You certainly raise some good points. I hope Mike and others will enter this discussion. 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. Is a person expected to hunt all over through interlibrary loan? On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:22:21 -0600 Bettie Wood <[email protected]> writes: > This an out of print book. I would always rather have a book that > would > "last"! This is what I found that someone else sent me. > > This is taken from (Copyright Law section) > http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ > More specifically from: > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/chapter1.pdf > > 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 & 106A, 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 & 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 & 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 The fact that a work is unpublished shall not 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 is such finding is made upon consideration > of > all the above factors. > > This sounds to me like we're all ok??? > What I need to know now is: If it truns out to be illegal afterall, > what > are we supposed to do with what we've already copied? > Bettie <>< > > > Because it would prevent the writer and the publisher from > receiving > > their rightful income, this would certainly be unethical. (Think > of all > > the hard work and expense they invested.) > > > > I hope Mike Goad will enter this discussion. Here is what I copied > from > > him earlier this month. (Let's call it "fair use"!) Mike says, > > > > My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted > would be > > excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle > of > > "fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem > to be > > more than "limited." > > > > I have a page on "fair use" at > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm > > part of my copyright site at: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm > > ------- > > Anyway, after copying a whole book, all you'd have is a bunch of > loose > > pages in a binder. Much better to have the book that will last. > > Alexandra > > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:13:35 -0600 Bettie Wood > <[email protected]> > > writes: > > > This came up on my list. > > > Is it illegal to copy a book for your own use? Or does the > > > copyright have to be "invalid" or "up" before you can copy it? > > > Thanks for any help, > > > Bettie/Momma Walton <>< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 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 > > > > > > > ==== 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 04:31 PM 1/28/00 -0600,Alexandra wrote: >I hope Mike Goad will enter this discussion. Here is what I copied from >him earlier this month. (Let's call it "fair use"!) Mike says, > >My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted would be >excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle of >"fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem to be >more than "limited." > >I have a page on "fair use" at >http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm >part of my copyright site at: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm I had already responded to a private query from Bettie on this so hadn't planned to comment here. The only thing I could really add to what Alexandra has quoted is that each of the pages for the above site has a link to an index of the actual copyright code. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/code.htm In section 106 it says: the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies... Mike

This an out of print book. I would always rather have a book that would "last"! This is what I found that someone else sent me. This is taken from (Copyright Law section) http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ More specifically from: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/chapter1.pdf 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 & 106A, 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 & 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 & 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 is such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. This sounds to me like we're all ok??? What I need to know now is: If it truns out to be illegal afterall, what are we supposed to do with what we've already copied? Bettie <>< > Because it would prevent the writer and the publisher from receiving > their rightful income, this would certainly be unethical. (Think of all > the hard work and expense they invested.) > > I hope Mike Goad will enter this discussion. Here is what I copied from > him earlier this month. (Let's call it "fair use"!) Mike says, > > My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted would be > excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle of > "fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem to be > more than "limited." > > I have a page on "fair use" at > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm > part of my copyright site at: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm > ------- > Anyway, after copying a whole book, all you'd have is a bunch of loose > pages in a binder. Much better to have the book that will last. > Alexandra > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:13:35 -0600 Bettie Wood <[email protected]> > writes: > > This came up on my list. > > Is it illegal to copy a book for your own use? Or does the > > copyright have to be "invalid" or "up" before you can copy it? > > Thanks for any help, > > Bettie/Momma Walton <>< > > > > > > > > > > ==== 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 > > > > ==== 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

Because it would prevent the writer and the publisher from receiving their rightful income, this would certainly be unethical. (Think of all the hard work and expense they invested.) I hope Mike Goad will enter this discussion. Here is what I copied from him earlier this month. (Let's call it "fair use"!) Mike says, My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted would be excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle of "fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem to be more than "limited." I have a page on "fair use" at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm part of my copyright site at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm ------- Anyway, after copying a whole book, all you'd have is a bunch of loose pages in a binder. Much better to have the book that will last. Alexandra On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:13:35 -0600 Bettie Wood <[email protected]> writes: > This came up on my list. > Is it illegal to copy a book for your own use? Or does the > copyright have to be "invalid" or "up" before you can copy it? > Thanks for any help, > Bettie/Momma Walton <>< > > > > > ==== 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 >

Two basics to remember quick and easy. 1. Before 1923 2. Author's permission if 1923 or after. More difficult. Determine what's fair use of the book (1923 or later), and type of information being posted. W. David Samuelsen Bettie Wood wrote: > > This came up on my list. > Is it illegal to copy a book for your own use? Or does the copyright > have to be "invalid" or "up" before you can copy it? > Thanks for any help, > Bettie/Momma Walton <>< > > ==== 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

This came up on my list. Is it illegal to copy a book for your own use? Or does the copyright have to be "invalid" or "up" before you can copy it? Thanks for any help, Bettie/Momma Walton <><

