> 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 There are International Copyright Treaties in effect. Go to http://www.ipa-uie.org/ for a very informative explanation of types of copyright -- in particular for an explanation of the Internet and copyright legalities. Lorine McGinnis Schulze [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * The Olive Tree Genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/~ote/ * The Canadian Military Heritage Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are the British guidelines...sounds like they've lifted their copyright to me...the *Crown will in futre waive its copyright in Crown copyright material in public records that are etc*...I think the Crown is different than the British government...no *formal permission is required*...sounds like they've waived any copyright to any public records... Charlotte Guidelines for Those Who Propose To Reproduce Works Among Records Held in the Public Record Office >From 26th March 1999, the Crown will in future waive its copyright in Crown copyright material in public records that are available to the public and that were unpublished when they were transferred. This means that such material can be copied, indexed, transcribed, published and broadcast without formal permission, payment of a copyright fee or acknowledgement of copyright. The change affects not only public records in the PRO but also those in all places of deposit outside the PRO, the National Archives of Scotland and the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland. Material in private copyright, published Crown copyright material, and non-public records are all unaffected. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Good point on the English records and way out of my area...but it seems to me then that GPC would be in violation of English Copyright...unless they had some type of consent...or the original author had some type of consent... Plagiarism - I'm not sure of the definition on this...but this seems to be more of taking someone else's idea and copying it...in the US public documents or copying from them would not be plagiarism because it's not someone's idea...just government records...facts if you will.... Charlotte >From: matt emerson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Copyright Confusion - >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:16:36 -0600 > >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. > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

ANYTHING done in government domain is not copyrightable. The Clerk needs to be educated on this. W. David Samuelsen Candi Horton wrote: > > Hi Everyone. I know that Facts cannot be copyrighted. The situation I'm in > is this: > 1. The County Clerk in 1974 allowed for this person to Copy all the Birth > Cerfd. info. that would be on them. In fact it looks like photo copies. > Well, the County Clerk Now will only let you see the index and will not > allow them to be copied. I don't see Copyright info on this booklet. Can I > use it will out getting in to a big struggle? > 2. the County I live did a specil City Census for 1888. Just for the city. > The Genealogy Soc. Copied it(handwriting), I have seen it once in the county > Clerk office but it was grabed out of my hands before I could copy more than > one page. They will not let me copy because the Gen Soc. Has the info. So, > where do I stand with the law and the Gen. Soc. having a monopoly on that > information. P.S. I wasn't suppost to know abt it(the 1888 city census) in > the County Clerk's office. > Thanks For your time, > Candi

Hi Everyone. I know that Facts cannot be copyrighted. The situation I'm in is this: 1. The County Clerk in 1974 allowed for this person to Copy all the Birth Cerfd. info. that would be on them. In fact it looks like photo copies. Well, the County Clerk Now will only let you see the index and will not allow them to be copied. I don't see Copyright info on this booklet. Can I use it will out getting in to a big struggle? 2. the County I live did a specil City Census for 1888. Just for the city. The Genealogy Soc. Copied it(handwriting), I have seen it once in the county Clerk office but it was grabed out of my hands before I could copy more than one page. They will not let me copy because the Gen Soc. Has the info. So, where do I stand with the law and the Gen. Soc. having a monopoly on that information. P.S. I wasn't suppost to know abt it(the 1888 city census) in the County Clerk's office. Thanks For your time, Candi

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.

Richard & Charlotte, I appreciate both of your inputs into this copyright problem. I will write again to GPC and be more specific and I also went back to the US copyright site and they will do a search for a copyright for $20, it will be worth it. I suppose if I try to pin down GPC, they are just going to ignore me. I agree they were very generic in their answer, along with being condescending. Thanks for your help! Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com

