At 01:00 PM 4/8/00 -0400, jean boutcher wrote: >Does anyone have a copy of something like 1991 the US Supreme >Court Decision about copyright laws? If so, would a kind soul >send the copy to me? I would be very grateful. The court decision you are talking about was: FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE COMPANY, INC. Argued Jan. 9, 1991. Decided March 27, 1991. and it very much addresses many major issues associated with genealogy and copyright, particularly when it comes to compilations of facts. I happen to have put together a web page with that particular court decision on it at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/feist.htm . You can also access the rest of my genealogy site from it which includes links to the actual federal on-line copyright code sections. Mike Goad I have developed some other interesting and useful genealogy related pages which are now linked at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/feist.htm

Hi to all, I have heard through the grapevine about the existence of Copyright-L, so I seized the day by signing up here. :-) Please kindly bear with me if my question has been posed many times by other members of the List. Does anyone have a copy of something like 1991 the US Supreme Court Decision about copyright laws? If so, would a kind soul send the copy to me? I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance, Regards, Jean Regards, Jean ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Mike, I think that the one important disclaimer that needs to be added to your post is that they book would have to have been published in the United States. Books published in Australia, the UK and the like I believe basically (if that word can ever be used with copyright law!) work off the plain 50 years after the death of the author. Maybe I mean in simple straightforward circumstances. Regards Andrew On 22 Mar 2000, at 22:10, Mike Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's an angle that I don't think has been discussed here. > > A distant relative was born in 1893 and published a genealogy in 1959. > Sometime between 1959 and now, the author passed away. > > A couple of weeks ago a person on the mailing list for that surname > came across a photo-copy of the entire book. It's not her direct > line, so she offered to give it to anyone who can put a use to it. > It's not my direct line, but I collect any and all information that I > can on that line, so I told her that if no one else was interested, > that I was. So she sent it to me. > > Now to throw a twist into it, another gentleman wrote and published a > genealogy in the 1970s. For one branch of the family, he used the > information word for word from the earlier 1959 work. This gentleman > has given his permission for me to publish any of the material that I > want from his 1970s book. > > Questions: > > 1. Am I infringing to have a photo copy of the 1959 book? > 2. Was the lady that sent it to me infringing? > 3. Did the gentleman who published the 1970s book infringe on the > copyright of the 1959 book? 4. Am I infringing if I publish the > material from the 1970s book that was copied from the 1959 book? > > The answers are: 1. No 2. No 3. No and 4. No > > The 1959 book is not protected under copyright law. The author > published the book without registering it with the copyright office > and without including a copyright notice. Before 1976, copyrighted > works had to be registered and were required to carry a copyright > notice. Lack of a copyright notice indicated lack of copyright > protection. The book has been in the public domain since it was first > published. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright11.htm > > Example: Just because a published book is dated 1975 doesn't mean its > protected under copyright. If it doesn't bear the copyright symbol > and have the copyright statement, it didn't satisfy the copyright > requirements and, thus, is not protected today. > > Note: If a work was written before 1976, but was or is unpublished, > it IS protected. It IS copyrighted. > > Mike -- Andrew Billinghurst * Have you got your free webpages at http://freepages.rootsweb.com ? * Find out how at http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html

