I also had a problem with the clerks office,but they explained that they could not photocopy a death certificate,becasue it was torn and fragile,so they typed it for $5.00,can you believe that. Ginger ---------- > From: Lila <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: County Clerk Records > Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 12:48 PM > > Candi: > > In one instance at a courthouse, the will of my ancestor was available > in a 'bound book' - very old. I was not allowed to photo copy it because > of the fragile condition of the bound book. However, all the other books > were 'loose > binding' and I was allowed to photo copy items from them. > > Lila of VA > > At 11:14 AM 6/12/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Candi, Are you sure that the County Clerk is not allowing you to > >photocopy because of copyright restriction, which there certainly would > >not be in either situation as governmental records, or are they not > >allowing you to photocopy because both items are now available in > >another, more easily photocopied, format. It is not unusual in a > >situation where a document has been reformatted for the original to be > >closed to photocopying, if not viewing altogether, unless it is a very > >special situation. It sounds to me that that might be what is going on > >with both. If that is the case and you really need to use the original > >or copy from the original it may be to your benefit to put your request > >in writing to the head of the office. Mary Mannix > > > > ************************* > > > >Mary K. Mannix > >Maryland Room Manager > >C. Burr Artz Library Library Director > >Frederick County Public Libraries Howard County Historical Society > >Frederick, MD Ellicott City, MD > > >

"Very probably. However, if another individual uses facts or public domain information from that book to write a paper on "MA Deaths of Family Dougherty (and all Variations) with Named Parent's," it is a different selection of the original facts." Mike, I agree with this - as long as the source is properly cited. Confining the material used to one name or one family is not a sufficient "taking" to damage the book's sale value and it could be argued that the "Dougherty article" gave the book publicity and enhanced its sale value. This is a far far different thing from publishing an entire database or book to a WWW site, which was the original topic of discussion. "However, a compilation of ALL of the names of people with their headstone inscriptions buried in the "Cedar Bluffs Cemetery" probably would not be sufficiently original, especially of the entries are ordered in alphabetical or chronilogical order." Before anyone decides to publish such a database to a WWW site in its entirety, they'd be well advised to check the copy- right and get permission from the compiler. We're all amateurs and this is a complex legal issue. A rule of thumb I recall from my school days is if a fact or bit of information is commonly available (5 or more places) it can be considered "public domain", and that may have played a part in the Feist decision. Depending on who owns Cedar Bluff Cemetery, and hence the cemetery records, those facts may not be public domain. The sort of info that goes into a phone directory is currently and commonly available in a number of different places. I see a world of difference between a phone directory and most genealogical compilations. To quote Dr. B: "The issue is doing The Right Thing. The right thing generally involves working with authors, gensocs, and publishers and trying to avoid damaging the economic value of what they do." Hope we haven't bored the list to death - have a good Sunday, all! Kathleen.

At 04:26 AM 6/12/99 -0600, Kathleen wrote: >I agree completely that the "facts themselves" are not >copyrighted. This does not mean we have carte blanche to copy >the facts someone else has compiled and collected; it means >we can go to the original records and use the same facts >to build our own database. > >I completely disagree with any interpretation that says that >it is now legal to copy a pre-existing database. I don't >believe that's what the law says. Well, one opinion on that very topic was issued by the United States Supreme Court in FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE COMPANY, INC. Argued Jan. 9, 1991. Decided March 27, 1991. After the decision in that case, computer software became available with all of the phone numbers in all of the phone books in the United States. The court ruled that there was absolutely no originality in a collection of names, phone numbers and addresses arranged in alphabetical order and, despite all of the hard labor of Rural Telephone, Feist Publications had the right to use the information Rural Telephone had collected. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/feist.htm It is wrong to copy a preexisting compilation that is original in selection and arrangement. However, it is completely legal and ethical to take facts and public domain from one or more existing compilations and develop a new compilation with a different selection and arrangement. The requirement to have to develop your own work completely independant of existing works is known as "the sweat of the brow" principle which has not been recognized by the courts since the 1991 Feist decision. In fact, the Supreme Court in that case said that some earlier lower courts had been wrong to rule in favor of this principle and that such rulings misapplied the 1909 copyright law. �Just as the copyright law does not protect �industrious collection,� it affords no shelter to the resourceful, efficient, or creative collector.... The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts.� BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. DONNELLEY INFORMATION PUBLISHING, INC. and The Reuben H. DONNELLEY Corp., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Sept. 2, 1993. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/bellsouth.htm Under the Constitution of the United States, the purpose of copyright is NOT to exclusively benefit authors. The constitution say that Congress has the power to: "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;" (Unfortunately Congress has interpreted limited times to be well beyond the lifetime of the author) http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/bellsouth.htm Mike ________________ 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