The front of this book states that the information within was "compiled & arranged" by Lou D. MacWethy. The next page says "Originally Published St. Johnsville, NY 1933, and then below that it says reprinted GPC Baltimore, 1969 and then the Library of Congress catalog card no. 69-17132. It also says that it was copyrighted by L. MacWethy 1933. The book is called ""The Book of Names Especially Relating to the Early Palatines and the First Settlers in the Mohawk Valley". When I first went to GPC website, I saw that the book was again republished by them this year. I figured the author probably died, the copyright ran out ( probably in 1961) and GPC picked it up in 1969 and republished it. But all this assuming can get me in trouble if somehow they do have the copyright. I know that these are public records, but I don't know how I would access the public record, the "Palatine into England" records are in London, in the British Museum, manuscript division. I have been to the copyright office site, it didn't help much, but I will go back there again and try to figure this out. I appreciate your help and input!! Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com

There are places who can do this type of search for you, but do not have an address. On the repub/reprint by Genealogical Pub Co...... was there only the 1933 date shown or was there also a 1961 date?? if only the earlier..... the book most probably was NOT renewed. Then you would NOT need GPC permission.... per Charlotte's earlier comment. Does anyone know how to check with the copyright office to see if a book was renewed?? Stephen and Carol Slotnick wrote: > I asked them if the > copyright had been renewed and they just stated that it was copyrighted in > 1933. For all I know, that copyright was not renewed. > > Dear Mrs. Slotnick, > Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above-titled book published by > Genealogical Publishing Company. The book was copyrighted in 1933 by the > author. We do not grant permission for use of any of our publications on the > internet. > I am sorry that we are not able to grant your request, but we certainly > appreciate the wonderful efforts you are making in your Palatine research. > Sincerely, Eileen Perkins / Production Manager -- joe

Charlotte, Thank you responding to my message, I am very frustrated with this, because I stupidly already spent over a 100 hour transcribing this stuff before I sent a message to the present publisher. This is Genealogical Publishing Company and this a copy of their message is below. I asked them if the copyright had been renewed and they just stated that it was copyrighted in 1933. For all I know, that copyright was not renewed. Dear Mrs. Slotnick, Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above-titled book published by Genealogical Publishing Company. The book was copyrighted in 1933 by the author. We do not grant permission for use of any of our publications on the internet. I am sorry that we are not able to grant your request, but we certainly appreciate the wonderful efforts you are making in your Palatine research. Sincerely, Eileen Perkins / Production Manager Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com -----Original Message----- From: Charlotte ~ <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 10:07 AM Subject: Re: copyright confusion >Well, not having seen the material but I agree with you that it is not >copyrightable to begin with and admitting I'm not that familiar with >renewing copyrights...but only the original copyright holder can renew a >copyright not the second republisher unless the original copyright was >assigned to the republisher, which I doubt... > >So the first company, if there was a copyright, would hold the copyright, if >they let it lapse the copyright is gone... > >Who said you couldn't put it on the web...? > >Sometimes a republisher will hold the copyright on any additional >information added to the original book, but the original book copyright >could have expired...can't revive it once it's gone... > >Charlotte > >>From: "Stephen and Carol Slotnick" <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: copyright confusion >>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:24:47 -0700 >> >>List Members, >> >>I am trying to sort out the confusing copyright laws and hope someone can >>help. >> >>I have a microfiche copy of a book, copyrighted in 1933 which is a >>compilation of Palatine records, such as "List of Palatine's Into England", >>Governor Hunter's Ration Lists" , Palatine Naturalization Records", etc. >>This book was published by one company in 1933 and then by another company >>in 1968 & again in 1999. >> >>First, it is my understanding that something copyrighted in 1933 was under >>the copyright law that was for 28 years, and could be renewed for an >>additional 28, if it was done within 2 years. Then if it was renewed the >>2nd time in would be protected under the total 75 year laws. (Hope I have >>this straight) >> >>If it wasn't renewed, then I am assuming that this copyright expired in >>1961. >> >>The problem is, I want to transcribe this information to put on my website >>and link to the GenWeb Schoharie site, and I wrote to the present >>publisher, >>who told me I could not use this book, and that the author copyrighted it >>in >>1933. >> >>I don't believe the information in this book is under copyright law in the >>first place, and secondly how can I find out if the 1933 copyright was >>renewed? I have tried to search the Library of Congress website for this >>book, but I cannot find it there. >> >>Can a publisher renew a copyright, or would they just take a book that was >>expired and publish it? >> >>Thanks for any help anyone can give me, >>Carol >><[email protected]> >><[email protected]> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com >> >> > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >

List Members, I am trying to sort out the confusing copyright laws and hope someone can help. I have a microfiche copy of a book, copyrighted in 1933 which is a compilation of Palatine records, such as "List of Palatine's Into England", Governor Hunter's Ration Lists" , Palatine Naturalization Records", etc. This book was published by one company in 1933 and then by another company in 1968 & again in 1999. First, it is my understanding that something copyrighted in 1933 was under the copyright law that was for 28 years, and could be renewed for an additional 28, if it was done within 2 years. Then if it was renewed the 2nd time in would be protected under the total 75 year laws. (Hope I have this straight) If it wasn't renewed, then I am assuming that this copyright expired in 1961. The problem is, I want to transcribe this information to put on my website and link to the GenWeb Schoharie site, and I wrote to the present publisher, who told me I could not use this book, and that the author copyrighted it in 1933. I don't believe the information in this book is under copyright law in the first place, and secondly how can I find out if the 1933 copyright was renewed? I have tried to search the Library of Congress website for this book, but I cannot find it there. Can a publisher renew a copyright, or would they just take a book that was expired and publish it? Thanks for any help anyone can give me, Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com

Carol...yes, I agree with you, the original author probably died and that's when they republished it... You don't have to go to the original manuscript...GPC has given you public information originally copyrighted by someone else which can not be copyrighted by either one of them... Oh, I suspect GPC would rant and rave..but twouldn't do them much good...the law is currently against them...Heard of Milles Atlas...well, one of my Coats kin did some of those original maps in there ...someone else came along and published them with a copyright notice...but darned if they're going to tell me I can't put my Coats kin info in my Archive...those maps by the way were done for the State of SC...public documents etc...they can put a copyright notice on them that covers one whole page but doesn't mean a thing... The choice is yours...but the scare tactics do work...<g>.. Charlotte >From: "Stephen and Carol Slotnick" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: copyright confusion >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:50:11 -0700 > >The front of this book states that the information within was "compiled & >arranged" by Lou D. MacWethy. The next page says "Originally Published >St. >Johnsville, NY 1933, and then below that it says reprinted GPC Baltimore, >1969 and then the Library of Congress catalog card no. 69-17132. It also >says that it was copyrighted by L. MacWethy 1933. The book is called ""The >Book of Names Especially Relating to the Early Palatines and the First >Settlers in the Mohawk Valley". > >When I first went to GPC website, I saw that the book was again republished >by them this year. > >I figured the author probably died, the copyright ran out ( probably in >1961) and GPC picked it up in 1969 and republished it. But all this >assuming can get me in trouble if somehow they do have the copyright. I >know that these are public records, but I don't know how I would access the >public record, the "Palatine into England" records are in London, in the >British Museum, manuscript division. > >I have been to the copyright office site, it didn't help much, but I will >go >back there again and try to figure this out. I appreciate your help and >input!! > >Carol ><[email protected]> ><[email protected]> >---------------------------------------------------------------- >HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com > > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