Hi all, Andrew has a good point. This is probably the case in a lot of other places. It's my understanding that the United States copyright changes that removed the requirements for registration and notice of copyright were made in large part because most other countries didn't have the same requirements. Fact is, though, that books published in the United States as late as February 1989 may have entered the public domain if they did not bear the copyright notice. Here's what the copyright office says: "Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice." and "U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act. " Mike At 12:31 PM 3/25/00 +1100, Andrew Billinghurst wrote: >Mike, > >I think that the one important disclaimer that needs to be added to >your post is that they book would have to have been published in the >United States. Books published in Australia, the UK and the like I >believe basically (if that word can ever be used with copyright law!) >work off the plain 50 years after the death of the author. Maybe I >mean in simple straightforward circumstances. > >Regards Andrew > >On 22 Mar 2000, at 22:10, Mike Goad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here's an angle that I don't think has been discussed here. > > > > A distant relative was born in 1893 and published a genealogy in 1959. > > Sometime between 1959 and now, the author passed away. > > > > A couple of weeks ago a person on the mailing list for that surname > > came across a photo-copy of the entire book. It's not her direct > > line, so she offered to give it to anyone who can put a use to it. > > It's not my direct line, but I collect any and all information that I > > can on that line, so I told her that if no one else was interested, > > that I was. So she sent it to me. > > > > Now to throw a twist into it, another gentleman wrote and published a > > genealogy in the 1970s. For one branch of the family, he used the > > information word for word from the earlier 1959 work. This gentleman > > has given his permission for me to publish any of the material that I > > want from his 1970s book. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Am I infringing to have a photo copy of the 1959 book? > > 2. Was the lady that sent it to me infringing? > > 3. Did the gentleman who published the 1970s book infringe on the > > copyright of the 1959 book? 4. Am I infringing if I publish the > > material from the 1970s book that was copied from the 1959 book? > > > > The answers are: 1. No 2. No 3. No and 4. No > > > > The 1959 book is not protected under copyright law. The author > > published the book without registering it with the copyright office > > and without including a copyright notice. Before 1976, copyrighted > > works had to be registered and were required to carry a copyright > > notice. Lack of a copyright notice indicated lack of copyright > > protection. The book has been in the public domain since it was first > > published. > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright11.htm > > > > Example: Just because a published book is dated 1975 doesn't mean its > > protected under copyright. If it doesn't bear the copyright symbol > > and have the copyright statement, it didn't satisfy the copyright > > requirements and, thus, is not protected today. > > > > Note: If a work was written before 1976, but was or is unpublished, > > it IS protected. It IS copyrighted. > > > > Mike > >-- >Andrew Billinghurst >* Have you got your free webpages at http://freepages.rootsweb.com ? >* Find out how at http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html

Hi all, Here's an angle that I don't think has been discussed here. A distant relative was born in 1893 and published a genealogy in 1959. Sometime between 1959 and now, the author passed away. A couple of weeks ago a person on the mailing list for that surname came across a photo-copy of the entire book. It's not her direct line, so she offered to give it to anyone who can put a use to it. It's not my direct line, but I collect any and all information that I can on that line, so I told her that if no one else was interested, that I was. So she sent it to me. Now to throw a twist into it, another gentleman wrote and published a genealogy in the 1970s. For one branch of the family, he used the information word for word from the earlier 1959 work. This gentleman has given his permission for me to publish any of the material that I want from his 1970s book. Questions: 1. Am I infringing to have a photo copy of the 1959 book? 2. Was the lady that sent it to me infringing? 3. Did the gentleman who published the 1970s book infringe on the copyright of the 1959 book? 4. Am I infringing if I publish the material from the 1970s book that was copied from the 1959 book? The answers are: 1. No 2. No 3. No and 4. No The 1959 book is not protected under copyright law. The author published the book without registering it with the copyright office and without including a copyright notice. Before 1976, copyrighted works had to be registered and were required to carry a copyright notice. Lack of a copyright notice indicated lack of copyright protection. The book has been in the public domain since it was first published. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright11.htm Example: Just because a published book is dated 1975 doesn't mean its protected under copyright. If it doesn't bear the copyright symbol and have the copyright statement, it didn't satisfy the copyright requirements and, thus, is not protected today. Note: If a work was written before 1976, but was or is unpublished, it IS protected. It IS copyrighted. Mike

Hi, The book published in 1883 is in the public domain. It can't be copyrighted. If it has been republished, any new and original added to the book, though, can be copyrighted. Yes, you can post it. Mike Goad http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm At 08:38 PM 3/22/00 -0600, Karima wrote: >I have a question regarding copyright. About 20 years ago I visited the >Illinois State Historical Society and made photo copies of many >biographical sketches found in a book which had been published in 1883. > >About two years ago, a County Genealogy Society had the book reprinted >and they now offer it for sale. > >My question is this: Can I post the information I collected 20 years >ago (giving credit to the original author), or because it has recently >been reprinted by the genealogy society, do they now own the copyright >on this material? > >Thanks in advance. > >Karima > > >==== 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 have a question regarding copyright. About 20 years ago I visited the Illinois State Historical Society and made photo copies of many biographical sketches found in a book which had been published in 1883. About two years ago, a County Genealogy Society had the book reprinted and they now offer it for sale. My question is this: Can I post the information I collected 20 years ago (giving credit to the original author), or because it has recently been reprinted by the genealogy society, do they now own the copyright on this material? Thanks in advance. Karima

the copyright expired long time ago. The society don't own any copyright to the book, only the new additions if any. If it is simply a reprint, - no copyright. This was brought up two weeks ago by different person concerning very similiar book matter. David Karima wrote: > > I have a question regarding copyright. About 20 years ago I visited the > Illinois State Historical Society and made photo copies of many > biographical sketches found in a book which had been published in 1883. > > About two years ago, a County Genealogy Society had the book reprinted > and they now offer it for sale. > > My question is this: Can I post the information I collected 20 years > ago (giving credit to the original author), or because it has recently > been reprinted by the genealogy society, do they now own the copyright > on this material? > > Thanks in advance. > > Karima > > ==== 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.

