > >Documents copyrighted between 1963 and 1978 get 95 years, with no renewal >necessary, because they were still in the original 28 year term when renewal >was made automatic. > >Documents copyrighted between 1903 and 1963 are tricky, and whether or not >they are still protected depends on when they were copyrighted and whether >or not they were renewed before the end of the 28th year. You can ask the >copyright office to do a search; if it was renewed, they will have a record. > >An important side note: Prior to 1989, if a document did not say >specifically in writing in an obvious location "Copyright date Author's >Name" then it is assumed to be in the public domain and hence, not >copyrighted. I know this is pretty harsh, and it surprised me when I read >it, but it's true. <http://www.loc.gov> has a copyright faq and some >downloadable pdf files that cover all of this. > > > > >-- >Tom, Sue and Laura Thatcher >[email protected] > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. >http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >Brought to you by RootsWeb.com.
"Artistic works can now be protected for up to 95 years, a dramatic increase from the 28 years of protection Congress originally allocated for copyrights in 1790." "As of January 1, 1999, the public should have been able to freely copy, distribute, and use any book, software, film clip, or sound recording published in 1923. But under the revised statute, those works now won't enter the public domain until January 1, 2019." http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-337261.html?tag= The renewal is no longer part of copyright law as I understand it. However, works that were published when it was part of the law would have passed into the public domain if not renewed. Many works published after 1923 were not renewed and therefore are not copyright protected. I suspect that is the case for many genealogy related books. The problem is in determining whether or not they were renewed. 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. At 12:13 AM 9/8/00 -0400, maryann wrote: >Is the copyright term still for the life of the author plus 50 years? > >I was told recently that a copyright can be renewed. Is this true and if >so, how would we know it had been renewed? > >Mary Ann
Is the copyright term still for the life of the author plus 50 years? I was told recently that a copyright can be renewed. Is this true and if so, how would we know it had been renewed? Mary Ann
Thank you for your advice. I agree with Mary Ann (see her message below my signature). opying vital records from "DAR Patriots Index" [1966] are not illegal because vital records are facts. Again, thanks foir your assistance. Jean --------------- >Would it not be simpler and safer to locate a library that has the DAR >books. Make notes, or copy, the names, dates, events and places. Then post >the info in your own words. > >Mary Ann ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== Freepages, that is free web pages On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:46:15 EDT [email protected] writes: > As DAR members we are told that our applications and the information > on them > are property of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Now > occasionally > the DAR publishes the material as they did in these books; and > sometimes > Chapters do (but I suspect that the chapter get permission from the > National > Society to do that). While one may not be able to get a copywrite > on the > dates, someone put those dates and people together in a way to > construct a > lineage. > Ancestry states on their Web Page that either the material belongs > to them or > the original source and can be used only to construct one's own > family > research. > Virginia > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. > http://pml.rootsweb.com/ > Brought to you by RootsWeb.com. >
Virginia wrote: > While one may not be able to get a copywrite on the > dates, someone put those dates and people together in a way to construct a > lineage. > Ancestry states on their Web Page that either the material belongs to them or > the original source and can be used only to construct one's own family > research. The problem is that it is simply impossible to copyright public information. Copyright only protects "creative original authorship" and no matter how artfully a collection of facts is woven into a story, the facts themselves can not be copyrighted. A lineage can't be copyrighted either, because the fact that James Smith is the son of John Smith is no more privileged information than the fact that James Smith was born in 1705 in Virginia. The fact that it may have taken a lot of effort to piece together has no bearing on the issue of whether there is any creative authorship involved. I read a message recently, possibly in the archives of this list, quoting Justice O'Connor's opinion in a Supreme Court case to the effect that no matter how much effort goes into a project, only the part of the project which is original creative content can be copyrighted. In the case of a DAR lineage book, the lineages may be narrated in a certain style, composed on the page in a particular typeface, arranged by some convenient system, possibly including drawings or photographs. These various elements may or may not be copyright protected. But the facts are the facts, and whether you summarize the lineage or copy the facts one by one you are not violating the copyright because there is no copyright. Peter Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > Even though the material may be out of copyright, use of material from the > Ancestry.com site would be governed by its terms of use. At > <http://www.ancestry.com/legal/terms.htm> I found the following: ... > So it sounds to me that while posting material from the DAR books might not > be a copyright violation, it would be a violation of the license terms of > the Ancestry site. The problem at Ancestry.com is that almost nothing on their site can be copyrighted, and they know it. They can't use copyright as a threat to keep people from reposting their content (which could discourage other people from becoming paying members) so they have to put it in their terms of service. The worst that can happen to the ancestry.com member is to have his account canceled. The listowner who reposts the data has no liability at all. Let me try to give one quick (but possibly redundant) example. I recently found out that USGenWeb has census transcriptions for a county I'm interested in. The transcription file has a copyright date and a stern warning from USGenWeb that it may not be reproduced or used in any way without the permission of the transcriber. Sounds nice, but it's a toothless warning. There is no creative or original content in the file at all. It's a verbatim transcript of a public document. Once a document is in the public domain, nothing anyone can do to it can drag it back under the umbrella of copyright. The fact that I could order the same microfilm and make my own transcript proves that it is a public document, and the mere fact that someone labored to put it online does not make it any less public. It would certainly be discourteous to use the file without notifying the transcriber, but it would not be illegal. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected]