Hi, Could someone tell me the answer to this problem? If someone sends you a GED-COM, and says ,we will share it, how is the person who will be sending all the accurate dates and info protected? And if this person has about 6 more generations to add, plus bible records, cemetary records, obits. and more. How do they know if they will get credit for their research as well? PLEASE., any answers will be helpful. Thank You, Mary Jane

Original indexes are covered by copyright laws. Supposed a old book had no index and it was published before 1923. Any publisher or compiler can not claim copyright to the book BUT if the book was re-published in the entirety and index is added to the book - the publisher/compiler has copyright ONLY to the index - not the re-published portion. USA is a party to Berne Treaty and WIPO Treaty on copyrights. The Database copyright law does not exist because we the genealogists fought it off back in Dec 1998. There had been repeated attempts to no avail because the Europeans are wary of the database portion. W. David Samuelsen Libbie Griffin wrote: > > > > >For an object to be subject to copyright it has to have artistic, > >literary, dramatic or musical work. Is the index covered by this? > > > This is so completely contrary to everything I've learned about United > States copyright law that I'm wondering if international or English > copyright law is very different from ours in America. > > Would someone please comment who knows the subject well? > > Libbie > > ==== 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.

> >For an object to be subject to copyright it has to have artistic, >literary, dramatic or musical work. Is the index covered by this? > This is so completely contrary to everything I've learned about United States copyright law that I'm wondering if international or English copyright law is very different from ours in America. Would someone please comment who knows the subject well? Libbie

On 16 Jan 00, at 10:01, Andrea Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi -- this is my first post to the list as I just joined. Great to have this > resource as copyright topics always seem to be popping up. > Question -- how much of a published book is it permissable to quote on a > mail list? For example, is it permitted to post an entire (3 and a half > page) index from the book? This book was published 1985 by Collins in > England. It concerns genealogical research. I notice that is does not have > the copyright statement at the front, you know the one -- starts like this > "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, etc. > etc..." > Any info gratefully received. Andrea (western Canada) > A little tardy in response. For an object to be subject to copyright it has to have artistic, literary, dramatic or musical work. Is the index covered by this? >From my understanding an index can transcribed due to there being no literary, artistic, etc. merit to its content, it being a collection of facts, eg. a reference on page 42 is just that, a reference to fact, not something of artistic merit, not subject to judgment or interpretation. There is of course artistic merit to the the actual production itself (set out of letters on paper). So you cannot scan it; produce it as a text page but that cannot go to a list anyway, but from my understanding of the law (from Australian copyright texts) you can transcribe all of an index. When it comes to a compiled database (electronic information) it gets away from copyright (the merit question not applying), and it gets covered by intellectual property <http://www.wipo.org>, so the protection is done by a different manner. Regards Andrew My personal thoughts on the matter only. Do not use this thoughts as a means for an action but as a starting point for your own investigations. -- 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

At 07:10 PM 1/16/00 -0700, Paul Adams wrote: >I thought I'd read there was a court challenge in the works - >any word on the progress? From the web site <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/> of the lawyers arguing the case : Current Status of the Case District Court Opinion - On October 28, 1999, Judge June Green granted summary judgment to the government in a brief opinion dismissing the plaintiffs' arguments. The court made three specific rulings: 1) that the Copyright Term Extension Act does not violate the First Amendment because there is no First Amendment right to use the copyrighted works of others; 2) that the retrospective extension of the Act is within Congress's power under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution because the "limited times" period is subject to the discretion of Congress and an author may agree in advance to transfer any future benefit Congress might confer; and 3) that the Act does not violate the public trust doctrine because that doctrine applies only to navigable waters. An appeal of this decision is underway. Peter Hirtle [email protected]

Hey Mike, > My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted would be > excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle of > "fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem to be > more than "limited." I guess the meaning of limited depends on how much $$$ you have to buy off the US Congress! >From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Apparantly "limited" in this context is "forever", at least according to the Disney folks, et al that rammed thru the recent extension. I thought I'd read there was a court challenge in the works - any word on the progress? Paul Paul Adams / Summit Software Systems [email protected] 303-443-9866 x205 / fax: 303-443-9934 1966 13th St. Suite 200 Boulder CO 80302

At 10:01 AM 1/16/00 -0800, Andrea Vogel wrote: >Hi -- this is my first post to the list as I just joined. Great to have this >resource as copyright topics always seem to be popping up. > Question -- how much of a published book is it permissable to quote My friend Jon Harlan Livezey has just learned that a big commercial genealogical CD publisher recently published 268 pages out of his 271-page book on Harford County, Maryland Marriage licenses. The three pages that were omitted were those that showed that the work was by Mr. Livezey and not by the publisher. I suppose the publisher was going by the rule that "you can't copyright facts". But they also copied several mistakes that were accidentally introduced by Mr. Livezey. Needless to say, he (and I) think it is shameful behaviour even if not illegal. There was no apparent attempt to contact him to get permission. The book, published in 1993, does not contain a copyright statement, so there is probably no recourse. Glenn

Hi, Under current U.S. Copyright, a copyright notice is no longer required for a work to be covered under U.S. Copyright law. If the book was published in the United States, it would also be covered in Canada under the provisions of international treaties. My personal opinion is that three pages of anything copyrighted would be excessive. In the U.S. such usage would come under the principle of "fair use" which allows "limited" copying. Three pages would seem to be more than "limited." I have a page on "fair use" at http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright9.htm part of my copyright site at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm Mike Goad (disclaimer: This message is personal opinion only. Nothing in this message should be construed as legal advice as I am not a lawyer. For legal advice, consult appropriate legal counsel. ) At 10:01 AM 1/16/00 -0800, Andrea Vogel wrote: >Hi -- this is my first post to the list as I just joined. Great to have this >resource as copyright topics always seem to be popping up. > Question -- how much of a published book is it permissable to quote on a >mail list? For example, is it permitted to post an entire (3 and a half >page) index from the book? This book was published 1985 by Collins in >England. It concerns genealogical research. I notice that is does not have >the copyright statement at the front, you know the one -- starts like this >"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, etc. >etc..." > Any info gratefully received. Andrea (western Canada) > > >==== 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

Hi -- this is my first post to the list as I just joined. Great to have this resource as copyright topics always seem to be popping up. Question -- how much of a published book is it permissable to quote on a mail list? For example, is it permitted to post an entire (3 and a half page) index from the book? This book was published 1985 by Collins in England. It concerns genealogical research. I notice that is does not have the copyright statement at the front, you know the one -- starts like this "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, etc. etc..." Any info gratefully received. Andrea (western Canada)

Hello, What year did the copyright laws begin in France? In the USA? In Belgium? Thanks you, and Merry Christmas To All, Corinne

At 02:06 AM 12/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >I discovered that the "date >setting" on my machine leaves it vulnerable. What is the vulnerability? A "short date" is just a display format for the date, and 01/01/00 is just as valid as 01/01/2000 for that purpose. If there are applications that request a "short date" and you make the change you suggest, it's likely to read just the number of characters it was expecting and get 01/01/20 (and think today is 12/13/19). I don't know if there actually are any applications that are fed the "short date" format. Also I'm not sure what this has to do with copyright, so I'll copyright this message: Copyright 1999, Glenn Randers-Pehrson Permission is granted to anyone to copy this message in part or in its entirety, without fee, provided that this copyright notice is not removed or altered. Glenn

Zinger! I fell for it, despite having sent warnings of hoaxes myself in the past. (They usually give themselves away by telling you to pass the message along.) I didn't see this one in the hoax/chain letter/urban legends sites in my file. At least it isn't harmful. A helpful person sent the URL below. -------- On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:34:55 EST [email protected] writes: > In a message dated 99-12-13 03:34:25 EST, [email protected] writes: > > << but you'll be surprised that Windows may still crash unless you do the simple exercise below. >> > > This is actually a hoax. That particular time is for display purposes only. To read about this hoax go to: <A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/y2k/hoax/y2khoax.htm">Y2K Hoax</A> > > Actual URL is: http://www.microsoft.com/y2k/hoax/y2khoax.htm > > Regards, > Bill

When I followed the instructions below, I discovered that the "date setting" on my machine leaves it vulnerable. We're invited to circulate this warning and the remedy -- On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:24:17 EST [email protected] writes: > > Subject: Windows 95 & 98 > Y2K Computer tip > > You may think your PC is "Y2K" compliant and some little tests may have actually affirmed that your hardware is compliant, but you'll be surprised that Windows may still crash unless you do the simple exercise below. Easy fix, but something Microsoft seems to have missed in certifying their software as Y2K compliant. > > This is simple to do, and VERY important. > Click "START" > Click on "SETTINGS" > Double click on "CONTROL PANEL" > Double click on "Regional settings icon (look for the little world globe) > Click on the "Date" tab at the top of the page (last tab on the top right) > Where it says "Short Date Sample" look and see if it shows a two -digit year format: "YY." Unless you have previously changed it, it will be set incorrectly with just 2 Y's. It NEEDS to be 4 Y's. That's because Microsoft made the 2 digits setting the Default setting for Windows 95 and Windows 98. This date format selected is the date that Windows feeds ALL application > software and will not rollover into the year 2000. It will roll over into the year "00" > Click on the little arrow button for "Short Date Style" and select the option that shows "mm/DD/yyyy" or "m/d/yyyy". Be sure your selection has four Y's and not just mm/DD/yy. > Then click "Apply" > Then click "OK" > Pass this info on to your PC buddies. No matter how much of a computer guru they think they are this might be a welcome bit of information!

Unsubscribe