Hi, I am Becky and new to your list. First what was planned...to take some periodicals that were published for some years and put the information on a web site. There were three editors on the periodical in question, one has passed away, I do not know about the first one and the last one gave up publishing it back in 1995. What would we have to do to accomplish the task of bringing the information to the internet and a web site. The information that was included in the issues was sent in by the subscribers. Would we have to contact each of them and seek permission, or just permission of the past editors. If the last editor consented to being a part of the project would that help? Any advice would be appreciated, I have not got a clue as to what would be involved in this. Thanking you in advance for any help. Rebecca Jones Pacey Arizona

Hi all Recently there has been a discussion on this list on "fair use" and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The question was whether or not the act recognizes "fair use." Whenever I have a question that I am not certain about on copyright, I go to the source, which to me is usually either the copyright code or judicial rulings on copyright. After studying the code AND the act, I found the following: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was H.R. 2281 and it's purpose was "To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes." To me the key words were "to amend title 17." Title 17 of the US Code is the copyright code. If DMCA was going to override fair use, then the fair use section of the code would have been amended if fair use was going to be impacted. It was not amended. Further, Chapter 12 of the copyright code, Copyright Protection and Management Systems, under section 1201, circumvention of copyright protection systems, says verbatim: (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including FAIR USE, under this title. This same phrase is found in the H.R. 2281, which is the DMCA., on page 6. I have added a new page at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright14.htm that discusses this and have added new links on my site for chapter 12 of the copyright code. The new links may be found at my "linked index to the US copyright code" at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm . Mike

At 07:47 PM 3/15/00 -0700, J. C. Biggs wrote: >As of 1998 and the DMCA or is it DMCL (how soon we forget:>) there is NO >MENTION of FAIR USE and it is yet to be established by the courts. Until the text from the code that I posted earlier was included in the law, copyright law had NO MENTION of FAIR USE. Prior to that "fair use" was a concept that was completely established though court judgements to the point that it became common law. The background for the development of the fair use code is provided with the code which I have indexed at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm From what I've read, part of the delay in passing the Digital Millinium Copyright Act (I dislike excessive use of abbreviations) was to make sure that the principle of "fair use" was maintained in the additions to the code. The Digital Millinium Copyright Act ammended the copyright code. It did not remove the "fair use" provisions from the code or otherwise change them. In fact, the following exception was specifically included to allow "fair use" of digital media: "the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that: (1) are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing; (2) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or (3) are marketed for use in circumventing. (from http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/band.html ) Jonathan Band Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. Mike

Due to receiving some email asking me to post what I have about the 1998 copyright law and FAIR USE, here is what I found. I do realize that there are many people on this list that have much more experience than I do on this subject and also hope that I am not repeating information to the point of being a bore. I do suggest that someone who is really interested with this search our archives. Am I right in thinking that we can do this? I have gleaned the following information from the INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT LAW class on www.vu.org and this class is being offered again, if anyone is interested. It was wonderful! ~JoanB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` The doctrine of FAIR USE permits brief excerpts to be quoted from copyrighted material for limited purposes of review or citation of facts, provided the excerpts are properly attributed and the amount of material used is REASONABLE. But there is no absolute definition of FAIR USE. While one Judge may find a particular use to be reasonable, another Judge would rule that the exact same use unreasonable and assess damages against you for copyright infringement. Generally speaking, quoting one or two paragraphs from a full length book would usually be considered as FAIR USE, but on the other hand quoting just a line or two from a song or poem may be constructed as unreasonable use. The DMCA, which stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was passed in 1998 and the new law heavily favors copyright holders' rights and does not mention FAIR USE at all. Some experts do believe that this has essentially voided the doctrine of Fair Use, and this principle should not be relied on as a truly viable defense to copyright liability in future court cases. But some critics of the DMCA including Peter Jaszi, a law professor at American University claims that DMCA is unconstitutional because of the failure to make any provision for Fair Use violates the First Amendment protection of free speech.