>A compilation of facts is copyrightable. If people want to >publish these same facts it is incumbent on them to go to the >original records and make their own compilation and do their >own work. In the US, it would then be legal for them to publish >their work. But they had better be able to prove they did not >copy someone else's pre-existing work. Again not completely correct. The facts in a compilation may be presented without going to the original records so long as the only copyrightable elements of the copyrighted compilation (selection, layout, and any original authorship) are not infringed. To support this, I'm providing the following previously developed information: A common perception of the law of copyright is that it serves to protect the labors of the the author, especially in the area of factual compilations. Some court decisions, in fact, misapplied the copyright act of 1909, developing a new judicial theory to justify protection of factual compilations. This theory, known as �sweat of the brow� or �industrious collection,� in effect said that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts. The �sweat of the brow� doctrine was seriously flawed in many ways. The most obvious was the extension of copyright beyond selection and arrangement, which is the compiler�s original contribution, to the facts, themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement is totally independent creation where the the facts in any copyrighted work could not be used by others unless independently discovered or collected. � �Sweat of the brow� courts handed out proprietary interests in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by relying upon the facts contained in prior works. �In enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress dropped the reference to �all the writings of an author� and replaced it with the phrase �original works of authorship.��1 This made the originality requirement explicit, which Congress announced as �merely clarifying existing law.� The 1976 Act further identifies those specific elelments of a work not eligible for copyright protection: �In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.�1 This is �universally� understood to also prohibit any copyright in facts. This identification of specific elements not eligible for copyright protection was declared by Congress to be a clarification of prior law. �Just as the copyright law does not protect �industrious collection,� it affords no shelter to the resourceful, efficient, or creative collector.... The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts.� http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright8.htm According to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor1, �The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but �[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.�� Authors are assured, by copyright, to the right to use and copy their original expression. However, Copyright is also intended to encourage others to build freely upon the ideas and information found in other works. In most fields of research, whether it be academic, commercial, or hobby, the growth of knowledge is very dependant upon the efforts of other researchers. This very much includes genealogy. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright3.htm What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright? The law identifies three distinct elements, all of which must be met for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: 1.the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; 2.the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and 3.the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. Collection and assembling facts and information isn�t enough. Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted if the originality requirement, �an original work of authorship,� is met. �The point was emphasized with regard to compilations to ensure that courts would not repeat the mistake of the �sweat of the brow� courts by concluding that fact-based works are treated differently and measured by some other standard.�1 The Congressional goal was to � �make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.��1 The Supreme Court, in reviewing the law, has concluded �that the statute envisions that there will be some fact-based works in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection�1 in any way at all. The originality requirement is not very stringent. In fact, the selection or arrangement methods that others have used may unknowingly be used; �novelty is not required.� For the originality requirment, the author needs only to make the arrangement or selection independantly, without copying the selection or arrangement from another work, and it must display some minimal level of creativity. While most factual compilations will pass this test, there will be a small number of works �in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistant.�1 Originality may occur in the selection of the material to be included in a compilation. If it is truely original, the selection may be a part of the protected portion of a compilation. On the other hand, if the selection of the material is made through the use of formulas, procedures, or other non-original techniques, protection of the selection is not likely. Such acts of selection �are not acts of authorship, but techniques for the discovery of facts.�2 A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the �author�s original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed.�1 �One of the most important points here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright... has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material.�1 Note: The copyright law �states that the term �compilation� includes collective works.�3 http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright12.htm (Factual material and U.S. Government developed information on this post is not copyrightable. The selection, layout and all original material is copyright 1999 Michael Goad) Mike

Candi: In one instance at a courthouse, the will of my ancestor was available in a 'bound book' - very old. I was not allowed to photo copy it because of the fragile condition of the bound book. However, all the other books were 'loose binding' and I was allowed to photo copy items from them. Lila of VA At 11:14 AM 6/12/99 -0400, you wrote: >Candi, Are you sure that the County Clerk is not allowing you to >photocopy because of copyright restriction, which there certainly would >not be in either situation as governmental records, or are they not >allowing you to photocopy because both items are now available in >another, more easily photocopied, format. It is not unusual in a >situation where a document has been reformatted for the original to be >closed to photocopying, if not viewing altogether, unless it is a very >special situation. It sounds to me that that might be what is going on >with both. If that is the case and you really need to use the original >or copy from the original it may be to your benefit to put your request >in writing to the head of the office. Mary Mannix > > ************************* > >Mary K. Mannix >Maryland Room Manager >C. Burr Artz Library Library Director >Frederick County Public Libraries Howard County Historical Society >Frederick, MD Ellicott City, MD >

Okay, Mike, you're right about the Feist case. The Feist case is cited quite often as justification for taking other data bases, but applying it to genealogical databases is like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it? "The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts.� (Bell South et al) If M. O'Brien sorts through MA death records and comes up with "MA Deaths of Irish Natives with Named Parents" isn't that a creatively original selection of facts? If McWethey comes up with a Palatine compilation from English records, again, isn't that a creatively original selection of facts? I believe the Supreme Court would find those sorts of compilations worthy of copyright protection. See below: "The originality requirement is not very stringent. In fact, the selection or arrangement methods that others have used may unknowingly be used; novelty is not required.� For the originality requirment, the author needs only to make the *arrangement or selection independantly, without copying the selection or arrangement from another work*, and it must display some minimal level of creativity. While most factual compilations will pass this test..." Kathleen.

Candi, Are you sure that the County Clerk is not allowing you to photocopy because of copyright restriction, which there certainly would not be in either situation as governmental records, or are they not allowing you to photocopy because both items are now available in another, more easily photocopied, format. It is not unusual in a situation where a document has been reformatted for the original to be closed to photocopying, if not viewing altogether, unless it is a very special situation. It sounds to me that that might be what is going on with both. If that is the case and you really need to use the original or copy from the original it may be to your benefit to put your request in writing to the head of the office. Mary Mannix ************************* Mary K. Mannix Maryland Room Manager C. Burr Artz Library Library Director Frederick County Public Libraries Howard County Historical Society Frederick, MD Ellicott City, MD

Hello everyone New subscriber, and been reading with interest. I'm preparing web pages with transcripts of old books and articles, and assume I'm fairly safe (??!) with anything from the last century. Nothing is 'live' yet but some material up to and including the 1920s is also already done, as although I was aware of the 75-yr rule, until this last week I'd thought it began with the date of publication, not at the end of the author's lifetime. The material from the early part of the century (and there is more from the 30s/40s/50s I had in mind if I could obtain permission) would be great to put online and I hope be a useful resource, but now I'm wary. You will have heard this particular question dozens of times I guess, but here it is again! :-) When there's a publisher who cannot be traced (maybe they went out of business many years ago, or were taken over (perhaps several times), but in any event they don't appear to exist any more), how can I find out if the material is still copyright and, if it is, who to seek permission from today? It seems to me that remainder of author's life + 75 years could cover an awful lot of events and possible name/identity changes in a publisher's history.......so who has the records of this, if anyone, and how do I find who's in a position to give permission? The material is largely UK, but there is a little US-published as well. Glad of any pointers or contact info, Many thanks, Jane J.

"The originality requirement is not very stringent. In fact, the selection or arrangement methods that others have used may unknowingly be used; novelty is not required.� For the originality requirment, the author needs only to make the *arrangement or selection independantly, without copying the selection or arrangement from another work*, and it must display some minimal level of creativity. While most factual compilations will pass this test..." Mike, thanks very much for the time you took to post your info. I also appreciate your WWW site - you've done a lot of work on a very complex area. The first paragraph says it all. Most factual compilations will pass the copyright test! And if it's in a printed book carrying a copyright notice, it would be playing with fire to publish it on a WWW site. And it is wrong - both unethical and illegal - to copy and publish a data base compiled by someone else. I agree completely that the "facts themselves" are not copyrighted. This does not mean we have carte blanche to copy the facts someone else has compiled and collected; it means we can go to the original records and use the same facts to build our own database. I completely disagree with any interpretation that says that it is now legal to copy a pre-existing database. I don't believe that's what the law says. Kathleen.

The copyright, if there is any, holder is dead...Charlotte >From: "Lorine McGinnis Schulze" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Copyright Confusion >Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:44:08 -0400 > >Date forwarded: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:45:35 -0700 (PDT) >From: Charlotte ~ <[email protected]> > > > > > But making something that is already public, public, is certainly not > > unethical...best way to find out is to put them on the web and find > > out...they'll let you know...<g>...and I suspect they wouldn't mind >....at > >This is the type of behaviour that gives genealogists a bad name. > >This is the type of behaviour that antagonizes other organizations >rather than fostering co operation. > >This is the type of behaviour that will, in the end, result in a lack of >new materials for genealogists. > >Please respect the hard work that others have done by not >duplicating it without permission. > >That should be everyone's guideline to copyright. > > > >Lorine McGinnis Schulze >[email protected] >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >* The Olive Tree Genealogy >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ >* The Canadian Military Heritage Project >http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

This is a moral issue...I'm a lawyer...<g>...I think what you're saying has some truth in it...but when GPC puts a copyright on material that is not copyrightable...that is not right either...and they've published a book done by someone else...and he's probably dead....that isn't right either...sorry, a lot of publishers are in it for the money...those of us searching are doing it out of shear love and being taken advantage of in most cases by genealogy publishers.... How many books have we purchased only to find it had nothing to do with our ancestors....? IMHO...Charlotte >From: "Dr. Brian Leverich" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: "Dr. Brian Leverich" <[email protected]> >To: Charlotte ~ <[email protected]> >CC: [email protected], "Dr. Brian Leverich" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Copyright Confusion >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:32:35 -0700 > >-- Your message was: (from "Charlotte ~") > > > I see nothing unethical about putting public information on the > > web...sorry...public is public...I think the copyright may have died >with > > the author, if there ever was one, it has only been until recently that >an > > authors family could extend the copyright and then that is limited to 75 > > years...but you can't copyright public documents anyway...sooooo you're > > talking apples and oranges... > > > > But making something that is already public, public, is certainly not > > unethical...best way to find out is to put them on the web and find > > out...they'll let you know...<g>...and I suspect they wouldn't mind >....at > > least the author wouldn't...remember book form was the only form to make > > info public in the 1800s...today we have the web... > > --------- > > >In a lot of ways, what's legal really isn't the issue. > >The issue is doing The Right Thing. > >The right thing generally involves working with authors, gensocs, >and publishers and trying to avoid damaging the economic value of >what they do. > >Why? > >There's almost an infinite amount of genealogical data out there, >most of it completely uncopyrighted and of no economic value to >anyone. We should focus on bringing that material online. > >Right now, the last thing you want to bring online is a GPC >reprint. That material is already relatively accessible to the >community, and by eroding GPC's economic interest you'll be >discouraging them from creating more good stuff for genealogists. > >Cheers, B. > > >-- >Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L >RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ >P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 [email protected] _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Date forwarded: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:45:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Charlotte ~ <[email protected]> > > But making something that is already public, public, is certainly not > unethical...best way to find out is to put them on the web and find > out...they'll let you know...<g>...and I suspect they wouldn't mind ....at This is the type of behaviour that gives genealogists a bad name. This is the type of behaviour that antagonizes other organizations rather than fostering co operation. This is the type of behaviour that will, in the end, result in a lack of new materials for genealogists. Please respect the hard work that others have done by not duplicating it without permission. That should be everyone's guideline to copyright. 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 08:35 PM 6/11/99 PDT, Charlotte ~ wrote: >There is no state copyright laws...all federal ...preempted by the federal >government in the US... See the following http://www.state.mi.us/execoff/admincode/depart/state.htm Copyright Law: The form, classification, arrangement and numbering of these administrative rules are protected under copyright of the Legislative Council, State of Michigan. Any unathorized reproduction, sale, or other commercial use is hereby prohibited. http://www.marklitwak.com/rdmap3a.htm Federal copyright law applies in all the states. Today, state copyright law is largely preempted by the federal law, although state law may provide a remedy in those areas that the federal law does not preempt. For instance, state law could protect works that are ineligible for federal protection because the works are not in a fixed tangible medium of expression. http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf56.html The District Court, Huff, J., held that: (1) instructor violated federal copyright laws by copying or directing her students to copy organizations' literary works and sound recordings for use in course instructor offered for sale; (2) instructor violated state copyright law with respect to recordings fixed prior to 1972; (3) information contained in organizations' materials was "trade secret" which instructor misappropriated; (4) statutes of limitations did not bar claims; (5) First Amendment did not bar claims; and (6) instructor's use was not "fair use." http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990309/2862.htm Section 301 of the current Copyright Act, enacted in 1976, ("the Act") expressly provides for preemption of state copyright law and provides that all state-created rights, including statutory or common law rights, that are "equivalent" to any of the rights specified by the Act "are governed exclusively by this title." The Act limits express preemption to matters provided for by sections 102 (original works protected by copyright), 103 (compilations and derivative works) and 106 (exclusive rights in copyrighted works). 17 U.S.C. §301. There is no blanket express preemption of state property laws under §301; the federal scheme simply is not so all-pervasive that there is no room for state activity in this area. http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/oakley/notes.html Presumably, this means that if there were a work that were not fixed, it could still be the subject of state copyright law. As examples, Nimmer suggests that states might still protect choreography that has not been filmed or recorded, an extemporaneous speech, live broadcasts, and other works developed from memory and without being written down or otherwise recorded. Of course, in these circumstances there is a difficult problem of proof of ownership of the work or its infringement. Additionally, it is not yet clear whether the states will protect such works. See generally Nimmer on Copyright, Sec. 2.02 (Bender, 1988). The above came from an internet search on the phrase "state copyright law," as did the following: http://lark.cc.ukans.edu/~akdclass/pct/outline.txt http://www.liberty.edu/itrc/policies.html http://www.krusch.com/real/copyright.html Mike Goad (I am not a lawyer and opinions in my posts and web-site only express should not be constued as legal advice) http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright1.htm

"This is a moral issue...I'm a lawyer...<g>...I think what you're saying has some truth in it...but when GPC puts a copyright on material that is not copyrightable...that is not right either...and they've published a book done by someone else...and he's probably dead....that isn't right either...sorry, a lot of publishers are in it for the money...those of us searching are doing it out of shear love and being taken advantage of in most cases by genealogy publishers...." A compilation of facts is copyrightable. If people want to publish these same facts it is incumbent on them to go to the original records and make their own compilation and do their own work. In the US, it would then be legal for them to publish their work. But they had better be able to prove they did not copy someone else's pre-existing work. Your speculation that GPC does not hold a valid copyright is only speculation and conjecture. GPC may very well have contacted the appropriate English government agency and the author/heirs and assigns, and made the proper arrangements. Would you go to court and make accusations based on mere suspicion? Those of us who are "searching out of shear (sic) love" need to find our own sources of records and develop our own databases, and honor the intellectual property rights of those who have researched and published. Genealogy publishers and authors aren't "taking advantage of us" - they are making records accessible. If you don't want to use their products and pay the price, then go and consult the original records for yourself. Charlotte, I think you are giving extremely bad advice and I hope Carol does not act on it. Kathleen.

-- Your message was: (from "Charlotte ~") > I see nothing unethical about putting public information on the > web...sorry...public is public...I think the copyright may have died with > the author, if there ever was one, it has only been until recently that an > authors family could extend the copyright and then that is limited to 75 > years...but you can't copyright public documents anyway...sooooo you're > talking apples and oranges... > > But making something that is already public, public, is certainly not > unethical...best way to find out is to put them on the web and find > out...they'll let you know...<g>...and I suspect they wouldn't mind ....at > least the author wouldn't...remember book form was the only form to make > info public in the 1800s...today we have the web... --------- In a lot of ways, what's legal really isn't the issue. The issue is doing The Right Thing. The right thing generally involves working with authors, gensocs, and publishers and trying to avoid damaging the economic value of what they do. Why? There's almost an infinite amount of genealogical data out there, most of it completely uncopyrighted and of no economic value to anyone. We should focus on bringing that material online. Right now, the last thing you want to bring online is a GPC reprint. That material is already relatively accessible to the community, and by eroding GPC's economic interest you'll be discouraging them from creating more good stuff for genealogists. Cheers, B. -- Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 [email protected]

At 07:32 AM 6/11/99 -0600, W. David Samuelsen wrote: >ANYTHING done in government domain is not copyrightable. The Clerk >needs to be educated on this. > Not necessarily true. The statute says: CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT -HEAD- Sec. 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works -STATUTE- Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/code.htm - --------------------------- Whether state or local documents are copyrightable or not falls under states rights and laws. If they can be copyrighted by state law, they fall under the federal copyright codes and regulations. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. (source: Section 105 revision notes) Mike ________________ 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

I certainly was not trying to do anything unethical or wrong. I really didn't see any difference in transcribing these Palatine census records and the ones that are being transcribed for the US. All those records were transcribed by someone at sometime or they would not be available for people to transcribe now for the web. I understand how much work went into compiling these records, especially back in 1871 when the author was doing this, but I believed that the copyright expired due to his death and that GPC just picked up on this book and began publishing it and collecting the money for his work. If there was a copyright in effect for the author or his heirs I would not of even thought to use his book as a source of these census records, I believe that to be unethical. I am not of some mission either to set GPC straight. I just had the records, knew they were public, and thought it would be helpful to others. Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - --------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothing unethical about putting public information on the web...sorry...public is public...I think the copyright may have died with the author, if there ever was one, it has only been until recently that an authors family could extend the copyright and then that is limited to 75 years...but you can't copyright public documents anyway...sooooo you're talking apples and oranges... But making something that is already public, public, is certainly not unethical...best way to find out is to put them on the web and find out...they'll let you know...<g>...and I suspect they wouldn't mind ....at least the author wouldn't...remember book form was the only form to make info public in the 1800s...today we have the web... Charlotte >From: "Paula Wiegand" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Copyright Confusion >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:58:58 -5.00 > ><soap box mode on> > >Whether it is copyright infringement or plagiarism, it is unethical >to copy someone else's work. > >Why do so many people think that if it is not illegal to do >something, then it is the right thing to do? > >If these records fall under the collections that the Crown has waived >its copyright on, then by all means go to London and transcribe the >records. > >Genealogists have a bad name in academic circles and the internet has >a bad name for copyright, plagiarism and unethical practices, why >would anyone ever want to do something that adds more credence to >those opinions? > >The publisher has said they will not give permission, the author is >dead but his heirs may have renewed the copyright. I expect you >could investigate further and find out the full (and legal) >situation, but until then it has to be better all around to leave >this alone. > >I am not singling out the person who originally asked, at least she >did her homework and was seeking a clear answer. So many people think >that if something is available to them it should be available to >everyone via their webpage - if it's a great resource plug the book! > ><soap box mode off> > >Paula >[email protected] > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

There is no state copyright laws...all federal ...preempted by the federal government in the US... Charlotte >From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Quiestion >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:56:48 -0500 > >At 07:32 AM 6/11/99 -0600, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > >ANYTHING done in government domain is not copyrightable. The Clerk > >needs to be educated on this. > > > >Not necessarily true. The statute says: > >CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT >-HEAD- > Sec. 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government > works >-STATUTE- > Copyright protection under this title is not available for any > work of the United States Government, but the United States > Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights > transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/code.htm >----------------------------- > >Whether state or local documents are copyrightable or not falls under >states rights and laws. If they can be copyrighted by state law, they fall >under the federal copyright codes and regulations. > >Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. (source: >Section 105 revision notes) > >Mike > >________________ >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 > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

The records that are in question are dated 1709, nearing 300 years. Perhaps these laws would not apply to them. Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com -----Original Message----- From: matt emerson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:21 PM Subject: Copyright Confusion - >The English gov't has changed their copyright rules effective March 26, 1999 >for their government records. These are not in the public domain in the same >way that U. S. government records are and have been under government >copyright for 100 to 200 years. The English gov't is not releasing most of >these >records but there are some exceptions. Records that have already been >*published* are not being released from copyright. It looks to me like >this would >apply to the material Carol would like to put on the WWW. My guess is that >McWethey made proper arrangements with the PRO in 1933 to get his >copyright...and Genealogical Publishing has been in business a long time. >I would also guess that they probably did whatever was needed to protect >their investment in this printed mater. > >A detailed explanation of the new guidelines is available at >http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/copyright/default.htm >and a long leaflet explaining copyright as it applied to >English Government Records is at >http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/copyright/copyright.pdf > >One person told me that because we live in the US, we are not bound by the >copyright >laws of other countries...this doesn't strike me as good advice and I >personally would >be very careful about violating these laws. It is very commendable to want >to help >other genealogists by putting material on the WWW but it is not worth >exposing yourself >and your family to a lawsuit. If I understand copyright laws correctly, >the loser in any >copyright lawsuit is required to pay all expenses including all attorney's >fees. Perhaps >Charlotte would comment on that, as she is an attorney. > >The LDS church has something like 10 million microfilms, which are >available for a >modest rental through their local FHC's. A huge number of these are >government >records which have not been indexed, transcribed, extracted, or published >and are >available for any volunteer who wishes to compile them and make them >available to the public. > >Aside from the practical issues and with apologies to Carol, because I see >her as a very >nice person who wishes to help with the genealogical volunteer movement, >isn't there >an issue of plagiarism here? > >Kathleen. >