The copyright office has a website...not sure what the url is but if you can't find it I can get it to you...but I'm not sure if you can do a search via the net yet...you can for patents but I haven't been to the copyright place for awhile...but will do some checking around and see what I can find out... Otherwise, a call to the copyright office would work...not sure if they charge a fee for it...their site might tell you how to go about it.... And yes, Joe, I don't think you need GPC consent anyway, it would be the original author's consent you would need...I'll bet GPC didn't have his consent either...because they know the information in the book is not copyrightable and they've done a republish...but they gave him credit as the original publisher or author...just a guess... Charlotte >From: Joe <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: copyright confusion >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:06:56 -0400 > > >There are places who can do this type of search for you, but do not have an >address. > >On the repub/reprint by Genealogical Pub Co...... was there only the 1933 >date shown or was there also a 1961 date?? if only the earlier..... the >book >most probably was NOT renewed. Then you would NOT need GPC permission.... >per >Charlotte's earlier comment. > >Does anyone know how to check with the copyright office to see if a book >was renewed?? > >Stephen and Carol Slotnick wrote: > > > I asked them if the > > copyright had been renewed and they just stated that it was copyrighted >in > > 1933. For all I know, that copyright was not renewed. > > > > Dear Mrs. Slotnick, > > Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above-titled book published by > > Genealogical Publishing Company. The book was copyrighted in 1933 by the > > author. We do not grant permission for use of any of our publications on >the > > internet. > > I am sorry that we are not able to grant your request, but we certainly > > appreciate the wonderful efforts you are making in your Palatine >research. > > Sincerely, Eileen Perkins / Production Manager > > > >-- > >joe > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Well, first of all they are telling you they don't have the copyright...interesting...I'll bet they published without a copyright consent from the original author...<g>...They are telling you the book was originally copyrighted by the author in 1933...anything after that in their name only copyrights any additional info they may have added to what the author originally put in there...notes, comments etc... The fact that they don't want their book put on the web...just means if you were to scan the book and put it on a web page in it's entirety...cover to cover....with the title page etc...extracting the public information from their book is not covered by any copyright...now, in the past or in the future...it is information as a matter of public record just like court opinions...West just lost that case trying to stop another publisher from doing exactly what Genealogy publishing doesn't want you to do... The information if taken from public records, which most passenger lists are is public information already in the public domain and is not copyrightable...and is fair came for the net.... Charlotte >From: "Stephen and Carol Slotnick" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: copyright confusion >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:51:16 -0700 > >Dear Mrs. Slotnick, >Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above-titled book published by >Genealogical Publishing Company. The book was copyrighted in 1933 by the >author. We do not grant permission for use of any of our publications on >the >internet. >I am sorry that we are not able to grant your request, but we certainly >appreciate the wonderful efforts you are making in your Palatine research. >Sincerely, Eileen Perkins / Production Manager > > >Carol ><[email protected]> ><[email protected]> >---------------------------------------------------------------- >HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Charlotte ~ <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: copyright confusion > > > >Well, not having seen the material but I agree with you that it is not > >copyrightable to begin with and admitting I'm not that familiar with > >renewing copyrights...but only the original copyright holder can renew a > >copyright not the second republisher unless the original copyright was > >assigned to the republisher, which I doubt... > > > >So the first company, if there was a copyright, would hold the copyright, >if > >they let it lapse the copyright is gone... > > > >Who said you couldn't put it on the web...? > > > >Sometimes a republisher will hold the copyright on any additional > >information added to the original book, but the original book copyright > >could have expired...can't revive it once it's gone... > > > >Charlotte > > > >>From: "Stephen and Carol Slotnick" <[email protected]> > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: copyright confusion > >>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:24:47 -0700 > >> > >>List Members, > >> > >>I am trying to sort out the confusing copyright laws and hope someone >can > >>help. > >> > >>I have a microfiche copy of a book, copyrighted in 1933 which is a > >>compilation of Palatine records, such as "List of Palatine's Into >England", > >>Governor Hunter's Ration Lists" , Palatine Naturalization Records", etc. > >>This book was published by one company in 1933 and then by another >company > >>in 1968 & again in 1999. > >> > >>First, it is my understanding that something copyrighted in 1933 was >under > >>the copyright law that was for 28 years, and could be renewed for an > >>additional 28, if it was done within 2 years. Then if it was renewed >the > >>2nd time in would be protected under the total 75 year laws. (Hope I >have > >>this straight) > >> > >>If it wasn't renewed, then I am assuming that this copyright expired in > >>1961. > >> > >>The problem is, I want to transcribe this information to put on my >website > >>and link to the GenWeb Schoharie site, and I wrote to the present > >>publisher, > >>who told me I could not use this book, and that the author copyrighted >it > >>in > >>1933. > >> > >>I don't believe the information in this book is under copyright law in >the > >>first place, and secondly how can I find out if the 1933 copyright was > >>renewed? I have tried to search the Library of Congress website for >this > >>book, but I cannot find it there. > >> > >>Can a publisher renew a copyright, or would they just take a book that >was > >>expired and publish it? > >> > >>Thanks for any help anyone can give me, > >>Carol > >><[email protected]> > >><[email protected]> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com > >> > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________________________ > >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Well, not having seen the material but I agree with you that it is not copyrightable to begin with and admitting I'm not that familiar with renewing copyrights...but only the original copyright holder can renew a copyright not the second republisher unless the original copyright was assigned to the republisher, which I doubt... So the first company, if there was a copyright, would hold the copyright, if they let it lapse the copyright is gone... Who said you couldn't put it on the web...? Sometimes a republisher will hold the copyright on any additional information added to the original book, but the original book copyright could have expired...can't revive it once it's gone... Charlotte >From: "Stephen and Carol Slotnick" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: copyright confusion >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:24:47 -0700 > >List Members, > >I am trying to sort out the confusing copyright laws and hope someone can >help. > >I have a microfiche copy of a book, copyrighted in 1933 which is a >compilation of Palatine records, such as "List of Palatine's Into England", >Governor Hunter's Ration Lists" , Palatine Naturalization Records", etc. >This book was published by one company in 1933 and then by another company >in 1968 & again in 1999. > >First, it is my understanding that something copyrighted in 1933 was under >the copyright law that was for 28 years, and could be renewed for an >additional 28, if it was done within 2 years. Then if it was renewed the >2nd time in would be protected under the total 75 year laws. (Hope I have >this straight) > >If it wasn't renewed, then I am assuming that this copyright expired in >1961. > >The problem is, I want to transcribe this information to put on my website >and link to the GenWeb Schoharie site, and I wrote to the present >publisher, >who told me I could not use this book, and that the author copyrighted it >in >1933. > >I don't believe the information in this book is under copyright law in the >first place, and secondly how can I find out if the 1933 copyright was >renewed? I have tried to search the Library of Congress website for this >book, but I cannot find it there. > >Can a publisher renew a copyright, or would they just take a book that was >expired and publish it? > >Thanks for any help anyone can give me, >Carol ><[email protected]> ><[email protected]> >---------------------------------------------------------------- >HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

At 10:52 AM 6/5/99 PDT, Charlotte ~ wrote: >Well, obits are written by someone, if anyone the family, they provide the >information...they are facts usually not original stories so not >copyrightable...even the longer obits are usually written by a family member >so they might have the copyright but not the paper...facts at present are >not copyrightable...the concern is that the database bills will change >that.... Original works, no matter how large or small, are copyrighted under todays copyright laws (in the U.S.) no matter who wrote them. Newspaper obituaries may not satisfy the standard for originality because they are written by a standard process or procedure. No originiality... just plug in the name of the deceased and his/her life information, name of survivors, where the services will be held and who to send memorial donations to. The 1976 Act ...s 102(b), which identifies specifically those elements of a work for which copyright is not available: "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." (FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE COMPANY, INC. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/feist.htm and http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/code.htm ) Mike Goad ________________ 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

At 01:21 PM 6/5/99 EDT, Dave <DESloan> wrote: >Any articles/ obits/ etc that are written by reporters will have a byline. >No byline= not written by a reporter= not copyrighted. >Dave I assume you're basing this statement on common sense and not copyright law. It appears to me that the two have very little if anything to do with each other. Glenn

Hi Carlotte, I have seen your evaluation on obits before. Could you inform us why obits are treated differently than other newspaper articles? They were written by someone, too. Thanks, Charlotte ~ wrote: > > Articles are written by reporters and yes, they are copyrighted...obits are > different...they are not copyrighted at present....Charlotte > > -- joe

Any articles/ obits/ etc that are written by reporters will have a byline. No byline= not written by a reporter= not copyrighted. Dave

Hi Jessica, If the article and obituary are prior to 1923 the copyright should be expired. If newer, then you might want to do an abstract into your own words with the information that you have available and tell folks where they can see the original article. Most funeral homes will give permission to use an obituary if approached properly. Three of four in Jackson County are posting or mailing to me to post all current obituaries. The fourth has promised to do so but I am not getting them yet. Les Shockey At 11:05 PM 6/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >I have a newspaper article that I would like to put on USGenWeb. Is >this >against copyright laws? What about obituaries, etc.? >___________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------ Les Shockey email address = [email protected] or [email protected] RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group. [email protected] Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of USGenWeb Project at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/ Member and Supporter of RootsWeb. Are you helping support RootsWeb?