As of 1998 and the DMCA or is it DMCL (how soon we forget:>) there is NO MENTION of FAIR USE and it is yet to be established by the courts. I just finished taking a copyright law class and you would think that I would remember the specifics but I do have then on file. While it has been stated that it was the intent to do away with FAIR USE, it has in essence been done away with until it is re-established in the courts. I had always bees told that if the copyright holder lost a sale because of the use, it was not FAIR USE. Who knows anymore. I just know that I am being very careful. ~JoanB Mike and Karen Goad wrote: > > > actually I thought short and attributed quotes were considered "fair use" - > > > >Carol C-H <[email protected]> > > The Australian equivalent of "fair use" is 10% of the work. Ours in the > U.S. is not so specific. > > Check out the actual wording of the U.S. law: > > 17 USC Sec. 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > > ... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction > in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, > for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is > not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a > work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered > shall include - > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of > a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the > copyrighted work as a whole; and > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the > copyrighted work. > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair > use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm fair use > > Mike > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > ============================== > The RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Tens of millions of individuals... and counting. > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/

> actually I thought short and attributed quotes were considered "fair use" - > >Carol C-H <[email protected]> The Australian equivalent of "fair use" is 10% of the work. Ours in the U.S. is not so specific. Check out the actual wording of the U.S. law: 17 USC Sec. 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use ... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm fair use Mike

At 08:20 AM 03/15/2000 -0800,[email protected] wrote: >A month never >passes that we are not made aware of verbatim quotes being made on the >Internet from one of our books, our website, or our newsletter. Whether the >Internet is increasing this illegal use or it is enabling us to discover the >illegal use of others is really like, "What came first? The chicken or the >egg?". I am confused by this, Rose Marie - I was not aware that verbatim quotes from any source necessarily constituted "illegal use" - actually I thought short and attributed quotes were considered "fair use" - Carol C-H <[email protected]> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/

We have become increasingly aware of Copyright & Trademark Infringement and the Intellectual Property laws that protect our work since we are currently working on our 15th book dealing with history and genealogy. A month never passes that we are not made aware of verbatim quotes being made on the Internet from one of our books, our website, or our newsletter. Whether the Internet is increasing this illegal use or it is enabling us to discover the illegal use of others is really like, "What came first? The chicken or the egg?". The Virginia Museum Association (VAM) and American Museum Association (AAM) has been dealing with this topic as well as any organization of which I am aware. The AAM has recently introduced A MUSEUM GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK; 225 pages; $25 that can be ordered online at: www.aam-us.org. They have a marvelous selection of informative book on various topics that might be of assistance. Be certain to add copyright information to all of your publications (including web sites), and I have seen wording to the effect that "nothing can be reproduced in whole or part without permission of the organization (or author). Rose Marie Martin, Administrator Memorial Foundation of the Germanna Colonies, Inc. PO Box 693 Culpeper, Virginia 22701-0693 E Mail: [email protected] Web: www.germanna.org Office: 540-825-1496 Fax: 540-825-6572 GERMANNA REUNION: July 14-16, 2000 Watch website for information: www.germanna.org/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 5:05 PM Subject: Fw: Re: [APG] Copyright Infringement >This is forwarded with permission of the writer. >Any advice to help her small genealogical society with the issue of >copyright protection? >Please post it on list with a copy to the writer. Or I can forward your >answers to her. >Thank you. >Alexandra > >--------- Forwarded message ---------- >On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:41:39 -0900 "Connie Bradbury" ><[email protected]> writes: >This topic is of special interest to me because our society is finishing >two very large and time consuming project. We are preparing to publish >our second volume of births, deaths, marriages and divorces extracted >from the local newspaper - 1930-59. The first volume was done years ago >and funded by a grant but we know a lot more now and will be doing a >revised edition. We will publish the revised edition on our own. I just >received the 1940-49 index and we are looking at about 250 pages. > >This has been a labor of love for most of those who helped with the >project. We want the opportunity to sell the publication - yes, to help >fund additional projects. Some of our members are putting up front money >for this out of their pockets. It will be devastating to us if someone >purchases a copy then turns around and immediately puts it on the >internet. At some point that could happen with our blessing. > >We have discussed even sending a letter with each copy sold that might >appeal to the sympathetic side of anyone with the idea of putting it on >the internet, explaining that unless we are able to sell copies of the >publication and pay off our "loans" any anticipated projects will go by >the wayside if that happens. It is our blood, sweat and tears and for >someone who only has the ambition to sit at a computer and enter data >without any consideration for the origin of the information, maybe they >should get a life and get out and sit at a film >reader hour after hour extracting the information, inputing the data and >proofing. Or, better yet, find a new project to work on and put on the >internet instead of stealing a floundering little society's projects. > >Ooops, my soap box just collapsed<g> > >Connie > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Searchable archives at >http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > >============================== >Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. >http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >Brought to you by RootsWeb.com. > >

