I have just finished reading a book about copyright and I still haven't gotten the questions answered: How long do newspapers retain copyrights on news articles. Are you allowed to copy up to 300 words or the whole article as long as you give impecible resources references? Anybody out there in cyber land konw the answer to this one? Dawn E. [email protected]

I agree that there is too much information out there. I'm surprised there isn't a cut off date like census material being available only through 1920. Many people use this kind of data to find out about the living survivors. I don't call this genealogy. I call it none of their business.

I don't know about the copyright issues on this subject, but the SSDI is government information freely available to all. If this person whose message you quote is concerned about invasion of a family's privacy, his/her issue is with the government's making this list available to begin with. Rootsweb is not the first to publish this index, and probably won't be the last. I myself am not concerned (after all, it is an index of deceased people) and welcomed the opportunity to be able to correct the record on my father, which had 3 major errors. Toby Hekler [email protected] It is an index I have used often, and has much useful information for genealogists. ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Warrenburg <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 5:42 PM Subject: Fw: SSDI & Privacy Rights > I don't know if this is the place to bring a question like this, but I am > interested in getting some feed-back on this subjuct. Everyone here seems > so knowledgeable on the subject of copyrights that I thought maybe you > could give some light on this matter. > Linda Warrenburg > [email protected] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 2:12 PM > Subject: SSDI & Privacy Rights > > > > To Anyone With Assistance: > > > > Regarding the availability on the web for use and abuse of SSDI > > information, esp. SS#'s and last place > > of benefit info, what are our rights, cautions, etc, as genealogists? > > > > This was in my mailbox this am, and it greatly concerns me, especially > > since it is "apparently" being > > SET UP and CONDONED by ROOTSWEB???? > > > > What do you all think of this? > > > > I feel it is an abominable invasion of family privacy! > > And, I am wondering... Is Rootsweb then, a Company???? Information > > Technology ???? > > > > [email protected] > > *********** > > > > "The latest issue of Rootsweb Review (vol 2, #35) has this suggestion for > > use of the SSDI: > > > > POST-EMs.

I don't know if this is the place to bring a question like this, but I am interested in getting some feed-back on this subjuct. Everyone here seems so knowledgeable on the subject of copyrights that I thought maybe you could give some light on this matter. Linda Warrenburg [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 2:12 PM Subject: SSDI & Privacy Rights > To Anyone With Assistance: > > Regarding the availability on the web for use and abuse of SSDI > information, esp. SS#'s and last place > of benefit info, what are our rights, cautions, etc, as genealogists? > > This was in my mailbox this am, and it greatly concerns me, especially > since it is "apparently" being > SET UP and CONDONED by ROOTSWEB???? > > What do you all think of this? > > I feel it is an abominable invasion of family privacy! > And, I am wondering... Is Rootsweb then, a Company???? Information > Technology ???? > > [email protected] > *********** > > "The latest issue of Rootsweb Review (vol 2, #35) has this suggestion for > use of the SSDI: > > POST-EMs. Now you can attach a message to any of the more than > 61 million records in the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) at > RootsWeb by using a "post-em," developed by RootsWeb's own Randy > Winch. Some suggested uses: attach notes to the records of your > relatives, providing researchers with a direct link to you; add > background information on an individual in the database, such > as pointers to other records relating to that individual; or > add a correction to an incorrect record. Check the records of > individuals of interest to you often. Someone recently might > have left a note there for you. To add a note to a record, do > a search and click on "Post-em" at the end of a record at: > <http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi>. > > Post-ems are a another example of your contributions at work. > ************************* > > ROOTSWEB REVIEW: RootsWeb's Genealogy News > Vol. 2, No. 35, 1 September 1999, Circulation: 354,233+ > (c) 1999 RootsWeb.com, Inc. <http://www.rootsweb.com/> > RootsWeb.com, Inc., P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 "

In a message dated 9/2/99 7:59:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > I don't know about the copyright issues on this subject, but the SSDI is > government information freely available to all. Toby- right- there are no copyright issues concerning information found in the SSDI. The reason is that the person of record is deceased. This falls under the Freedom of Information Act. Joan

Forwarded on behalf of Fawne Stratford-Devai: GENEALOGISTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND CHANGE FEDERAL LEGISLATION!! At last! Almost 3 years after the lobby and letter writing campaign was launched to demand reasonable exceptions for research purposes to the proposed Federal Copyright legislation and; more than 2 years after the bill amending the Copyright Act received Royal Assent, the sections of the Copyright Act which provide exceptions for archives, libraries, and museums (Sections 30.1, 30.2, 30.21 and 30.3) will be proclaimed in force on 1 September 1999. The lobby by genealogists across Canada and around the world, supported by historians, librarians and archivists was intense and asked only for a small exemption in the proposed legislation to allow photocopies for research purposes. As with the current campaign underway for release of post 1901 census records, the Bill C-32 lobby {copyright campaign} saw genealogists writing, faxing, emailing and phoning members of parliament, Industry Minister John Manley and Heritage Minister Sheila Copps <yes, these same Ministers were at the centre of the copyright storm also>. The good news today is quite simple....GENEALOGISTS HAVE A VOICE. The public CAN influence federal legislation. As long as the campaign is widely supported and carefully focussed with everyone conveying the same message - we can make a difference. The actual regulations which specify the requirements for the implementation of certain aspects of the exceptions we asked for come into force September 1. The regulations were initially published in January 1999; however the final version contains only a few minor changes to provide clarification, or consistency in wording. The regulations are available on the Dept. of Canadian Heritage website <www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/copywh_e.htm> (Click on What's New) The timing of this final implementation of the exceptions demanded by the genealogical community is perfect. The lesson in this final outcome of the copyright legislation is quite clear - together we can make a difference. Average Canadians and our global colleagues with Canadian roots can make a difference. Now, more than ever, lend your voice to the ongoing campaign to open post 1901 census records. We have done it once, we can surely do it again. Please write those letters, distribute and sign those petitions, there is much hope! I am personally most grateful to Jean Dryden, Chair, Bureau of Canadian Archivists Copyright Committee; my genealogical colleague who helped to insite and maintain the letter writing - Ron Cox of Quebec - who also set up a wonderful webpage during the Bill C32 copyright campaign and; Jim Miller of the Canadian Historical Association. Quietly and without fanfare we shared information, set deadlines and plotted strategy. This behind the scenes relationship was vital in the ultimate success of the campaign. The briefs submitted and presentations made to the standing committee by the Canadian Historical Association, Librarians and the Archival community perfectly articulated the concerns of the genealogists. To these dedicated individuals and institutions I am also grateful. Even more importantly, I am so very grateful for the commitment and spirit of tens of thousands of genealogists across Canada and those from around the globe who shared our dismay, collectively articulated our concern; and showed their commitment in writing to demand change. The ultimate power and energy of the copyright campaign rests on the individual shoulders of thousands of people who wrote letters, sent faxes and emails and made phone calls --- the everyday researcher who cared enough to try and make a difference. September 1, 1999 is a victory day for the copyright campaign. Please take a moment and pat yourself on the back for a campaign well fought and a job well done. When you are done congratulating yourself, take a deep breath - pick up a pen -- and write a letter to demand access to Canada's post 1901 census!!! For those of you who were not a part of this first historic battle to be heard, pick up a pen and be a part of the current campaign to change federal legislation and access to post 1901 Canadian census records. With the most heartfelt gratitude and very best of wishes, Fawne Stratford-Devai Family Historian Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 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 just finished a family history which used as many primary references as I could get, and a great many secondary sources. If I were to publish this family history, would I have to contact the publishers of the secondary sources for permission to use their books? That would be quite a job considering I have probably 60 or 70 secondary sources. Virginia Long Hutson [email protected]

Peggy I'm a little confused about exactly what you mean, the customer is the employer and the society is the employee... It seems to me that the researcher who does the research holds the copyright unless there is a written agreement with the Society that they (the Society) will hold it. That's the way writer's do things. If they write for a magazine, they still hold their own copyright. I think it gets even more hazy though when you realize that most of the "research" is a combination of articles, perhaps written by another (who still holds their copyright), or copies of government documents that can't be copyrighted anyway. One has to be very careful about this. I've seen "collections" given to a Society that contain work written by people other than the collector. Just because they donated their collection to a Society doesn't mean the Society can freely publish everything in the collection. The same thing would be true about a lot of our research, don't you think? Just my opinion. Yvonne In a message dated 8/18/99 2:30:05 PM Central Daylight Time, COPYRIGHT- [email protected] writes: << But can the same be said for when your customer is the employer and the society becomes the employee? This is where my confusion and my interpretation becomes gray. It comes down to - who holds the copyright when the society hangs it's shingle out for research business (the society or the paying customer)? >>

Hi, I recently heard at a conference that any genealogical society or person that does research work for others is considered the author of the summary of the findings. I'm a bit confused by this though because of the wording of the code as I have found it: "Ordinarily, the author is the person that actually created the work. (Where the work, or any contribution to it is a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author)". >From this statement I can tell that any person who does research on behalf of our genealogical society can not claim the copyright since it would belong to the society based on their being an "employee". But can the same be said for when your customer is the employer and the society becomes the employee? This is where my confusion and my interpretation becomes gray. It comes down to - who holds the copyright when the society hangs it's shingle out for research business (the society or the paying customer)? Thanks for your help and I would appreciate hearing all opinions on this matter. 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

She's either bluffing you or she doesn't know what she's talking about. Facts cannot be copyrighted. She gets hers, you get yours. About all she can copyright is probably her index. Go for it. Read Copyright Basics, Circular 1 from the Copyright Office. It's on the net. You can download it. It's easy to understand. Yvonne In a message dated 7/27/99 10:23:54 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: << am new to this list and wanted to post a question I have not seen addressed regarding copyright. If an individual has copyright to a book on a particular family, does that forbid anyone else from that family doing research independently and then posting on their own web site? I understand you cannot "lift" another's hard work, but I was essentially told by this individual researching the same family "You have a family you can not do anything with. The copyrights are good for 75 years." I have compiled my work through many sources, have visited libraries, went to cemetaries, looked at bibles, etc. In addition, there is another person who has the same exact info on their website with regard as our families are related. >>

Copyright protection does not extend to facts. Copyright protection does not extend to information obtained independently of a copyrighted work. "Fair use" doctrine of copyright law ALLOWS fair use of preexisting material. Any **facts** in the other persons work can be used without infringing on their copyright. Most genealogies are compilations of fact and other information. More information can be found at my copyright web site. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/html/copyright1.htm Mike Goad

Dear Richard, Angela, Mike and everyone else who responded to my message. Your responses have been most helpful and confirmed what I thought was correct on this matter. I hope I get up enough nerve to post my web site, but am worried this person will sue me as she has threatened me twice in the past. I guess I'll just have to jump in and take my chances. Frankly, I'm growing a bit tired of her intimidation tactics! Heide

Heide: As I understand it (I am not an attorney), facts are not copyrightable, just the expression of the facts. Therefore, if she has published bare bones data without sources, go one better. Use footnotes or endnotes generated by software like The Master Genealogist (TMG). Make sure your sentences are different from hers. Make your sources more extensive and better. For example, if she used published Massachusetts vital records, go to the original town records on LDS microfilm and abstract them from the handwriting. Incorporate photos of old documents and gravestones you have consulted. Use a different person-numbering scheme. Can you have a somewhat different bunch of people? If you need to cite her as a source for anything, then do so without quoting her, if possible. Put analysis of problems into your own words. If you put out a better and different product, she won't have a leg to stand on! For a website example, see Lee Hoffman's individual narrative generated with TMG (endnotes are hyperlinks): http://www.users.mis.net/~lhoffman/judge001.htm --Ida McCormick, [email protected] ----------------------- At 03:11 PM 7/26/99 -0500, Heide Sciacca <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> >I have compiled my work through many sources, have visited libraries, went >to cemetaries, looked at bibles, etc. In addition, there is another >person who has the same exact info on their website with regard as our >families are related. <snip>

Heide, You say you were "essentially told by this individual researching the same family 'You have a family you can not do anything with. The copyrights are good for 75 years.'" This person doesn't know what they are talking about! Anyone can independently research any family (or any other subject) they please and publish the results of that independent research. NO copyright infringement can occur unless you borrow from their work directly - and you can even quote =short= statements from their book, so long as they are properly credited (i.e. the so-called "fair use" doctrine). "Copyright" is just that: the right to copy. It does not give the author of a factually-based work a monopoly on the subject matter! In fact, it is inevitable that multiple researchers working on the same family will consult many (even most) of the same pre-existing sources, including previously published books and public records (such as wills, probate records, deeds, cemetery records, etc.). Depending on their relative competence and diligence, it is equally inevitable that independent researchers will reach the same conclusions regarding factual matters (dates of birth, marriage and death; occupations; military service, etc.); such facts cannot be copyrighted. In any event, it does not matter =who= consulted those records first, nor does any author acquire copyright on the previously published works of others (much less copyright on public records) merely by having located and consulted those records first. The sorts of records I have described are readily available to the knowledgeable public and copyright law recognizes no right based on a "race" to find and publish pre-existing material, whether public or private. Richard ([email protected]) -----Original Message----- From: Heide Sciacca <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 5:17 AM Subject: More than one Surname researcher Hello everyone, I am new to this list and wanted to post a question I have not seen addressed regarding copyright. If an individual has copyright to a book on a particular family, does that forbid anyone else from that family doing research independently and then posting on their own web site? I understand you cannot "lift" another's hard work, but I was essentially told by this individual researching the same family "You have a family you can not do anything with. The copyrights are good for 75 years." I have compiled my work through many sources, have visited libraries, went to cemetaries, looked at bibles, etc. In addition, there is another person who has the same exact info on their website with regard as our families are related. I would appreciate your thoughts! Heide

I believe that if you can 'prove' that your resources are other than the person who has them posted or published elsewhere, you are safe. Technically, you will be personally guaranteeing that you did your research at X library and this is where the material came from. You can actually quote some of the published stuff that the person is screaming about copyright, if you give them credit for the source and don't copy it 'wholesale' so to speak. I've encountered the same dilema. I have a database with over 50,000 names. Every name that I 've posted into the database has a source listed. In many cases, I have more than one source. If you have more than one source, then any one singular source can't say you stole from them. I am not a lawyer, but this is my amateur impression. If anyone else knows better, I'd love to be corrected.

Hello everyone, I am new to this list and wanted to post a question I have not seen addressed regarding copyright. If an individual has copyright to a book on a particular family, does that forbid anyone else from that family doing research independently and then posting on their own web site? I understand you cannot "lift" another's hard work, but I was essentially told by this individual researching the same family "You have a family you can not do anything with. The copyrights are good for 75 years." I have compiled my work through many sources, have visited libraries, went to cemetaries, looked at bibles, etc. In addition, there is another person who has the same exact info on their website with regard as our families are related. I would appreciate your thoughts! Heide

In a message dated 99-07-06 13:25:05 EDT, you write: << Hello, My strange name is Lilje. Frederick Lilje came from Magdeburg, East Germany abt 1844 to Quebec, Canada. I can't find him on ships rolls, and I haven't found anyone else by that name, either. Does anyone know anything about the name? Perhaps it was a shortened form of a longer name---- >> I checked Switchboard, and there are quite a few people named Lilje listed. If you haven't tried Switchboard, go to <A HREF="http://www.switchboard.com">Switchboard</A> [email protected]

Hello, My strange name is Lilje. Frederick Lilje came from Magdeburg, East Germany abt 1844 to Quebec, Canada. I can't find him on ships rolls, and I haven't found anyone else by that name, either. Does anyone know anything about the name? Perhaps it was a shortened form of a longer name----- Thanks, Anne

Not true, Toby. Read Copyright Basics, Circular 1, page 4: "The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office." All work is automatically copyrighted the moment it is in "fixed" form--not after it's been registered. Cat In a message dated 7/3/99 6:23:11 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: << Thanks to all who replied about the copyright symbol. For those of you who didn't know how to make the symbol, you hold down the alternate button and type the numbers 0169 from the number keypad. I have also learned that it is improper to use this symbol unless one has registered one's work with the proper authority. Thanks again, Toby Hekler >>

At 03:39 PM 7/2/99 -0400, Toby L Hekler wrote: > I have also learned that it >is improper to use this symbol unless one has registered one's work with the >proper authority. Hi, Not true in the United States. Regisratation is not required for copyrighted material (all original material is automatically copyright protected) and registration is not required to use the copyright symbol ( © ).The ONLY advantage to registration is that remedies awarded by a court for copyright infringement may include attorney fees and statuatory damages. (See my page "To Claim Infringement & Copyright Remedies at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright13.htm ). Below, I've included a section of the Copyright Code that deals with the copyright notice. Please note that this does not mention any registration requirement for use. This information is directly from the House of Representatives U.S. Code web pages. I've included a link below that to my index of the copyright code pages. Mike TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 4 - COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION -HEAD- Sec. 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies -STATUTE- (a) General Provisions. - Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (b) Form of Notice. - If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements: (1) the symbol (AF) (the letter C in a circle), or the word ''Copyright'', or the abbreviation ''Copr.''; and (2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. (c) Position of Notice. - The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive. (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. - If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/code.htm ________________ The Goad Family; Dover, AR, USA; mailto:[email protected] ; http://www.cswnet.com/~mgoad/ ; free DAR Patriot Index Lookups: http://www.cswnet.com/~mgoad/dar.html; Our on-line "bookstore:" http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks Sponsor (Plus) of RootsWeb - To support cooperative, non-commercial, grass-roots genealogy go to http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html