As DAR members we are told that our applications and the information on them are property of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Now occasionally the DAR publishes the material as they did in these books; and sometimes Chapters do (but I suspect that the chapter get permission from the National Society to do that). While one may not be able to get a copywrite on the dates, someone put those dates and people together in a way to construct a lineage. Ancestry states on their Web Page that either the material belongs to them or the original source and can be used only to construct one's own family research. Virginia
Even though the material may be out of copyright, use of material from the Ancestry.com site would be governed by its terms of use. At <http://www.ancestry.com/legal/terms.htm> I found the following: > The download of the whole or significant portions of any work or > database is prohibited. <snip> Online or other republication of Content > is prohibited except as unique data elements which are part of a unique > family history or genealogy. So it sounds to me that while posting material from the DAR books might not be a copyright violation, it would be a violation of the license terms of the Ancestry site. The question for you, I suppose, is whether you as a listowner could be found guilty of contributory infringement of the license terms, or if only the person who posted the message could be found at fault. After all, you have never agreed to those license terms. Comments, anyone? Peter Hirtle [email protected] >At 05:55 AM 9/7/00 -0500, Mike Goad wrote: >Hi, > >There are a couple of issues here. > >First, facts cannot be copyrighted. If all that is be used is names and >dates, then there is no concern about copyright infringement. Also, the >copyrighted material must have originality. In other words the copyright >can only apply to that text and ideas that are created by the author or >compiler. See >http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Because/because.htm . > >The material that he wants to use is only a small amount from the lineage >books. That should fall under the "fair use principle." There is no >strict guidance on the amount of material that can be copied under fair >use. Courts determine whether or not the copying is fair use or copyright >infringement by weighing four factors: > 1) Purpose of the use, including non-profit educational use > 2) Nature of the copyrighted work > 3) Amount of copying > 4) Effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the > original work >See http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Fair/fair.htm > >Mike Goad >Main index page for copyright site: >http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm > > > >At 09:40 PM 9/6/00 -0400, [email protected] wrote: >>I need a piece of advice from you. >> >>I am a listowner of several mailing lists. A >>member would like to post to one of my mailing >>lists a summary of some DAR entries with original >>names and vital dates retrieved from the www. >>Ancestry.Com's List All Databases ("Daughters >>of the American Revolution Lineage Books, 152 >>Volumes") at www.Ancestry.Com. He thinks that >>it would be without a problem of copyright. >> >>Please kindly advise. >> >>Thanks much. >>Jean >> >> >> >> >>. I checked this morning and there are 27 entries in the file, in >>various parts of the colonies for various Courtrights, haha. I can copy >>the >>data this weekend and put it in a file for you ladies if you want and if >>you >>don't post it in its entirety. Perhaps a summary could be made of the >>file >>numbers and the originals names and then posted to the Courtright list >>page. >>I think we could probably do that without a problem of copyright, its up >>to >>you guys.Later Chas. >> >> >>==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >>Threaded archives at >>http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ >> >>============================== >>Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. >>http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >>Brought to you by RootsWeb.com. > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Check out the new communities at RootsWeb >http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > >============================== >Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: >Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. >http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/
Would it not be simpler and safer to locate a library that has the DAR books. Make notes, or copy, the names, dates, events and places. Then post the info in your own words. Mary Ann
Hi, There are a couple of issues here. First, facts cannot be copyrighted. If all that is be used is names and dates, then there is no concern about copyright infringement. Also, the copyrighted material must have originality. In other words the copyright can only apply to that text and ideas that are created by the author or compiler. See http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Because/because.htm . The material that he wants to use is only a small amount from the lineage books. That should fall under the "fair use principle." There is no strict guidance on the amount of material that can be copied under fair use. Courts determine whether or not the copying is fair use or copyright infringement by weighing four factors: 1) Purpose of the use, including non-profit educational use 2) Nature of the copyrighted work 3) Amount of copying 4) Effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the original work See http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/Fair/fair.htm Mike Goad Main index page for copyright site: http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm At 09:40 PM 9/6/00 -0400, [email protected] wrote: >I need a piece of advice from you. > >I am a listowner of several mailing lists. A >member would like to post to one of my mailing >lists a summary of some DAR entries with original >names and vital dates retrieved from the www. >Ancestry.Com's List All Databases ("Daughters >of the American Revolution Lineage Books, 152 >Volumes") at www.Ancestry.Com. He thinks that >it would be without a problem of copyright. > >Please kindly advise. > >Thanks much. >Jean > > > > >. I checked this morning and there are 27 entries in the file, in >various parts of the colonies for various Courtrights, haha. I can copy >the >data this weekend and put it in a file for you ladies if you want and if >you >don't post it in its entirety. Perhaps a summary could be made of the >file >numbers and the originals names and then posted to the Courtright list >page. >I think we could probably do that without a problem of copyright, its up >to >you guys.Later Chas. > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Threaded archives at >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > >============================== >Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. >http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >Brought to you by RootsWeb.com.
I need a piece of advice from you. I am a listowner of several mailing lists. A member would like to post to one of my mailing lists a summary of some DAR entries with original names and vital dates retrieved from the www. Ancestry.Com's List All Databases ("Daughters of the American Revolution Lineage Books, 152 Volumes") at www.Ancestry.Com. He thinks that it would be without a problem of copyright. Please kindly advise. Thanks much. Jean . I checked this morning and there are 27 entries in the file, in various parts of the colonies for various Courtrights, haha. I can copy the data this weekend and put it in a file for you ladies if you want and if you don't post it in its entirety. Perhaps a summary could be made of the file numbers and the originals names and then posted to the Courtright list page. I think we could probably do that without a problem of copyright, its up to you guys.Later Chas.