Thank you W.David for your reply! If I knew what the Australian Copyright laws say, I would obviously have not wasted peoples time by asking the question! Right now if that is where the *notes are located* then I am unable to get sufficient satisfaction from what I have researched! I would appreciate a less obvious answer if anyone else can help! Have a nice day W.David, Kind regards, Cherie From: W. David Samuelsen <[email protected]> To: Cherie Thompson <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 5:43 PM Subject: Re: Advice please! what do the Australia Copyright laws say, since it's obviously where the notes are located? W. David Samuelsen Cherie Thompson wrote: Hi All, I have some unfinished stories written by a friend who died in 1994! Cherie Thompson On the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. _>^..^<_ Gold Coast Genealogy www.extra.net.au/~gcg

what do the Australia Copyright laws say, since it's obviously where the notes are located? W. David Samuelsen 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

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.

At 04:17 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Peter Hirtle wrote: >I am a non-lawyer interested in copyright. After sitting mostly silent on >this list for several months, I have come to the conclusion that next to >Disney and Microsoft, genealogists (and genealogical publishers) seem to be >the worst offenders in claiming a copyright where none exists. For >example, in a recent post to this list, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote in >response to a question about the copyright status of a resissued published >work that had fallen out of copyright and then is republished as books or CDs: > >>If the publisher has made images of the pages of the old material, the images >>are covered by a new copyright, so you can't reproduce the images (in >>excess of fair use) without permission for the next 95 years but you can >>freely transcribe the information from them. > >While many publishers will tell you differently, the only court case on >this matter of which I am aware (Bridgeman v. Corel) would seem to imply >that in most cases the act of copying a public domain two-dimensional work >does not in itself have enough creativity to warrant copyright >protection. It may require a lot of skill, and it may be hard work, but it >is not creative - and creativity is required for copyright >protection. I think I said I'm not a lawyer. But I have purchased photocopies of things from the Maryland State Archives and they stamp them with use restrictions. They don't stamp reproductions made with an office copier but they do stamp them if they make photocopies. Lately, S-K publications has been involved in making CD's of census records, which is work done for hire. They do not allow the customer to do anything other than view the CD. They do not permit any manipulation of the census images that they donate to USGENWEB. I had communicated to them about that when someone complained that WebTV reduces the images to illegibility, and I suggested that a way around that would be for USGENWEB to offer a separate set of the images, sliced in two pieces vertically, that *would* be viewable on WebTV, and offered to demonstrate that. S-K pubs said no, they would not permit that. I suppose we could ignore their proscription, but that might lead to an end to the donations... I myself have done scans of illustrations* from an old book for republication. This involved a lot of work and imaginative use of image processing software to restore the deteriorated images to what they probably looked like 120 years ago. The publisher of the new book claims copyright on the restored figures. Now, with regard to "new material" that a publisher adds to an old book when they republish it. What do you think of an argument that says that the new index is simply facts: these names appear in the book, and they have simply arranged them in alphabetical order. No creativity there, is there? *BTW If you are interested in those images (German history), see http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~glennrp/marchrev/ Glenn

I am a non-lawyer interested in copyright. After sitting mostly silent on this list for several months, I have come to the conclusion that next to Disney and Microsoft, genealogists (and genealogical publishers) seem to be the worst offenders in claiming a copyright where none exists. For example, in a recent post to this list, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote in response to a question about the copyright status of a resissued published work that had fallen out of copyright and then is republished as books or CDs: >If the publisher has made images of the pages of the old material, the images >are covered by a new copyright, so you can't reproduce the images (in >excess of fair use) without permission for the next 95 years but you can >freely transcribe the information from them. While many publishers will tell you differently, the only court case on this matter of which I am aware (Bridgeman v. Corel) would seem to imply that in most cases the act of copying a public domain two-dimensional work does not in itself have enough creativity to warrant copyright protection. It may require a lot of skill, and it may be hard work, but it is not creative - and creativity is required for copyright protection. This is why many publishers are now licensing access to materials rather than just selling it. Through a license a publisher _may_ be able to limit the uses made of the material they have scanned or republished, but which is not itself copyrighted. Similarly, a recent thoughtful and knowledgeable email from Richard Pence, forwarded to the list with permission by Alexandra Robbins, correctly noted that copyright protection can extend to compilations of facts. I wonder, though, about the conclusion that Pence drew from this: >So "facts" aren't quite so uncopyrightable as some believe. One is free >to >get his or her own bee stings while copying these same tombstones and >then >publish them. But he or she has no right to copy another's published >compilation, even if it consists entirely of "facts." The question here is not who got bee stings compiling the data (since copyright law does not recognize "sweat of the brow" - or bee stings - as a basis for copyright), but rather the creativity of the compilation. It is the nature of the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the facts in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship that determines whether the work is copyrighted. And the copyright would only extend to the selection and arrangement - and not to the underlying facts. If the book of cemetery inscriptions, therefore, is a comprehensive, alphabetical transcription of all the tombstones in the cemetery, I suspect the courts, following Feist, would conclude that the cemetery transcriptions lacked sufficient creativity in selection or arrangement. And even if the selection or arrangement was copyrightable, it is my understanding that there is nothing legally that would stop someone else from taking a portion (even a large portion) of the facts in the work and rearranging them in a different fashion (chronologically, say, rather than by alphabet). Pence recognized some might feel this way, and wrote: >It can be argued that this compilation of inscriptions or that may not >meet >the requirements of "original authorship," but in my opinion it is the >professional genealogist who should insist that such works be accorded >the >full protection of the copyright laws. You can put a copyright statement on anything, but insisting that something is copyrighted doesn't make it so. Pence goes on: >Aside from the obvious circumstance that some may be the >authors/compilers >of such works, an equally compelling reason is that without copyright >protection the supply of this kind of valuable material will dry up. No >rational person is going to go through the intense effort of copying a >cemetery's tombstone inscriptions, compiling this information in a useful >and usable fashion and then publishing it - not if a couple of weeks >later >some fellow decides it is quite all right to "copy and repost them with a >new presentation." If what Pence says is true, there are a lot of irrational people on the Internet. :-) One of the most remarkable things about genealogical work on the Net is how many people there are who are doing exactly what Pence says they won't do - transcribing cemetery inscriptions, indexing census records, scanning documents, etc. - and then putting them up on the web for free. Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider the possibility that our copyright laws as written favor too much the literary accomplishments of creative writers. The lack of protection for people who work with facts or in the public domain may serve as a disincentive for the development of products in those areas. Copyright is a bargain. The public gives to the creator of intellectual property a limited monopoly on the exploitation of that property as an incentive to create the intellectual property in the first place. It may be that society may want to give to genealogists a similar incentive to ensure that new compilations of facts are produced. I suspect, though, that current legislative efforts in this area (including H.R. 354, which may make it illegal to extract _any_ genealogical information from a published genealogy without permission unless one is a Mormon) go too far in the other direction. It is understandable that compilers may feel cheated if the product of their hard work is appropriated by another. They may wish to challenge this action on the basis of ethics or contract law (assuming that use of the material is licensed). But genealogists should recognize that copyright law may be of little use to them. If they realize this, genealogists may come to recognize that seeing broad distribution and approval of their work is reward enough. Peter Hirtle [email protected]

At 08:12 AM 3/4/00 -0600, [email protected] wrote: >If the book has a copyright dated 1994, why doesn't it cover the entire >book? >Alexandra The material from 1920 is in the public domain. That copyright is lapsed and is beyond the point where it could possibly have been renewed. See the following from my web-site: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright5.htm Just Because a Work is Copyrighted Doesn't Mean Everything in it is A work's copyright protection can only be extended to those parts of a work that are original to the author. When the author clothes facts or ideas with an original description or other original collection of words, then this written expression may be protected. However, the underlying facts or ideas may be copied by others, but not the precise words used to present them. If a compiler adds no written expression and only lets the facts speak for themselves, the protection of copyright may only be extended to the originality of the selection and/or arrangement, if there is any originality. One aspect of this that is often misunderstood is that the copyright of a work in no way can have an impact on the status of pre-existing material. If the work contains information that is in the public domain or is copyrighted by another individual, then that portion of the work is still in the public domain or still covered by the copyright of the other individual, as the case may be. This is a very important point in genealogy. The majority of information in any genealogical work is in the public domain by virtue of being facts or presumed facts. The copyright status of the work that they are contained in does not remove them from being in the public domain. The facts contained in existing compilations, which is what most genealogical works are, "may be freely copied because copyright protects only the elements that owe their origin to the compiler -- the selection, coordination, and arrangements of facts." (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc.) Other aspects of copyright are covered at my web site http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm Mike >On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:34:53 -0700 "W. David Samuelsen" ><[email protected]> writes: > > only the old part. > > > > W. David Samuelsen > > > > Adina Dyer wrote: > > > > > > I have a question regarding a book which was published in 1920. > > Its copyright has expired, but it has been reprinted and one > > publishing company has put a copyright date on it of 1971, and another >put a > > > copyright date of 1994 on it. I've seen the original book and as > > far as I can tell, the only thing that has been added to it is an >index. > > > Is it legal for me to transcribe parts of this book for my web site? > > > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > > > Adina > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > > Freepages, that is free web pages > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > > > > > ============================== > > > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > > > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > > > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ > > > > > > ==== 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. > > > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Check out the new communities at RootsWeb >http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > >============================== >Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject. >RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions. >http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi

Never covered entire book - only the new additions to the original portion. W. David Samuelsen [email protected] wrote: > > If the book has a copyright dated 1994, why doesn't it cover the entire > book? > Alexandra > > On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:34:53 -0700 "W. David Samuelsen" > <[email protected]> writes: > > only the old part. > > > > W. David Samuelsen > > > > Adina Dyer wrote: > > > > > > I have a question regarding a book which was published in 1920. > > Its copyright has expired, but it has been reprinted and one > > publishing company has put a copyright date on it of 1971, and another > put a > > > copyright date of 1994 on it. I've seen the original book and as > > far as I can tell, the only thing that has been added to it is an > index. > > > Is it legal for me to transcribe parts of this book for my web site? > > > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > > > Adina > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > > Freepages, that is free web pages > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > > > > > ============================== > > > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > > > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > > > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ > > > > > > ==== 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. > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > ============================== > Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject. > RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions. > http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi

If the book has a copyright dated 1994, why doesn't it cover the entire book? Alexandra On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:34:53 -0700 "W. David Samuelsen" <[email protected]> writes: > only the old part. > > W. David Samuelsen > > Adina Dyer wrote: > > > > I have a question regarding a book which was published in 1920. > Its copyright has expired, but it has been reprinted and one > publishing company has put a copyright date on it of 1971, and another put a > > copyright date of 1994 on it. I've seen the original book and as > far as I can tell, the only thing that has been added to it is an index. > > Is it legal for me to transcribe parts of this book for my web site? > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > Adina > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Freepages, that is free web pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > > > ============================== > > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ > > > ==== 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. >

only the old part. W. David Samuelsen Adina Dyer wrote: > > I have a question regarding a book which was published in 1920. Its > copyright has expired, but it has been reprinted and one publishing > company has put a copyright date on it of 1971, and another put a > copyright date of 1994 on it. I've seen the original book and as far as > I can tell, the only thing that has been added to it is an index. > > Is it legal for me to transcribe parts of this book for my web site? > > Thanks for any help. > > Adina > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Freepages, that is free web pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/

I have a question regarding a book which was published in 1920. Its copyright has expired, but it has been reprinted and one publishing company has put a copyright date on it of 1971, and another put a copyright date of 1994 on it. I've seen the original book and as far as I can tell, the only thing that has been added to it is an index. Is it legal for me to transcribe parts of this book for my web site? Thanks for any help. Adina

a problem here. what about vanquished cemeteries that had been relocated to other cemeteries to make way for reservoirs, super- highways, buildings, etc. What about no body in that area is anywhere close to being interested at all? W. David Samuelsen [email protected] wrote: > > Why don't people just go out there are copy tombstones or records themselves > and add to the pool of information instead of "sharing" someone else's hard > work? > > Yvonne > > ==== 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.

Why don't people just go out there are copy tombstones or records themselves and add to the pool of information instead of "sharing" someone else's hard work? Yvonne

This message is being sent with permission of the writer, who was responding to a fellow list member. It Alexandra --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Richard A. Pence" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:35:09 -0500 Subject: [APG] Copyright Infringement > Interestingly enough, you might be ok posting their cemetery > transcriptions without their permission. Since they are merely > compilations of facts (what it says on the tombstone), if you > copy and repost them with a new presentation (ie dont just post > scans of their book) you would probably win in court. > See the classic "Feist vs. Rural Telephone Co" case. We are now at the point where we're saying, "so sue me," right? Interestingly enough, the Copyright Office doesn't agree with the above "interestingly enough." Ben says a book of tombstone inscriptions is merely a "compilation of facts" and thus in not protected by copyright law. The U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Circular 65, says that such a work can be copyrighted as "a compilation, which is defined in the law as a work 'formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'" [Note that in the 1960s or 1970s, the genealogy community, including the NGS, vigorously and successfully got the Copyright Office to recognize publications such as inscriptions or county records as copyrightable "compilations" when more than a modicum of interpretation was involved.] The Office further says that "Copyright protection extends to the _compilation of facts_ if the compilation represents original authorship." [Emphasis added.] So "facts" aren't quite so uncopyrightable as some believe. One is free to get his or her own bee stings while copying these same tombstones and then publish them. But he or she has no right to copy another's published compilation, even if it consists entirely of "facts." As for Feist vs. Rural Telephone, a case that is widely quoted by internet "genealogists" to validate their theft of genealogical "facts," it clearly comes under this provision in a list of materials not entitled to copyright protection: Copyright protection is not available for a work "where the collection and arrangement of the material is a mechanical task only, and represents no original authorship ..." A phone book is an alphabetized list of names and numbers. Creation of such a list is merely a mechanical task. It can be argued that this compilation of inscriptions or that may not meet the requirements of "original authorship," but in my opinion it is the professional genealogist who should insist that such works be accorded the full protection of the copyright laws. Aside from the obvious circumstance that some may be the authors/compilers of such works, an equally compelling reason is that without copyright protection the supply of this kind of valuable material will dry up. No rational person is going to go through the intense effort of copying a cemetery's tombstone inscriptions, compiling this information in a useful and usable fashion and then publishing it - not if a couple of weeks later some fellow decides it is quite all right to "copy and repost them with a new presentation." Even if the law didn't preclude this, such an action would, at best, be less than honest and, I would hope, be considered highly unethical. The matter of materials in book form held by local societies is a different question. Obviously, these societies depend at least to some extent on the sale of their books for income. For that reason, there is a reluctance to allow their contents to be put on line. The reality is that few such books do little more than pay the printing bill. This means that in the future, on-line publication will increase: No club president likes to make a decision about spending $1,000 to print a book that people may or may not buy - not when it cost practically nothing to put the information on line. Regards, Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030 Voice 703-591-4243 Fax 703-385-0971 Pence Family History <http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>

At 12:28 PM 2/28/00 -0600, you wrote: >I don't understand "you can't reproduce the images . . . but you can >freely transcribe the information from them." > >How about a couple of examples? Thank you. >Alexandra One example is the recent project to scan census records and put them on CDs. The company (S-K Publications) tightly controls what you can do with the CDs they have produced for you, and they won't let you modify the images that they donate to USGENweb. This came up a few months ago when someone complained that the images aren't very legible when presented on a WebTV screen. A solution to that problem would be to split each page in two, so you can look at just the left half, where the names are, without it being compressed down to illegibility. I wrote the company, described the problem and asked for permission to do that and they said no. Glenn

I don't understand "you can't reproduce the images . . . but you can freely transcribe the information from them." How about a couple of examples? Thank you. Alexandra <snip> > Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote: ><snip> > > If the publisher has made images of the pages of the old material, > the images are covered by a new copyright, so you can't reproduce the images > (in excess of fair use) without permission for the next 95 years but > you can freely transcribe the information from them. <snip>

BINGO! Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote: > > At 07:41 AM 2/28/00 -0500, Mariana Bean Ruggles wrote: > >The question of copyright regarding 'out of copyright' material newly > >re-issued.....either as books or as CDs has come up on my email list. > >What is the correct answer to "Is this material now covered by copyright?" > > Only new material added (such as a new index) is covered by a new copyright. > If the publisher has made images of the pages of the old material, the images > are covered by a new copyright, so you can't reproduce the images (in > excess of fair use) without permission for the next 95 years but you can > freely transcribe the information from them. > > Glenn, who is not a lawyer > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject. > RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions. > http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi

The copyright only applied on how it is presented, including any new additions such as search engine, format, etc. The copyright of the scanned book had ALREADY been expired (if before Jan 1, 1923) and it stays that way. W. David Samuelsen Mariana wrote: > > The question of copyright regarding 'out of copyright' material newly > re-issued.....either as books or as CDs has come up on my email list. > What is the correct answer to "Is this material now covered by copyright?" > > Thanks, > Mariana > > Mariana Bean Ruggles [email protected] > http://www.pieces-n-time.com > Listowner MAESSEX Mail List > Rootsweb.com Donor > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > ============================== > Free Web space. ANY amount. ANY subject. > RootsWeb's Freepages put you in touch with millions. > http://cgi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/acctform.cgi

At 07:41 AM 2/28/00 -0500, Mariana Bean Ruggles wrote: >The question of copyright regarding 'out of copyright' material newly >re-issued.....either as books or as CDs has come up on my email list. >What is the correct answer to "Is this material now covered by copyright?" Only new material added (such as a new index) is covered by a new copyright. If the publisher has made images of the pages of the old material, the images are covered by a new copyright, so you can't reproduce the images (in excess of fair use) without permission for the next 95 years but you can freely transcribe the information from them. Glenn, who is not a lawyer

The question of copyright regarding 'out of copyright' material newly re-issued.....either as books or as CDs has come up on my email list. What is the correct answer to "Is this material now covered by copyright?" Thanks, Mariana Mariana Bean Ruggles [email protected] http://www.pieces-n-time.com Listowner MAESSEX Mail List Rootsweb.com Donor

Hi, If you'll do a search on one of the internet search engines with the phrases "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and "fair use," you'll come up with a lot of hits. From a limited 30 minute study of the act, I've learned that one of the things that held it up in committee was how to ensure that the "fair use" principle was not overridden. Over and over and over again in on-line articles written by lawyers it is stated that the fair use principle does apply even to the electronic media which is what the act addresses. I've included a couple below. Mike 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. http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/band.html Jonathan Band Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. "Standard copyright rules, including proper clearance and fair use, apply to that material. " http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/osp.html Law Offices Lutzker & Lutzker LLP At 09:36 PM 2/27/00 -0700, J. C. Biggs wrote: >In the copyright law class that I am currently taking via Virtual >University, the topic of FAIR USE has come up in that the DIGITAL >MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (DMCA) of 1998 does not provide for fair use. >DMCA heavily favors copyright holders' rights and makes no mention of >FAIR USE, which is interpreted by some as to make void the previous >rulings regarding FAIR USE. Of course this will eventually be clarified >by Congress and/or the courts. But until then, our instructor suggests >that it is better to err on the side of caution and obtain permission to >use copyrighted material, no matter how seemingly inconsequential it >might be. > >As an instructor in non-profit schools, I had relied heavily on FAIR USE >in the past and was not informed as to the DMCA before taking this >class. Just wanted to pass this along to those we are interested in >this facet of copyright law. >~JoanB > >------------------------> > > > Small portions of any copyrighted material may be copied without infringing > > on copyright. This is the "fair use" principle. > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Freepages, that is free web pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > >============================== >Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. >http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >Brought to you by RootsWeb.com.