At 11:33 AM 9/1/2007, Stnaley wrote: >While copyright issues are legal >issues, plagiarism is an ethical issue. Both are legal issues. If I copy a Harry Potter novel without permission, that is copyright infringement. If I copy a phrase or paragraph from a Harry Potter novel and republish it with attribution, it could be Fair Use and not copyright infringement. If I copy a phrase or paragraph from a Harry Potter novel and republish it without attribution making it appear that I wrote it, that is plagiarism and Rowlings and/or her publisher could sue me. Pat

Pat Asher said: >Some of the newcomers may not know, and some of the oldtimers may >have forgotten <g> that you offered this same argument before. Mike >Goad's response is here: Yes, the entire thread is there, including my response to Mike, thanks. >Creative work is always copyrightable, but the Courts have said that >technical skill is not. Bridgeman v. Corel: "Only 'a >distinguishable variation' >-- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original." If the original no longer exists, then it is difficult to make a legal claim that the image is indistinguishable from it. In any event, the distinguishing isn't limited to what you can perceive with your eyes. 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. The fact that the image looks to you like you imagine the original might have looked is a very weak basis for an argument that no original artistry was involved in its creation. 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

Bill, You are correct and I do use the data as a guideline or a trail to follow but we do have to back it up with documentation. Most often tho, I find carbon copies in the family data....which is inevitable. I have gotten my money's worth time after time just accessing the census data. As stated before I don't know how I could research without it. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill" <wmwillis@earthlink.net> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] professional > Joyce > >> Well, you'all know as well as I do that 95% of the time when you >> retrieve >> data from someone it isn't documented data. > > I think you are being generous here. Just based on Ancestry Family > Trees I suspect that the percentage of folks > who recognize that this something that should be done is far less > than 5%. > >> If we're going to be required to retrace somebody else's data we >> may as well >> start from scratch and do the work ourselves....which is usually >> easier. > > Well, yes, of course. Though I don't think its easier to simply > start from scratch. > Ultimately all genealogy has to be both verified and validated----you > have to check (verify) where your source says they found something--- > just to be sure that > they got it right; then you have to show that its also true > (validate). Not easy to do when there's so many things that have to > be checked. > But it is easier if you have a good family history to start with, and > retraceing someone elses steps may actually be easier to do. > (Probably not as much fun, though.) > > For myself, I often use the data I find on the web to sketch things > in. A lot of things remain only in the sketched in state. If the > way someone says something seems to be particularly effective I'll > quote them (small amounts), and source them. Often I'll > provisionally accept their conclusions, but in that case I insert the > word "fide" before the citation. In otherwords, I'm temporarily > taking their word for it. On the other hand, if its just data, not > narrative, and they provide no source, there's not much point in > citing them as the source of the data. I can use their information > as a clue in looking where to look for the underlying documentation, > but their own work (even though I got the data itself from them) has > no real intrinsic value except as a pointer. Its a work in progress, > and when I find the ultimate basis for the information in a primary > document, that's what I will cite. > >> I've state before and I'll state again....we can copyright until >> He__ freezes over but if we don't have the means to legally back up >> said >> copyright, then what use is it. I realize that some of you here >> are very >> knowledgeable about copyright issues but most of us aren't. > > That's always the problem with a legal system. There are no free > rides. Unless you are willing to go through the > legal process, you don't really have much option. Some battles can > be one, and if the return is worth the effort, should be fought. > But usually its not worth the effort. Ultimately, the truth is that > few of us write so well and cogently that our words are really worth > the effort to protect. > > Bill > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >

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

Bob YOu wrote: > The point is not whether there _appears_ to have been any creativity > involved in making the copy -- it is whether there was, in fact, any > creativity involved. If one takes a poor copy of a document (e.g., > because that's all that still exists) and reconstructs an image which > is indistinguishable from the document when originally published, > then that requires original creativity and is covered by copyright, > according to my intellectual property attorney. > > In other words, your talent in restoring an original doesn't > disqualify you from copyright protection on your creative work. I believe that's consistent with what I said >> In that regard making a VERY >> good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to >> give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that >> involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort >> some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be >> copyrightable. What you are describing would seem to be in the later category---its making the image into something different from what it was. I spoke of it as "making it artsy"---thinking specifically of photographs that have been distorted for artistic reasons. But the same argument would seem to apply to "making it better". Bill

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

> 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

--- Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: > If I copy a phrase or paragraph from a Harry Potter > novel and > republish it without attribution making it appear > that I wrote it, > that is plagiarism and Rowlings and/or her publisher > could sue me. > 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. 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. 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. 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. Kathi Jones-Hudson, National Coordinator Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/index.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

In a message dated 9/1/2007 10:42:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, bvelke@whollygenes.com writes: If one takes a poor copy of a document (e.g., because that's all that still exists) and reconstructs an image which is indistinguishable from the document when originally published, then that requires original creativity and is covered by copyright, according to my intellectual property attorney. In other words, your talent in restoring an original doesn't disqualify you from copyright protection on your creative work. Bob Velke Bob- It sure would be interesting to see how that came out if challenged in court. I believe Ancestry invented a grayscale process that enhanced their census images and yet they don't claim copyright to their images. They do, however, hold the patent to the PROCESS that enhanced the originals. I tend to think that copyright of images would extend to those images that were artistically changed to create a work of art rather than a restoration--but, obviously, that is why we have lawyers and courts. It is a complex issue and could go either way. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

At 10:40 AM 9/1/2007, Bob Velke wrote: >If one takes a poor copy of a document (e.g., >because that's all that still exists) and reconstructs an image which >is indistinguishable from the document when originally published, >then that requires original creativity and is covered by copyright, >according to my intellectual property attorney. Some of the newcomers may not know, and some of the oldtimers may have forgotten <g> that you offered this same argument before. Mike Goad's response is here: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/copyright/2006-03/1142103084 >In other words, your talent in restoring an original doesn't >disqualify you from copyright protection on your creative work. Creative work is always copyrightable, but the Courts have said that technical skill is not. Bridgeman v. Corel: "Only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original." Pat

In a message dated 9/1/2007 8:47:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: 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. <snip> Closing Rootsweb might be a good idea. Mailing lists and web pages can be created individually with little cost. Rootsweb certainly didn't improve when Ancestry took it over. Ancestry benefits from the freepages flying banners and linking to their trees. ---- Debbie- I'm only going to comment on the two paragraphs from your lengthy post which I quoted above as we are getting a bit far afield from copyright issues. Do you not think OTHER host websites would also require you to include branding banners or logos and/or ads and popups if they were to provide you with UNLIMITED FREE SPACE? Of course, if you are willing to PAY for your web space then that might be a different story--but the RootsWeb space is FREE with very few restrictions. You don't give up ANY ownership or control of your database. I'd also ask for clarification of your 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." "Sold and mixed up with a bunch of poor research?" What exactly do you mean by that? Whatever you mean -- it doesn't happen. As to your second paragraph--I think people should be VERY careful what they say -- what they wish for -- or they just might find it isn't that easy to run more than 30,000 genealogy mailing lists that the community has depended upon for many years nonw, and which draw out many genealogical experts. And did I mention that RootsWeb provides these lists for FREE? You are not going to find or easily build this type of cohesive community elsewhere on the Internet. 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. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote: > Plenty and I worked within USGenWeb Obits Project so I know what I am > talking about. Plenty of what. David, in spite of your claim above, you never seem to know what you are talking about. > And you're way off base about the obits that are available FREE on > newspaper sites. The BIG issue the newspaper publishers are having with > Ancestry now - requiring paid access to THEIR COPYRIGHTED obituaries > without paying the newspapers for the rights to copyrighted > obits.(Newspapers guard their copyrighted articles very tight and far > more zealous) One more time, David. What the subscribers are paying for is the search. No one is forcing my to pay to see obituaries at a newspaper. I could spend all of my time going from newspaper to newspaper trying to find obitiuaries that might be of interest to me. Or I can subscribe to Ancestry.com and with one search that takes less than a second I can find out the same information. Noboyd is charging anything to see any "free" obituary. You do it your way - newspaper by newspaper and spend all day at it. I'll do it my way. I'll gladly pay Ancstry.com for a one-second search. And another "one more time": The obituary collection at Ancestry.com consists of abstrcts of the obituary. Citing the facts extracted from an obituary is not a violation of anyone's copyright. > The line I draw is where Ancestry requires paid subscription for access to FREE sites that are OUTSIDE Ancestry. A third "one more time," David: Ancestry is requiring no one to pay anything to access free information. You can go to any free site any time you can find it without paying a nickel to any filthy commercial company. Richard

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

Joan it sounds as though we are in agreement, and the differences are in word choice. Words do mean what they mean. Probably be better to be precise when dealing with subjects like this. I tend to be very precise in my use of terms---a failing of mine based on a lifetime of having to be very precise about what I say. > By data/information I mean his work. > > 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

Bill, I read Bridgeman v Corel some time ago and then looked at it briefly again before I made my previous post. I was unsure whether I should cite it since the ruling is old and some of it seemed debatable, even though it makes perfect sense. I have no special knowledge, either. I'm here to learn. I have a scan of an old photocopy that I am sure is NOTHING like the original record, which we can't seem to locate at this point in time. I suspect it's not copyrightable either, since the distortion is due to a photocopy of mid 1700s faded handwriting that was enclosed in plastic and photocopied over and over. Though not exact, it certainly wasn't creative (or helpful!) I agree, and I am sure many people here know more than you or I about this subject, that embellishing the copy would make the embellishments copyrightable, though the original material or an exact copy would not be. Debbie Debbie I admit to no special knowledge concerning copyright. Indeed, my reasons for being on this list in the first place was related to this very issue with regard to graphics. The Bridgeman vs Corel item mentioned by Joan in a previous email seems to speak very much to the point. Its a District Court ruling, rather than a Supreme Court ruling (such as Rural vs. Feist), and its fairly old (1998), but perhaps there's no subsequent case law that can be cited. It does seem to be saying that a photographic image of an uncopyrighted item is not itself copyrightable. There seem to be some exceptions, and the key point is whether there's any original creativity involved in making the copy. In that regard making a VERY good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be copyrightable. I'll have to read the Bridgeman vs Corel ruling more closely to understand the limitations here. Bill ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joyce > Well, you'all know as well as I do that 95% of the time when you > retrieve > data from someone it isn't documented data. I think you are being generous here. Just based on Ancestry Family Trees I suspect that the percentage of folks who recognize that this something that should be done is far less than 5%. > If we're going to be required to retrace somebody else's data we > may as well > start from scratch and do the work ourselves....which is usually > easier. Well, yes, of course. Though I don't think its easier to simply start from scratch. Ultimately all genealogy has to be both verified and validated----you have to check (verify) where your source says they found something--- just to be sure that they got it right; then you have to show that its also true (validate). Not easy to do when there's so many things that have to be checked. But it is easier if you have a good family history to start with, and retraceing someone elses steps may actually be easier to do. (Probably not as much fun, though.) For myself, I often use the data I find on the web to sketch things in. A lot of things remain only in the sketched in state. If the way someone says something seems to be particularly effective I'll quote them (small amounts), and source them. Often I'll provisionally accept their conclusions, but in that case I insert the word "fide" before the citation. In otherwords, I'm temporarily taking their word for it. On the other hand, if its just data, not narrative, and they provide no source, there's not much point in citing them as the source of the data. I can use their information as a clue in looking where to look for the underlying documentation, but their own work (even though I got the data itself from them) has no real intrinsic value except as a pointer. Its a work in progress, and when I find the ultimate basis for the information in a primary document, that's what I will cite. > I've state before and I'll state again....we can copyright until > He__ freezes over but if we don't have the means to legally back up > said > copyright, then what use is it. I realize that some of you here > are very > knowledgeable about copyright issues but most of us aren't. That's always the problem with a legal system. There are no free rides. Unless you are willing to go through the legal process, you don't really have much option. Some battles can be one, and if the return is worth the effort, should be fought. But usually its not worth the effort. Ultimately, the truth is that few of us write so well and cogently that our words are really worth the effort to protect. Bill

In a message dated 9/1/2007 8:47:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: The line I draw is where Ancestry requires paid subscription for access to FREE sites that are OUTSIDE Ancestry. David- You are NOT paying to access something that is free elsewhere--you can always search each newspaper's site and (if you can find the obits) view them there. What is part of the Ancestry subscription is the SEARCH ENGINE that FINDS this data for you and makes the job easier for you to find the obits. There is a vast difference. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Bill said: >It does seem to be saying that a photographic image of an >uncopyrighted item is not itself copyrightable. There seem to be >some exceptions, and the key point is whether there's any original >creativity involved in making the copy. In that regard making a VERY >good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to >give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that >involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort >some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be >copyrightable. The point is not whether there _appears_ to have been any creativity involved in making the copy -- it is whether there was, in fact, any creativity involved. If one takes a poor copy of a document (e.g., because that's all that still exists) and reconstructs an image which is indistinguishable from the document when originally published, then that requires original creativity and is covered by copyright, according to my intellectual property attorney. In other words, your talent in restoring an original doesn't disqualify you from copyright protection on your creative work. 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

Debbie I admit to no special knowledge concerning copyright. Indeed, my reasons for being on this list in the first place was related to this very issue with regard to graphics. The Bridgeman vs Corel item mentioned by Joan in a previous email seems to speak very much to the point. Its a District Court ruling, rather than a Supreme Court ruling (such as Rural vs. Feist), and its fairly old (1998), but perhaps there's no subsequent case law that can be cited. It does seem to be saying that a photographic image of an uncopyrighted item is not itself copyrightable. There seem to be some exceptions, and the key point is whether there's any original creativity involved in making the copy. In that regard making a VERY good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be copyrightable. I'll have to read the Bridgeman vs Corel ruling more closely to understand the limitations here. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:02 AM, RoverLSmith@aol.com wrote: > > Bill, > > Doesn't this depend upon how good the image is? > > A very good -- almost exact -- image does not require any creativity. > > An image that has been enhanced or changed does require *some* > creativity -- > enough to copyright? I'm sure this has been discussed in the past. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I could claim copyright on a > photocopy of > a deed or an exact scan of this photograph. > > Debbie > > Graphics copyrights are a bit different. If someone takes an image > of a graphic in an original document that's out of copyright > they don't own the copyright of the graphic in the original document > but they do own the copyright on their image. Though perhaps that's > not so different. > Here what's copyrighted is the creative process of taking the > image--- > not the information contained in the image. > > Bill > > > > > > > ************************************** 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

Well, you'all know as well as I do that 95% of the time when you retrieve data from someone it isn't documented data. I can tell a reputable researcher from a mile away. If we're going to be required to retrace somebody else's data we may as well start from scratch and do the work ourselves....which is usually easier. We specialize in the region where we live because of the reason's I'd stated earlier. Unless someone specifically tells me to do the internet search because they just simply don't want to or know how to, I'm assuming they have already done the online search. Most of the time, when I do find a vital record online I'll send it to them with the reaction that they had already seen that. We'll also do the vital records needed and can be ordered online ONLY when the client specifically requests it. I made the mistake of telling someone I was looking for data for a client. I won't do that again. I told them just to send it directly to the client. We've done the same thing on the 5 web sites we manage...3 of which are on rootsweb. We've tried to put vital records out there....things that are usable. I've state before and I'll state again....we can copyright until He__ freezes over but if we don't have the means to legally back up said copyright, then what use is it. I realize that some of you here are very knowledgeable about copyright issues but most of us aren't. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Myra Vanderpool Gormley" <myravg@wamail.net> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] professional > Richard -- > > I seem to suffer from the same problem. I can't even GIVE AWAY some of my > ancestors to relatives, let alone have a professional ask for any > information on them for a client. > > I did have a fellow ask me how much I would pay for information about his > rather infamous ancestor. He was under the impression that he had the > copyright on her. I was honest -- said she wasn't worth anything to me and > I > could find all the genealogical material I needed elsewhere. > >>You know what? Not once has any one of them ever asked me for information > they needed for a client. > > I guess I'm not finding the right stuff. > > Richard < > > --Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >