Kathi wrote > I think that would be copyright violation not > plagiarism. Plagiarism defintion: Plagiarism is using > others’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging > the source of that information. Which is, I think true enough > You have to credit > someone for using their idea, opinion or theory, > quotations of their actual words or for paraphrasing > their spoken or written words. its certainly good manners to cite someone whose ideas you utilized. its probably professionally needful to do so, if you want to retain standing > Copying exactly word-for-word any part of a book, and > trying to make it appear you wrote it, would be a > copyright violation not plagiarism. taking credit for something someone else wrote is the essence of plagiarism. It may also be a copyright violation depending on the specific sources used > If you rewrote a > paragraph of Harry Potter using your own words, but > clearly the meaning and intent of the original book > then I think that would be plagiarism. Probably not a good choice as an example. It might be both, or neither in the case of some other examples You can certainly quote passages from copyrighted work under fair use, though you have to cite your source And people do write summaries of passages in this (and other) work(s) for purposes of discussion of the original work. But if you rewrote "Harry Potter" and tried to pass it off as your own, it would certainly be both plagerism AND copyright violation. However, if you extract information from something that someone else wrote, present it in your own words, then its an original expression, and would not violate I think anyone's copyright. Its the creative presentation that's protected under copyright. Now, if you decided to write a new story about Harry Potter, based on no existing work by Rowling, then you'd probably not be violating her copyright, nor plagerizing her---but you'd probably be subject to trademark infringement laws. Bill

I believe the point being made was in reference to using the term "data" in the original quote. its the use of the term "data" the contains the misunderstanding I referred to, not your how you described the problem. On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Richard A. Pence wrote: > Bill quoted someone as saying: > >>> In your situation the person agreed to remove the data because >>> you held copyright to it--not because the poster wasn't a >>> descendant of the >>> line, right? > > And then added. > >> Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The >> information/ >> data is not copyrightable. >> Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable. > > There indeed are some misunderstandings. > > 1. I have previously stated TWICE that this was a narrative article > I had > written on one of my ancestors and as such was quite copyrightable. > > 2. The person didn't agree to do anything except acknowledge my > copyright > and add it to my story on his web site. > > 3. Genealogy.com agreed to remove the material after acknowledging my > copyright. By this time, however, I had agreed to let the guy use > the stor > if he properly acknowledged it was mine. > > 4. The guy eventually realized he wasn't related to the man in my > article so > he was no longer interested in what I wrote and simply took the > article off > his site. > > 5. The man's relatinship or lack thereof to the ancestor I wrote > about had > absolutely nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with the copyright > issue. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Well, that's what I remember him saying at the time, but perhaps not. On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:11 AM, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 9/1/2007 9:22:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > They have no choice in the matter. It is, I believe, part of the > terms of agreement under which > they purchased Rootsweb from Brian Leftkowitz. Don't know the exact > terms, but I believe that > they have to keep Rootsweb up and running more or less in perpetuity > as a free service. > > But I agree with the sentiment. > > > > Bill- > > Unless you have read the agreement between RootsWeb and the then > MyFamily.com (and copies of the agreement are closely and privately > held--so I doubt you > have a copy) it is probably not wise to speculate on the terms. > Also, > RootsWeb's founders and original owners are Brian LEVERICH and his > wife, Karen > ISAACSON. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- > new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Fortunately, I've no desire to see professional certification. The fact remains, however, that irrespective of what a professional genealogical society has to say on the subject the terms primary and secondary are, I'm sure, firmly entrenched in the rest of the world concerned with data. But we'll look into it. And I thank you for the feedback. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Richard A. Pence wrote: >> last time I looked at the BCG standards they were still using primary >> and secondary. I'll recheck > > I just did. And it must have been a while since you checked! I've > been > reading about "original" and "derivative" sources for what must be > a couple > of years. > > The judges will surely dump applicants who seek certification and > talk about > "primary" and "secondary" sources <g>. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, > bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: > > Joan > > Can you help me define Sources, Evidence and Information as used below. > I'd > like to see if my definitions are correct > > > > Source=where you got information from--how you know it. If Aunt Susie > told > you then Aunt Susie is the SOURCE, if you have a birth certificate then > the > document is your source for knowing a fact. > > Information=the fact -- what you learned from the source. Aunt Susie > said > that your mother was born on 25 March 1909 so Aunt Susie is a source and > the > date of birth is the information she supplied. > > Evidence=what the information indicates to you. Evidence furnishes proof > or > bears witness to a fact. It is what you weigh to arrive at a conclusion > (especially if the evidence is in conflict). Aunt Susie says your mother > was > born on 25 March 1909 but your mother says she was born on 25 March 1910 > and > Aunt Susie is younger than your mother so she wasn't around to know from > first-hand experience. So you obtain a copy of your mother's birth > certificate > which says 25 March 1910. So you take all of the "evidence" into > consideration > and determine which to accept -- in this case the birth certificate would > be > the best evidence. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 5:21 PM > >

Ah! Thank you. That clarifies the issue nicely. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Pat Asher wrote: > At 10:06 AM 9/1/2007, you wrote: >> As a case in point, organizations like Topozone considers the images >> they provide to be within their copyright. >> You can't use them without paying for that right. Yet the images are >> based on USGS public property maps. True, they are probably using >> digitized data to >> generate their maps rather than scanning them, but the raw data is >> public property, and so their use would seem to be public property. >> Yet you can not use the images for anything other than personal use. >> >> Is this not the case? > > The Topozone images are protected by license (their Terms and > Conditions of use), not necessarily by copyright. Individual images > within their collection may be protected by copyright (theirs or > others), and the collection as a whole is protected by compilation > copyright. But the individual images copied from the public domain > remain public domain and the companies "sweat of the brow" in > digitizing those images can only be protected in the U.S. through > licensing. When you use the site to access an image from their > collection, you agree to their Terms and Conditions. Reading the > licensing agreements on websites and CDs containing data or image > collections can be a real eye-opener <g> > > Pat > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 9/1/2007 12:47:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: << Rootsweb free sites do encourage you to use the Ancestry.com / formerly Rootsweb trees. >> ---- Debbie- How so? You've completely lost me on this logic--what is your source for this statement? They may advice you that you can post a GEDCOM on RootsWeb's WorldConnect because GEDCOMs are not permitted on the websites (because you would be storing them there). Instead you can store and display them and link to them on WorldConnect--but you are by no means required to do that. << I AM referring to paying for web space. It isn't so expensive that it wouldn't be worth owning it rather than borrowing it from Rootsweb, which only exists because it has to per the agreement with Ancestry.com. Not all Rootsweb web pages are unlimited and free >> ---- Ancestry may have inherited Freepages, Homepages, virts, etc. but they are not being forced to perserve the original agreement forever--they do so because they choose to do so for the goodwill of the genealogical community. What accounts are NOT unlimited and free? You have me curious. Accounts must be used for genealogy-related content and there are limitation as to the types of files that may be housed there--but I'm curious as to what you mean in saying they are not unlimited if properly used? Clarification of [my] statement that Ancestry/RootsWeb encourages you to store your database at Ancestry -- what do you mean by that? I know of no such requirement or "encouragement." << "Also, please do not upload GEDCOM files to Freepages accounts. They should be uploaded to _WorldConnect_ (http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/) and then you can link to your files there." >> ---- Explained above. That doesn't say you have to upload a GEDCOM to WorldConnect--it is merely telling you a place is offered to upload these trees at RootsWeb since they are not a type of file that can be placed on Freepages. << I don't want my gedcom at Ancestry.com. Can I put it somewhere else and link from my Rootsweb page? >> ---- Absolutely! What would lead you to believe otherwise? << When I said this: "You would have less control with a Rootsweb free site because you wouldn't have to fly their banners and you wouldn't be encouraged to store your database, if you have one, at Ancestry.com where it would end up sold and mixed up with a bunch of poor research." >> ---- As already explained there is no requirement that you house a GEDCOM on RootsWeb if you have a Freepages site, and even if you did decide to upload a GEDCOM to WorldConnect it remains a separate entity and isn't merged with other trees. If you can find free web space elsewhere with fewer restrictions and no banner ads and/or ads and popups -- then great--go for it! Free user-contributed data house at RootsWeb is never sold and no fee is charged to access it. << I was referring to OneWorldTree. After spending several years undoing some old bad genealogy for a certain family and disproving most it, my tree would be hooked right back up to the same old trees with the wrong wife and kids. I don't want my work anywhere near this ... I don't want it packaged and sold this way, regardless of whether they link to the original trees. And, as I said earlier, Ancestry.com arbitrarily chooses the trees they think match. It's a bad idea and it serves only the purpose of making money from the submitters and their work. >> ---- You have a very distorted concept of what OWT is and does. What is being paid for with OWT is the search engine and trees are not MERGED -- suggestions are made for possible matches. Personally I don't care for OWT and I don't use it--but that doesn't mean my WorldConnect trees are not still available and accessible and searchable as they always were directly from WorldConnect. It also doesn't mean I mina Ancestry having a search feature like OWT for those who might wish to use it. << I don't plan to run 30,000 genealogy mailing lists. I would only need a few, which can be done. Free lists are also available at usenet and other places. >> ---- If you are referring to usenet Newsgroups they are quite a different "animal" from RootsWeb mailing lists. And, of course, there are other places that offer free mailing lists but there is no other places with a cohesive easy to find genealogy group of mailing lists. << Also, I believe when Ancestry.com took over Rootsweb the mailing lists were a part of the deal. They didn't keep them out of the kindness of their hearts. >> ---- Just because they inherited the mailing lists, message boards, WorldConnect and other assets of RootsWeb and made an agreement to keep them going at the time...that doesn't mean they are REQUIRED to do so forever and to make no changes. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Pat said: >That is sophistry.. OK. Just so I understand, is your argument that manipulating of a digital image _cannot_ involve original artistry that is protected by copyright ... or that protection for that artistry is only lost when the result is "indistinguishable" in your mind from something which you have never seen? >Making the best copy possible is (usually) the goal of the copyist, >and accomplishment of that goal may include restoring missing or >illegible portions of the original. Those who argue against copyright for digital images frequently and conveniently fail to distinguish the "original" which I hold in my hand from the "original" (as originally published but no longer exists) which is what the modified image attempts to replicate. The unstated argument is that, no matter how much original artistry is involved, the manipulation of the image is not covered by copyright if the objective is to approximate an image of material which is itself out of copyright. There is simply no case law to support such a claim. Like the person who photographs a tombstone, the copyright status of the material in the image isn't relevant. It is the artistry in the image that is copyrighted. Unlike a "copiest," Pat, my objective is _not_ to exactly replicate the material that I have in my hand. The scanner does that and I agree that it is indistinguishable from the "original" (which I hold in my hand) and does not involve artistry, That's true even though, to use your misplaced analogy, someone had the skill to build the scanner. The artistry comes in after that. My objective is to construct something which does not exist and is _very_ distinguishable from what I have in my hand. I do that by manually changing every image in a way which adds value to it in order to approximate something ELSE - a true "original" of that document, (i.e., as it appeared when published). You would benefit from that artistry and then deny me a copyright on the irrelevant grounds that the text in the image is not copyrightable. Joan calls what I do "restoration" as if that justifies denying me a copyright. Perhaps you can cite a case where the application of artistry to "restore" a work that is in the public domain is not covered by copyright? >Do you have a Court decision supporting your position you can share with us? No, and you don't have one refuting it. I can only guess that intellectual property attorneys know better than to bring to court a case where the manipulation of the image clearly involves artistry. Bob Velke -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 5:21 PM

Richard, I am not blaming everything on Ancestry, nor do I get any "free lunch". Ancestry is quite expensive and I have paid for it for years -- Genealogy is not a cheap hobby. I am merely pointing out my objection to selling back to us our own work, whether it's an index or not, and pointing out why I will buy web space rather than use the Rootsweb "Free" space, which is far from "free." We pay for it through our Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com subscriptions. Debbie Yeah. And the "free-lunch mob" would say it's all Ancestry's fault. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: Joan Can you help me define Sources, Evidence and Information as used below. I'd like to see if my definitions are correct Source=where you got information from--how you know it. If Aunt Susie told you then Aunt Susie is the SOURCE, if you have a birth certificate then the document is your source for knowing a fact. Information=the fact -- what you learned from the source. Aunt Susie said that your mother was born on 25 March 1909 so Aunt Susie is a source and the date of birth is the information she supplied. Evidence=what the information indicates to you. Evidence furnishes proof or bears witness to a fact. It is what you weigh to arrive at a conclusion (especially if the evidence is in conflict). Aunt Susie says your mother was born on 25 March 1909 but your mother says she was born on 25 March 1910 and Aunt Susie is younger than your mother so she wasn't around to know from first-hand experience. So you obtain a copy of your mother's birth certificate which says 25 March 1910. So you take all of the "evidence" into consideration and determine which to accept -- in this case the birth certificate would be the best evidence. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Stan, They were copied word for word, just from various places. Its a copyright issue. Debbie Seems to me, All these messages are discussing plagiarism, not copyright, except as an incidental issue issue. While copyright issues are legal issues, plagiarism is an ethical issue. Those are usually grounds for a failing grade in school, or censure by the appropriate authority, or in some cases,dismissal. Unethical behavior, resulting in personal loss, NOT hurt feelings, may be adjudicated. Stan B. --- RoverLSmith@aol.com wrote: > > Joan, > ... > Basically what he did was search the web, find pages about families many of > whom he couldn't possibly been familiar, and just copied these into a books > and published them. Copying over half a web page into a book and > publishing it, believe violates the author's copyright. > I am NOT old, I am experienced! ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joan, Rootsweb free sites do encourage you to use the Ancestry.com / formerly Rootsweb trees. I AM referring to paying for web space. It isn't so expensive that it wouldn't be worth owning it rather than borrowing it from Rootsweb, which only exists because it has to per the agreement with Ancestry.com. Not all Rootsweb web pages are unlimited and free Clarification of [my] statement that Ancestry/RootsWeb encourages you to store your database at Ancestry -- what do you mean by that? I know of no such requirement or "encouragement." Rootsweb: "Also, please do not upload GEDCOM files to Freepages accounts. They should be uploaded to _WorldConnect_ (http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/) and then you can link to your files there." I don't want my gedcom at Ancestry.com. Can I put it somewhere else and link from my Rootsweb page? When I said this: "You would have less control with a Rootsweb free site because you wouldn't have to fly their banners and you wouldn't be encouraged to store your database, if you have one, at Ancestry.com where it would end up sold and mixed up with a bunch of poor research." And this: "Sold and mixed up with a bunch of poor research?" What exactly do you mean by that? Whatever you mean -- it doesn't happen. I meant this: I was referring to OneWorldTree. After spending several years undoing some old bad genealogy for a certain family and disproving most it, my tree would be hooked right back up to the same old trees with the wrong wife and kids. I don't want my work anywhere near this ... I don't want it packaged and sold this way, regardless of whether they link to the original trees. And, as I said earlier, Ancestry.com arbitrarily chooses the trees they think match. It's a bad idea and it serves only the purpose of making money from the submitters and their work. I don't plan to run 30,000 genealogy mailing lists. I would only need a few, which can be done. Free lists are also available at usenet and other places. I don't believe I was complaining about mailing lists, though, was I? I was complaining about Ancestry.com cluttering itself with and selling information which is actually free and which it does not require a brain surgeon to search the Internet and find. Its much better to search fewer files that actually aren't available elsewhere. Maybe they could spend some time fixing some of their church records and ship lists which come out as a big mess instead of indexing records that people can find on their own for free. Also, I believe when Ancestry.com took over Rootsweb the mailing lists were a part of the deal. They didn't keep them out of the kindness of their hearts. I haven't thought out any of this carelessly, and I did not state them carelessly. I expressed them with thoughtfulness, but a bitter taste for the moneymaking machine that doesn't consider their subscribers even to the point of trying to grab your money from you early "in case they have to raise their rates for all the new additions." (their words, not mine). Ancestry.com certainly is not the hand that feeds me. I got along for years without it. It's handy at times, especially for census records, but it wouldn't kill me to go back to the library for that. Debbie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:39:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, bvelke@whollygenes.com writes: If the original no longer exists, then it is difficult to make a legal claim that the image is indistinguishable from it. Bob- The PURPOSE of a RESTORATION is to bring something that has been lost or damaged BACK to its original state--not to create something new. The dictionary defines restoration as "bringing back to a former condition." There would be nothing creative or original in that unless the restoration were done by a process that could be patented. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:49:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: 1. I have previously stated TWICE that this was a narrative article I had written on one of my ancestors and as such was quite copyrightable. Yes--which is the reason I replied as I did. When I used the word "data" I was really referring to your "work" or "database" and not facts. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

They definately would, Richard. They have a clause in the agreement with rootsweb users (alhn, ahgp or usgw) that they will not use or sell the data on those sites....tho this is not an exact quote. They DON'T have that agreement with godaddy or anyone else so it seems to me that if a person is looking for the 'safety net' they feel like they need, they should leave their data on rootsweb where they have THAT posted agreement. I just don't 'figger' people sometimes.... But I'm not always the 500 watt bulb some claim to be. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > Joan wrote to Debbie: > >> If enough people keep expressing carelessly thought out statements such >> as >> > you made above--and keep insisting on biting the hand that is feeding >> them -- > they may find they get what they wish for. > > Yeah. And the "free-lunch mob" would say it's all Ancestry's fault. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > >

Joan Young wrote: > When the terminology changed I jotted down a little note to myself and I > simplify it as: > > SOURCES are either original or derivative, INFORMATION is either primary > or > secondary, and EVIDENCE is either direct or indirect. At least that is > how I > keep the terminology straight. I think that's exactly how Elizabeth Mills described it on the APG List. I copied it but I forget where I stored it. <g> Richard

Joan wrote to Debbie: > If enough people keep expressing carelessly thought out statements such as > > you made above--and keep insisting on biting the hand that is feeding > them -- > they may find they get what they wish for. Yeah. And the "free-lunch mob" would say it's all Ancestry's fault. Richard

At 11:38 AM 9/1/2007, Bob Velke wrote: >If the manipulation of the image involved an element of >artistry (and not just technical skill), then there will be evidence >of it within the digital image file. Bob, That is sophistry.. A copyist of an oil painting by definition must be an accomplished artist and may create works representing his own intellectual concepts. But a copy is a copy is a copy. Making the best copy possible is (usually) the goal of the copyist, and accomplishment of that goal may include restoring missing or illegible portions of the original. I am not aware of a Court decision saying such enhancements are original and creative. In fact, my understanding is that they are akin to a publisher resetting a second edition of a book in a more legible type face. Do you have a Court decision supporting your position you can share with us? Pat

Joan Can you help me define Sources, Evidence and Information as used below. I'd like to see if my definitions are correct Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:11:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > > I just did. And it must have been a while since you checked! I've been > reading about "original" and "derivative" sources for what must be a > couple > of years. > > The judges will surely dump applicants who seek certification and talk > about > "primary" and "secondary" sources <g>. > > Richard > > > > > Richard- > > When the terminology changed I jotted down a little note to myself and I > simplify it as: > > SOURCES are either original or derivative, INFORMATION is either primary > or > secondary, and EVIDENCE is either direct or indirect. At least that is > how I > keep the terminology straight. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > >

Bill quoted someone as saying: >> In your situation the person agreed to remove the data because >> you held copyright to it--not because the poster wasn't a >> descendant of the >> line, right? And then added. > Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The information/ > data is not copyrightable. > Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable. There indeed are some misunderstandings. 1. I have previously stated TWICE that this was a narrative article I had written on one of my ancestors and as such was quite copyrightable. 2. The person didn't agree to do anything except acknowledge my copyright and add it to my story on his web site. 3. Genealogy.com agreed to remove the material after acknowledging my copyright. By this time, however, I had agreed to let the guy use the stor if he properly acknowledged it was mine. 4. The guy eventually realized he wasn't related to the man in my article so he was no longer interested in what I wrote and simply took the article off his site. 5. The man's relatinship or lack thereof to the ancestor I wrote about had absolutely nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with the copyright issue. Richard