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

Hi All, My question is if something from the last century is reprinted does the publisher gain a new copyright, or is just newly added info his copyright. Can I legally post info from the old books on the web?? Cec [So many things to ponder]

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...... Carol C-H <[email protected]> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give. ~Gibran~

Yes, -- thanks for pointing out that caveat. On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > Be careful... > > any reprint might have additions in front or in back such as indexes > that didn't exist in original edition. > > David > > Patricia Tidmarsh wrote: > > > > Double-checking --I want to ask the subscribers to my lists to post > > material from 19c books and newspapers to the lists and boards. I think I > > can make a blanket, across-the- board-statement that anything published in > > the 19c is not under copyright > > > > Right? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Freepages, that is free web pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > > > ============================== > > Search ALL of RootsWeb's mailing lists in real time. > > RootsWeb's Personalized Mailing Lists: > > http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >

Be careful... any reprint might have additions in front or in back such as indexes that didn't exist in original edition. David Patricia Tidmarsh wrote: > > Double-checking --I want to ask the subscribers to my lists to post > material from 19c books and newspapers to the lists and boards. I think I > can make a blanket, across-the- board-statement that anything published in > the 19c is not under copyright > > Right? > > Thanks > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Freepages, that is free web pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/press/freepages.html > > ============================== > Search ALL of RootsWeb's mailing lists in real time. > RootsWeb's Personalized Mailing Lists: > http://pml.rootsweb.com/

Double-checking --I want to ask the subscribers to my lists to post material from 19c books and newspapers to the lists and boards. I think I can make a blanket, across-the- board-statement that anything published in the 19c is not under copyright Right? Thanks

> > I am currently preparing a family history for publication and plan to > retype several articles written by a relative for a newspaper and > published in the 1890s, and I also plan to copy some obits. As far as I > know I am not infringing on the copyright law. I live in Canada and would > be interested in any comments from fellow Canadians, i.e. am I breaking > the law? > John The Department of Justice, Canada, has the complete copyright laws online at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/STABLE/EN/Laws/Chap/C/C-42.html Consolidated Statutes — Complete documents for download You must download the files Chapter C-42 Copyright Act -- available in French or English Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi: I am currently preparing a family history for publication and plan to retype several articles written by a relative for a newspaper and published in the 1890s, and I also plan to copy some obits. As far as I know I am not infringing on the copyright law. I live in Canada and would be interested in any comments from fellow Canadians, i.e. am I breaking the law? John [email protected]

Hi, As a moderator for an obituary project, the project has been under a lot of scrutiny lately from newspapers. This has come about because we have contributors that INDEX the contents of each obit from a newspaper for submission into an online database. As a contributor (vs a user) to this database, you have the opportunity to contact the submitter and request a copy of the obit (emailed off to you). We have always considered this to be a reasonable and fair judgement of using the Fair Use act. Lately we have been getting newspaper editors contacting us to tell us that we are infringing upon their copyright. But since copyright relates only to the presentation (and the potential "boiler plate"), the facts that we index are not subject to their scrutiny. I, personally, have not yet gotten to the stage of writing the family history that I have been working on. But I have seen other works where they have done both - used either the photcopied obit or retyped it. This is a very intriguing issue - and I hope that more people respond to this question. Thanks! Peggy Perry President, Iowa County Genealogical Society Visit us at: http://www.friendsnfamily.net/wiiowagensoc/index.html Moderator for The Obituary Daily Times For Obituaries from around the world - visit us at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~obituary County Coordinator for the Wisconsin GenWeb Program - Iowa County Visit us at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiiowa Owner of the Iowa County Wisconsin Mailing list to subscribe <[email protected]> message: subscribe Co-Owner of the GenMsc mailing list to subscribe: <[email protected]> message: subscribe ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike and Karen Goad <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 5:58 AM Subject: Re: reference use of newspaper articles > Hi all, > > So far as using the obits as photocopies, I haven't done that so I can't > answer that. However, there are a couple of other interesting issues. > > Yes, if it's before 1923, it's public domain. If it's after 1922, it may > be public domain. > > If it's after 1923, the copyright protection for obits may not be as strong > as for other material in the newspaper and, as well, the obit may well fall > under the fair use principle of the law. > > Most obits are not original. Sure, the names and the narrative are > somewhat tailored for the individual, but most obits look and sound the > same. That''s because they are created by use of a "boiler-plate," where > the information for the individual is filled into a pre-existing > template. There is little or no originality to this and, above all else, > originality is a requirement for copyright protection. > > On the other hand, if an obit is more in the form of a long narrative that > departs from the standard template used by a particular newspaper, then > originality, and thus copyright protection, comes more into play. > > Obituaries are generally a fairly small portion of a newspaper's > material. For years after 1923, if one were to be reproducing all of the > obits from multiple issues of a local newspaper, it would be wise to get > the permission of the newspaper. However, if only the obits for one's kin > are being copied, in most instances, that should fall under the fair use > principle of copyright law. > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm > > Finally, I doubt that most newspapers would have bothered to renew their > copyrights. That means that 1923 copyrights would have lapsed after > whatever the copyright time frame was at the time. I also wonder how many > newspapers met the copyright requirements of actually registering with the > copyright office. Under the old laws, registration was a requirement for > any copyright protection, I believe. > > Mike Goad > > > At 11:42 PM 2/2/00 -0700, Jennie wrote: > >Hi! > > > >I'm a lurker and have been keeping up with the list. I know this question > >is a little off topic, but the subject hit me as I was reading some posts. > >I would like to include all the information I can in my final work. I > >have collected lots of obituaries on most of my family members. Some are > >photocopied and others are handwritten. My mom has told me (I'm a young > >genealogist at 25yrs.) that the photocopies are more interesting with > >their particular kind of print than if I were to type out each obit on the > >computer. I would like to include as many obits as possible. The reason > >why I bring this up is because not too long ago I read a lot of > >discussions on another list about how you had to get permission from the > >newspaper first. I don't believe a lot of the newspapers I have articles > >from are still in business. > > > > From reading lots of discussions on copyright, am I correct to assume > > that all newspaper articles dated prior to 1923 are in the public domain? > > Could I copy, crop, and paste? I would say 99% of the obituaries I have > > are documented with the newspaper name and date. I have always included > > this information and would if I could use them. The ones that aren't well > > documented (i.e. cut out articles found in a shoebox belonging to my > > grandma) I label unknown paper and date. > > > >Has anyone on this list used photocopies of obituaries in their work? If > >so, I would like to know where you include it. Before or after death date, > >copies of funeral cards, probate records, etc...? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Jennie Williams > > > > > > > >==== 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 > > ______________________________

[email protected] ===== JN 3:16 & PS 23 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

[email protected] ===== JN 3:16 & PS 23 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

Hi all, So far as using the obits as photocopies, I haven't done that so I can't answer that. However, there are a couple of other interesting issues. Yes, if it's before 1923, it's public domain. If it's after 1922, it may be public domain. If it's after 1923, the copyright protection for obits may not be as strong as for other material in the newspaper and, as well, the obit may well fall under the fair use principle of the law. Most obits are not original. Sure, the names and the narrative are somewhat tailored for the individual, but most obits look and sound the same. That''s because they are created by use of a "boiler-plate," where the information for the individual is filled into a pre-existing template. There is little or no originality to this and, above all else, originality is a requirement for copyright protection. On the other hand, if an obit is more in the form of a long narrative that departs from the standard template used by a particular newspaper, then originality, and thus copyright protection, comes more into play. Obituaries are generally a fairly small portion of a newspaper's material. For years after 1923, if one were to be reproducing all of the obits from multiple issues of a local newspaper, it would be wise to get the permission of the newspaper. However, if only the obits for one's kin are being copied, in most instances, that should fall under the fair use principle of copyright law. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm Finally, I doubt that most newspapers would have bothered to renew their copyrights. That means that 1923 copyrights would have lapsed after whatever the copyright time frame was at the time. I also wonder how many newspapers met the copyright requirements of actually registering with the copyright office. Under the old laws, registration was a requirement for any copyright protection, I believe. Mike Goad At 11:42 PM 2/2/00 -0700, Jennie wrote: >Hi! > >I'm a lurker and have been keeping up with the list. I know this question >is a little off topic, but the subject hit me as I was reading some posts. >I would like to include all the information I can in my final work. I >have collected lots of obituaries on most of my family members. Some are >photocopied and others are handwritten. My mom has told me (I'm a young >genealogist at 25yrs.) that the photocopies are more interesting with >their particular kind of print than if I were to type out each obit on the >computer. I would like to include as many obits as possible. The reason >why I bring this up is because not too long ago I read a lot of >discussions on another list about how you had to get permission from the >newspaper first. I don't believe a lot of the newspapers I have articles >from are still in business. > > From reading lots of discussions on copyright, am I correct to assume > that all newspaper articles dated prior to 1923 are in the public domain? > Could I copy, crop, and paste? I would say 99% of the obituaries I have > are documented with the newspaper name and date. I have always included > this information and would if I could use them. The ones that aren't well > documented (i.e. cut out articles found in a shoebox belonging to my > grandma) I label unknown paper and date. > >Has anyone on this list used photocopies of obituaries in their work? If >so, I would like to know where you include it. Before or after death date, >copies of funeral cards, probate records, etc...? > >Thanks, > >Jennie Williams > > > >==== 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! I'm a lurker and have been keeping up with the list. I know this question is a little off topic, but the subject hit me as I was reading some posts. I would like to include all the information I can in my final work. I have collected lots of obituaries on most of my family members. Some are photocopied and others are handwritten. My mom has told me (I'm a young genealogist at 25yrs.) that the photocopies are more interesting with their particular kind of print than if I were to type out each obit on the computer. I would like to include as many obits as possible. The reason why I bring this up is because not too long ago I read a lot of discussions on another list about how you had to get permission from the newspaper first. I don't believe a lot of the newspapers I have articles from are still in business. >From reading lots of discussions on copyright, am I correct to assume that all newspaper articles dated prior to 1923 are in the public domain? Could I copy, crop, and paste? I would say 99% of the obituaries I have are documented with the newspaper name and date. I have always included this information and would if I could use them. The ones that aren't well documented (i.e. cut out articles found in a shoebox belonging to my grandma) I label unknown paper and date. Has anyone on this list used photocopies of obituaries in their work? If so, I would like to know where you include it. Before or after death date, copies of funeral cards, probate records, etc...? Thanks, Jennie Williams

[email protected] ===== JN 3:16 & PS 23 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

[email protected] ===== JN 3:16 & PS 23 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

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

Hi, Lorine -- I'm thinking of all the old books my mother can no longer get through interlibrary loan. In the 1940s she conducted a lot of her research that way. But the books are now so rare and fragile that libraries have decided not to send them around. They might get damaged or stolen. And she has had no success through rare-book stores. This is all very ironic, because I support *not copying or plagiarizing.* I just wrote an e-mail to a name collector ("19,000 and still counting!") who is passing off my mother's hard work as his own, and I myself have a publication out of print that has been freely copied in its entirety by people I consider thieves. (The "snipping" below creates a misleading impression, as if I would begrudge the effort to find a book that's still under copyright.) Alexandra On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:56:18 -0500 "Lorine McGinnis Schulze" <[email protected]> writes: > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > book that's still under copyright. Is a person expected to hunt > all over > > through interlibrary loan? > > Actually any good librarian will do the hunting on your behalf. > > Surely you don't begrudge a few moments to ask? > > 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. > > > > Lorine McGinnis Schulze > [email protected] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ > The Canadian Military Heritage Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > book that's still under copyright. Is a person expected to hunt all over > through interlibrary loan? Actually any good librarian will do the hunting on your behalf. Surely you don't begrudge a few moments to ask? 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. Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree that there should not be a difference, but "should" and "would" are, sadly, often different. Thank you for providing points to buttress my argument on a state list, where name collectors have said they have no patience with people unwilling to share (i.e., give away) their hard work. Their rationale is often that they can't get the book. Alexandra On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:38:58 -5.00 "Paula Wiegand" <[email protected]> writes: > > It seems to me that there would be a legal difference between an > in-print > > book that's still under copyright and an out-of-print book that's > still > > under copyright. > > It doesn't and there is no real reason why it should. Who are we to > judge if and when a copyright holder will reprint his/her work? The > > copyright holder's rights are in no way diminished by their work > being (currently) out of print, although the damages awarded would > be > smaller if they could not show that a reprint was > likely/warranted/planned etc. > > > Is a person expected to hunt all over through interlibrary loan? > > Yes. But you might want to try an out-of-print bookseller, or > contact the publisher to see if they will sell you the right to make > > one copy. > > Paula > [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. >

At 06:22 PM 1/28/00 -0600, Bettie Wood wrote: >This sounds to me like we're all ok??? Along with the actual federal copyright code, the on-line text includes historical and background information on the statute. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm The fair use portion of the statute was included fairly recently to take the "fair use" concept out of common law (law that is commonly accepted and ruled on by the courts, but which is not in the written or statuatory laws) and incorporate it into legal statutes. It was intentionally left vague and was not intended to change the way that courts might regard as fair use: -quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; -quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; -use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; -summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; -reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; -reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; -reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; -incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.'' I do not think that a court would find copying of a book would fall into any category of "fair use." Mike