This is forwarded with permission of the writer. Any advice to help her small genealogical society with the issue of copyright protection? Please post it on list with a copy to the writer. Or I can forward your answers to her. Thank you. Alexandra --------- Forwarded message ---------- On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:41:39 -0900 "Connie Bradbury" <[email protected]> writes: This topic is of special interest to me because our society is finishing two very large and time consuming project. We are preparing to publish our second volume of births, deaths, marriages and divorces extracted from the local newspaper - 1930-59. The first volume was done years ago and funded by a grant but we know a lot more now and will be doing a revised edition. We will publish the revised edition on our own. I just received the 1940-49 index and we are looking at about 250 pages. This has been a labor of love for most of those who helped with the project. We want the opportunity to sell the publication - yes, to help fund additional projects. Some of our members are putting up front money for this out of their pockets. It will be devastating to us if someone purchases a copy then turns around and immediately puts it on the internet. At some point that could happen with our blessing. We have discussed even sending a letter with each copy sold that might appeal to the sympathetic side of anyone with the idea of putting it on the internet, explaining that unless we are able to sell copies of the publication and pay off our "loans" any anticipated projects will go by the wayside if that happens. It is our blood, sweat and tears and for someone who only has the ambition to sit at a computer and enter data without any consideration for the origin of the information, maybe they should get a life and get out and sit at a film reader hour after hour extracting the information, inputing the data and proofing. Or, better yet, find a new project to work on and put on the internet instead of stealing a floundering little society's projects. Ooops, my soap box just collapsed<g> Connie

What is the 'acceptable' amount of material covered by copyright which can be posted to a mail list at Rootsweb.com? I know copyright is important to Rootsweb.com. A mail list I am on has had quite a bit of transcribed material [which I believe is under copyright] posted to it. Thanks, Mariana Mariana Bean Ruggles [email protected] http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mariana/ http://www.pieces-n-time.com Listowner MAESSEX Mail List Rootsweb.com Donor

These sites are featured in today's "Access: America's Guide to the Internet," a supplement to my Sunday paper. **** = Excellent, *** = Great, ** = Good **** Firstuse.com Online Registry (to establish proof of intellectual property before getting copyright, trademark, or patent) http://www.firstuse.com **** Patent Cafe http://www.patentcafe.com **** US Patent and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov *** The Copyright Website (incl. copyright basics for Web pages) http://www.benedict.com *** Lawgirl.com (answers Qs abt intellectual property law) http://www.lawgirl.com *** United States Copyright Office (part of the Library of Congress) http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright Alexandra

Hi Cherie, I did a quick search on the internet and found http://law.gov.au/publications/copyrightaus97.htm which says: "Copyright subsists indefinitely in a literary, dramatic or musical work that has not been published, performed in public, broadcast or sold as a recording during the life of the author. If the work is posthumously published, the copyright will terminate at the end of 50 years after that event." "Copyright can be dealt with in the same way as other forms of personal property. It can be assigned, licensed, given away, sold, included in a will, or passed on according to the laws relating to intestacy or bankruptcy." It would appear to me that you would have to contact the heirs of the author who should be able to assign the copyright to you. The Australian copyright regulations and legislation are found at: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/81/top.htm http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/index.html Hope this helps Mike Goad At 05:14 PM 3/10/00 +1000, Cherie Thompson wrote: >Hi All, >I have some unfinished stories written by a friend who >died in 1994! >Is it possible for me to use these stories by way of acknowledging >my departed friend at the beginning of the story by saying e.g. >"from an idea by such and such" or >"handed to me by so and so after the death of so and so" >I do have photocopies of the original stories complete with spelling >typing and punctuation errors. >Currently they are of no value as they are incomplete. >I would appreciate some clear advice on this matter. >TIA, >Cherie Thompson > >On the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. > _>^..^<_ >Gold Coast Genealogy >www.extra.net.au/~gcg > >Family History Names I Seek:- >ARNOLD, BEE, CREED, DIXON, FIELDER, FERGUSON, >FOSTER, GILL, IRWIN, JAMES, KINKADE, MANGAN, PINDER, >PENDERGAST, REARDON, STEWART, THOMPSON. > >Queensland State Reporter for Australian Family >Tree Connections (AFTC) magazine. > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Freepages, that is free web pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > >============================== >Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject. >RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions. >http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi