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.

At 04:21 PM 2/25/00 -0600, Mike and Karen Goad wrote: Let me clarify a couple of things from my last post. Proper citation of author has no impact on whether an item is copyrighted or not. New ORIGINAL material is automatically covered by copyright. Failure to include proper citation may be plagiarism. Plagiarism and copyright are NOT related. Plagiarism refers to what may be unethical portrayal of other's material as one's own. It's unethical, not illegal. Small portions of any copyrighted material may be copied without infringing on copyright. This is the "fair use" principle. (This is covered on my web-site). The correct web address for my site is: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm Mike >Whether or not someone is credited with the info is not important so far >as copyright protection. Today copyright protection begins at the moment >that ORIGINAL material is created and put into words. What I am writing >at this moment is technically protected. > >Some of the material may be okay to share around so long as it is either >in the public domain or is just plain facts. Also, don't forget that >small portions of anything may be copied. Proper citation of the source >is important, though. > >http://www.rootsweb.com/copyright1.htm > >Mike Goad > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >Search ALL of RootsWeb's mailing lists in real time. >RootsWeb's Personalized Mailing Lists: >http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >

At 12:23 PM 2/25/00 -0800, Andrea Vogel wrote: >Hi all -- I am wondering about copyright concerning data which can be found >on the GENUKI web site (a huge site about UK genealogy). Usually there is no >one credited with the info, so don't know who to contact about it. The >material I am wondering about are village histories, also some church record >transcriptions are to be found there. What about copy/paste to other sites, >mail lists, etc? Is this a no-no or is this stuff that is meant to be shared >around? This site is not like Cyndi's List which is has been compiled by one >person -- all kinds of genealogical societies, county family history groups, >etc. add their info to the GENUKI site so it is a real mixture of sources >and >input. > What say you, folks? Thanks. Andrea Whether or not someone is credited with the info is not important so far as copyright protection. Today copyright protection begins at the moment that ORIGINAL material is created and put into words. What I am writing at this moment is technically protected. Some of the material may be okay to share around so long as it is either in the public domain or is just plain facts. Also, don't forget that small portions of anything may be copied. Proper citation of the source is important, though. http://www.rootsweb.com/copyright1.htm Mike Goad

Andrea Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all -- I am wondering about copyright concerning data which can be > found on the GENUKI web site (a huge site about UK genealogy). Usually Further to my last message regarding this query -- here is the prominent notice displayed on the welcome page of GENUK. I think this says it allI: "Note: The information provided by GENUKI must not be used for commercial purposes, and all specific restrictions concerning usage, copyright notices, etc., that are to be found on individual information pages within GENUKI must be strictly adhered to. Violation of these rules could gravely harm the cooperation that GENUKI is obtaining from many information providers, and hence threaten its whole future." Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ Upper-Canada Mail List http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/lists/uppercanada.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrea Anything published on a website is copyrighted the second it is uploaded and online. Most websites have copyright notices prominently displayed -- usually along the lines of that anyone may link to the site but may not publish or re-distribute information found there. If it's on GENUKI (or anywhere else) it is copyright to them. The facts are public domain but the way GENUKI presents those facts or the extra wording they have added to the basic facts, is copyright. You cannot 'lift' entire sections or articles or webpages and send them out on mail lists or other distribution sites. It doesn't matter how many hands went into the transcribing of information or writing of articles for a website -- it is still copyright to the website maintainers/owners or the individuals themselves if so noted. And really -- even it it weren't copyright, why would you do that? Every site wants visitors which is why they go to all that trouble and hard work to gather the information and code it for online viewing. If you took that article/history/whatever and started sending it all around the 'net, or put it on your own webpage, you would have completely negated any reason a researcher has to go to GENUKI (or any site) Bottom line? No, you can't just lift things from other folk's sites and send them around the Internet. Andrea Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all -- I am wondering about copyright concerning data which can be > found on the GENUKI web site (a huge site about UK genealogy). Usually > there is no one credited with the info, so don't know who to contact about > it. The material I am wondering about are village histories, also some > church record transcriptions are to be found there. What about copy/paste > to other sites, mail lists, etc? Is this a no-no or is this stuff that is > meant to be shared around? This site is not like Cyndi's List which is has > been compiled by one person -- all kinds of genealogical societies, county > family history groups, etc. add their info to the GENUKI site so it is a > real mixture of sources and input. > What say you, folks? Thanks. Andrea > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ > Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ Upper-Canada Mail List http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/lists/uppercanada.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi all -- I am wondering about copyright concerning data which can be found on the GENUKI web site (a huge site about UK genealogy). Usually there is no one credited with the info, so don't know who to contact about it. The material I am wondering about are village histories, also some church record transcriptions are to be found there. What about copy/paste to other sites, mail lists, etc? Is this a no-no or is this stuff that is meant to be shared around? This site is not like Cyndi's List which is has been compiled by one person -- all kinds of genealogical societies, county family history groups, etc. add their info to the GENUKI site so it is a real mixture of sources and input. What say you, folks? Thanks. Andrea

Alexandra - This is a great question well put. It is an issue that I myself have come up against. I have found books in libraries that I wished I could reprint of publish online or on CD-ROM also. This in the context of genealogical research. Tell me more about your interests. Bill Gordon

Can someone answer this person's question, which I found on another list? Notice the "Cc:" so that she will receive your reply. Thank you. Alexandra On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:51:44 -0500 Lucie Fritz <[email protected]> writes: > What about the copyrights on a book that is way out of print (1912) > and the publisher has been bought out by another company, which doesn't > publish books in the same domain? > > I borrowed an old book from the State Library which has a great deal > of valuable genealogical information, not only to me, but potentially > to many, many others. The book is falling apart, and needs to be > salvaged. The publisher was bought sometime in the last ten years, > and now only publishes law books, I think. > > I don't even know how to contact the origianl publisher, and the > author is long dead. What would I best do before attempting to put the > contents of the book on-line, as I have contemplated doing?

--part1_70.14b54e7.25e5fab1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subscribe I am looking for a book by Lester and Opal Saffell, written in 1978 USA. SAFFELL FAMILIES USA from 1712 to 1978 I'm not 100% sure but it is a book on all of the Saffell families from Samuel Saffell (1712 from England to America) to 1978. It is no longer being published. I would really appreciate if anyone could find a copy for me. Thanks in advance. Charles W. Saffell Jr. --part1_70.14b54e7.25e5fab1_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (rly-yb02.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.2]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:21:30 -0500 Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) by rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:21:26 1900 Received: (from [email protected]) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29502; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:20:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:20:35 -0800 (PST) From: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:19:57 EST Subject: Out-of-print books Old-To: [email protected] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Resent-Message-ID: <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Resent-From: [email protected] X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/21 X-Loop: [email protected] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [email protected] In a message dated 1/29/00 7:06:37 AM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: << As Paula Wiegand pointed out, you can also try bookstores for an out of print book. You can also put the word out on the Internet that you're looking for it. >> Absolutely. There are people who make their living finding and selling out-of-print books. They would probably be delighted to hear from you. Yvonne ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== Threaded archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ ============================== Search ALL of RootsWeb's mailing lists in real time. RootsWeb's Personalized Mailing Lists: http://pml.rootsweb.com/ --part1_70.14b54e7.25e5fab1_boundary--

Is anyone keeping up with this issue? ~JoanB

Joan, this is an active list. You'll notice a flurry of messages when a particular issue comes up. In the meantime, you might want to see the archives. To search archives by key word, go to http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl and type the name of the list, COPYRIGHT. In the query box that comes up, type your key word. Also choose the year you want to search first. To search sequentially/chronologically, go to http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT The URL is case sensitive. (Use upper- & lower-case letters exactly.) If you have never used the archives before, you will be asked to establish a user name and password. You will use the same user name and password to access archives in the future. Regards, Alexandra On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:57:50 -0700 "J. C. Biggs" <[email protected]> writes: > I joined this list about a week ago and have not received any > messages. > Just wondering if this is an active list or if one of my many email > filters is sticking my mail into another folder! Oh the wonders of > the > techie age, will they never cease to amaze me? > ~JoanB > > > ==== 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. >

I joined this list about a week ago and have not received any messages. Just wondering if this is an active list or if one of my many email filters is sticking my mail into another folder! Oh the wonders of the techie age, will they never cease to amaze me? ~JoanB

Richard, I agree with you that it is not right to do that without proper source citation. Frankly, there is so little source citation on anything that anyone finds on the internet... and I often found facts and/or sentences that were taken from work I have provided someone. I believe very few people take the time to properly source their data so they know where each and every fact came from, or every sentence they might "borrow." I just don't get as upset over it when bits of my work turn up in someone else's. I would feel differently if entire blocks or pages were lifted. One rarely sees a web site that has included sources in it. I always posted sources for each fact on my web sites. Out of curiosity as to how many people were looking at the source page, I included a counter on the page which included some 500 sources. I was surprised to see that the source page had very few hits, even though I knew many of the other pages were receiving a great many. It always struck me as strange that few folks seemed to care about copying the sources to verify the facts or any of the information they found on my pages. Since few people seem to record the sources on the data they get from the net, it makes it difficult for them to credit anyone with the information or research. As I said, it just hasn't upset me that much when a sentence or two of my work has been used by other people. Although I would have liked to have been credited, I've come to expect that as long as I'm posting anything on the internet or sharing any data with anyone at all, some of that is going to happen when so many folks aren't any more careful recording sources than many are. And it is true that facts cannot be copyrighted. Trish At 01:10 PM 2/12/2000 -0500, you wrote: At the risk of appearing pedantic, the dictionary definition of plagiarize (using The American Heritage Dictionary, 1993 Houghton Mifflin) is: 1. To use or pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of another). 2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from another. --intr. To plagiarize the ideas or words of another. There is nothing more destructive to research and the free exchange of information than this despicable behavior on the part of Ms. Robbin's thief. Already, Ms. Robbins has stated that she will not be posting to GenForum "for awhile" and I, for one, find that to be a sad state of affairs for everyone of us. Not meaning to flame anyone, using a "sentence or two here and there",* without proper attribution and permission is not the right thing to do and is not acceptable. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: GenOdyssey [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 11:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Infringement & plagiarism from GenForum > > > I looked at the page on the URL you posted, but am not seeing why this > would be an example of copyright infringement and plagarism. Perhaps I > missed something... or I didn't read the page the way you > intended it to be > read from the occurrences you mention? Perhaps there were whole > blocks of > text used instead of only facts or a *sentence or two here and there?

Alexandra I urge you to complain to the server which provides webspace for the pages made of your posted notes and articles. You have spoken to the website owner, who has not removed the work and now you must go beyond him/her. I have had to fight to protect The Olive Tree Genealogy's copyright many times -- and will continue to do so. It is effort, but it's worth it. It may take awhile but you can, and should, protect your work from those who prefer to liberate it rather than seek permission from you to use it with the accredited source, or to do their own work. > Here are examples of copyright infringement and plagiarism from material > posted on GenForum: > > http://genforum.genealogy.com/zumwalt/messages/198.html > > Alexandra Robbin > > Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At the risk of appearing pedantic, the dictionary definition of plagiarize (using The American Heritage Dictionary, 1993 Houghton Mifflin) is: 1. To use or pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of another). 2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from another. --intr. To plagiarize the ideas or words of another. There is nothing more destructive to research and the free exchange of information than this despicable behavior on the part of Ms. Robbin's thief. Already, Ms. Robbins has stated that she will not be posting to GenForum "for awhile" and I, for one, find that to be a sad state of affairs for everyone of us. Not meaning to flame anyone, using a "sentence or two here and there",* without proper attribution and permission is not the right thing to do and is not acceptable. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: GenOdyssey [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 11:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Infringement & plagiarism from GenForum > > > I looked at the page on the URL you posted, but am not seeing why this > would be an example of copyright infringement and plagarism. Perhaps I > missed something... or I didn't read the page the way you > intended it to be > read from the occurrences you mention? Perhaps there were whole > blocks of > text used instead of only facts or a *sentence or two here and there?

I looked at the page on the URL you posted, but am not seeing why this would be an example of copyright infringement and plagarism. Perhaps I missed something... or I didn't read the page the way you intended it to be read from the occurrences you mention? Perhaps there were whole blocks of text used instead of only facts or a sentence or two here and there? Trish At 08:31 AM 2/12/2000 -0600, [email protected] wrote: >Here are examples of copyright infringement and plagiarism from material >posted on GenForum: > >http://genforum.genealogy.com/zumwalt/messages/198.html > >Alexandra Robbin

Regarding the thread on scanning a Genealogical Publishing Company's 1976 reprint of an out-of-print, out-of-copyright book: Mike Goad has asked: What was the decision of the court on the lawsuit? Mike, I'm sorry that I cannot report with certainty how the situation came out. I believe that the date book company that was being sued settled out of court for a low six-figure amount, thus no court decision would have had to be made in this particular case. Be that as it may, my major point was that the publisher of the 1976 reprint might sue on a similar basis, if their product is the one proposed to be copied/scanned. I don't think most of the "scan, scan, scan" advocates consider this aspect. And it is not clear to me that the initiator of this thread was asking if it was okay to reproduce the GPC product. She might have been asking if the original text was somehow re-copyrighted under GPC, which I think you answered cogently; and that she intended to scan the original, not GPC's volumes. Given the experience I have noted regarding the diary houses, I think the wisest move would be to scan the original. [email protected] has asked: What if the reprint is a facismile copy of the original reprinted by GPC? Does that change anything? Logically, I would guess that to reproduce a reproduction this way might be acceptible, but one has to wonder what changes may have been created by GPC in order to reduce the volumes from four to two. I think this tells us that GPC did, in fact, invest time and effort in creating this product for today's market. I have no idea how the lawyers would argue their respective sides on this, nor how the courts would ultimately decide. I do believe, however, that if I were on the jury and images of GPC's product were reproduced on a webpage without their permission, I would conclude that GPC was being denied their right to earn a profit from their investment. Richard

Here are examples of copyright infringement and plagiarism from material posted on GenForum: http://genforum.genealogy.com/zumwalt/messages/198.html Alexandra Robbin

At 10:28 AM 2/11/00 -0500, Richard A. McCool wrote: >They >reproduced that page from the competitors' book and the lawsuit response was >immediate What was the decision of the court on the lawsuit?

However, is not the potential problem here in the scanning of GPC's pages as opposed to the pages of the original? A few years ago I worked for a date book company that decided to compete with a well-known diary house that specialized in a date book centered on New York City. All of the pages of "my" company's were original, except they ran out of development time and took a short-cut for one page. They reproduced that page from the competitors' book and the lawsuit response was immediate. It was not the data on that page, it was the photo-reproduction of it. I advise caution if the intention is to scan GPC's product. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Goad [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Reprints? > > > At 09:58 AM 2/10/00 -0600, you wrote: > >The four-volume SOME PROMINENT VIRGINIA FAMILIES by Louise Pecquet du > >Bellet was originally published in 1907. Genealogical > Publishing Company > >reprinted it in 1976, combining volumes so that now it is only two > >books. There is no index, so putting these books online would enable > >searching and increase their usefulness. Does Genealogical Publishing > >Company hold a copyright, do you think? How would someone go about > >finding out? 1200+ pages would be a lot of trouble to scan, if only to > >find that it could not be put online...... > > If the books were published in 1907, they are in the public domain. Once > in the public domain, always in the public domain. Even if the material > were published in a new book with new material added, only the new > material would be protected and then only if originality is > involved in the > new material. So putting two volumes of public domain material into one > volume results in .... what? > > One volume of public domain material. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm > > Mike Goad > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=copyright > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ > >