In a message dated 9/1/2007 9:08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The information/ data is not copyrightable. Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable. Precisely. And that is what Richard was asking the person to remove--his copyrighted work. By data/information I mean his work. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Pat Thank you for that assessment, and especially for the link to Bridgeman Vs Corel The reasoning seems to make sense, but I've also seen contrarian argumentation on that. 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? Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Pat Asher wrote: > At 09:21 AM 9/1/2007, you wrote: >> 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. > > Bill, > > The above seems to be a common misconception. There can be no > copyright in an image that ""amounts to nothing more than slavish > copying." > > "Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and > the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in > promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand > [citation omitted] -- could hardly be served. To extend > copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon > for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on > appropriating and monopolizing public domain work. Even in Mazer v. > Stein, x x x the Court expressly held that the objects to be > copyrightable, 'must be original, that is, the author's tangible > expression of his ideas." > > BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 > (S.D.N.Y. 1999) > http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm > > > IOW, no matter how much technical knowledge and/or skill is involved > in making a copy of a public domain document, a copy is a copy and is > also public domain. > > 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

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

In a message dated 9/1/2007 2:40:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: Now, Joan, you are selectively reading. Of course I didn't mean to imply any such thing and I'm guessing you already know that. <g> ---- Richard- *I* knew full well that wasn't what you meant--but when I read it I thought *someone* out there who knows Richard is very knowledgeable is going to misquote that little bit and take it out of context (like I did) and say you said it. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

At 09:21 AM 9/1/2007, you wrote: >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. Bill, The above seems to be a common misconception. There can be no copyright in an image that ""amounts to nothing more than slavish copying." "Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand [citation omitted] -- could hardly be served. To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work. Even in Mazer v. Stein, x x x the Court expressly held that the objects to be copyrightable, 'must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas." BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm IOW, no matter how much technical knowledge and/or skill is involved in making a copy of a public domain document, a copy is a copy and is also public domain. Pat

As I said in the last sentence, "If it caused a personal loss, it may be adjudicated." If they decided to sue, it would be because of the personal loss; that is why the copyright laws were created -- to protect the author/artist from personal loss. Check it out with your Copyright Attorney. I have worked with a corporate copyright attorney when developing training manuals, and no lawsuits occurred because of any of my work. Yes, I know the laws have changed, but to clarify/improve the protection. Stan B. --- 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. > > Pat I am NOT old, I am experienced! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> Some days I sort of wish I wer the CEO of - what is it now? The > Generations > Network? I'd call in my top aid and holle, "You know what? I'm > damned sick > and tired of all the compaints we get for providing free web space at > RootsWeb and the 4,000 mailing lists that we support free. Close > RootsWeb > down and let them find somebody else to be their angel and then > they can > complain about them. And look at all the money we'll save." 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. > >> It's also true that professional genealogists crawl the Internet >> and grab >> documents others have traveled far and paid much to obtain. The >> answer to >> that is to alter the documents and clearly state in a light >> background >> where they were obtained and when. Same with any other graphics. 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

> 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? Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The information/ data is not copyrightable. Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable.

Richard >> Ultimately, what most people need to be using >> (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. > > Just as a research update, Bill: The people who set the standards for > genealogical reserch have decided that records are no longer to be > called > "primary" and "secondary." last time I looked at the BCG standards they were still using primary and secondary. I'll recheck "Original" and "derivitative" seem perfectly reasonable, and would have the advantage of being somewhat more intuitive. However, the research world in general (beyond genealogy) has used the terms "primary" and "secondary" in this way for much longer than you or I have been around. And I can certainly see how using the term "original" to describe a primary source, would be misunderstood by many genealogists. > The are now "original: or "deivative." The > information in an original record can be either primary or > secondary. (I > think I have that right! <g> I believe information is never copyrightable. There's good case law on that point. What's copyrightable is the original presentation. You can't copyright a DOB or a POB but you can copyright an original discussion of when someone was born and where they were born. The distinction is significant. > . its when they simply >> take information from someone's web page (particularly without citing >> it---and especially if they take the information verbatim) that >> fosters accusations of stealing, and copyright infringement. For the >> most part, in theory, copyright should never be an issue in >> genealogy -- >> because the majority of the information needed originates > > Bill: > > Copyright is often an issue. Yes, it is an issue, but it shouldn't be, at least as far as the information is concerned. > I have much narrative material at my web site > and it is marked as copyrighted material. One time a fellow copped > a whole > bunch of it, put it up on his web site and then they took your material whole cloth (say a long bit of narrative) and placed it on their web site, and pretended it was their own research... That would be, I believe, a copyright violation. But the issue is not the information but the narrative presentation. Its the narrative presentation that's copyrightable. They can use the information contained in your work with impunity--- they just can't use your words. However, I think you mis-stated what made you mad. You wrote > he really made me made (sic) by > claiming that HIS ancestor was a descendant of this particular > ancestor of > mine - which he was not. The fact that they misunderstood the information, drawing a connection that wasn't sound (according to you) might have conceivably made you mad, but I don't know why. People screw up genealogies all the time. You have only go to Ancestry family tree for information about your favorite (well searched) ancestor, and you'll find dozen's of lineages that are totally inconsistent with each other: Different parents, different spouses, different DOB's....Some of those lineages are wrong. Can't say which ones, but some are wrong. If you're going to get mad because someone else has their lineage wrong, you are going to be in a perpetual state of mad. To be honest, I find that view a bit mad. pun intended. > I also have many copyrighted "how-to" articles at my web site and > policing > them is more than a little problem, but every once in a while I read > something that sounds suspicously familiar and I have to check and > then ride > herd. It's really not that I expect to make anything from all of these > articles - I donated most of them to some genalogy publication or > another to > start with - but I demand that credit is given where credit is due. You realize that EVERYTHING that is posted on the net is copyrighted, unless the copyright is explicitly given up? Even on a Wiki there's a copyright---its just that the right to use the information is given to anyone who wants it under conditions of whatever "leftright" that governs the wiki. Yes, narrative is protected by copyright. Its certainly reasonable to by concerned with people infringing on a copyrighted work. The point was that the information contained in a copyrighted article is not itself copyrighted. As far as doing genealogy itself is concerned, copyright SHOULD not be an issue. It does come into play when people use large portions of narrative without permission. With or without permission, the material should be referenced as to the source anyway, but that's an issue of plagerism, not copyright. --- of course, they could be (and often are) violating copyright law at the same time they are plagerizing. The reason it SHOULD not be an issue is because what people SHOULD be doing is citing the original primary sources. And those sources are probably public sources and/or long out of copyrighted. The copyright issue comes into play when doing genealogy when people quote those long narrative passages from someone else's interpretion of their family history. But the real problem here is not "stealing someone else's stuff", but in not going back to the primary sources in the first place. Bill

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! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

Richard, I doubt that a new suit has been filed. W. David "quoted" some court decision, and he then alleged Ancestry had violated the decision. A counter claim by another lister alleged the court decision had been appealed. IF it is still in the judicial system, then we should wait, to discover the Appellate Court's decision. The whole mess seems to me to be a case of "venting", and little about Copyright, or, as the Bard wrote, "Much ado about nothing." If you haven't been following this "discussion" and REALLY want to know more, just check the archives for the las few days. I'm certain you will learn more than you want to know. I'm following this to see how far the list monito will let this go before stoppingit. Stan B. --- "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> wrote: > > My guess, Stan, is that this is a public relations issue, not a legal > issue. > Or did I miss something? Has a suit been filed? > > Ancestry would have made a helluva good client! It always manages to botch > things, starting with its unbelievable stupid "no subscription > cancellations" policy (since changed). > > Richard P. > Fairfax, Virginia > I am NOT old, I am experienced! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

Richard, You seem to be finding the right stuff. Maybe the wrong people haven't found you. I have never been approached in person by any professional genealogist wanting my material. I have been approached via the Internet by people, after having seen some sort of post or query I had made. Once a lady specifically asked for any information I had found regarding a difficult family and indicated it was a client for whom she was seeking information. I tried to help her, but was unable due to the fact that I had not visited the area and had not done hands on work -- And when I had made the post I was trying to identify a family with a common name, which turned out to be the wrong family for me. Another time I contacted a professional genealogist writing a book about a certain family. I had wanted her opinion on what I thought was a census mistake. She rudely returned my message and said she didn't have time for this. I wrote back and told her I had identified a member of the family whose first name was wrong in the census record and that he didn't exist. At this point she realized I had been trying to help her as well as myself, lightened up, and I helped her locate the person she was actually seeking, and some living descendants. Most recently I was asked for all my information regarding a family in its early years in America. I sent a little of what I had. It was unsatisfactory to her because I had to build too much on circumstantial evidence and the family had undergone surname changes which confused her. I suggested she start another generation down if she didn't want to have to make a convincing argument. She decided to follow my suggestion, but when I asked her for a little information about the branch she had studied she refused in fear I would write a book and use her information. I'll be the first to admit that one of these people in particular these has to be the "bottom of the barrel" and I don't even know how they got their certification, aside from the first lady I mentioned who was just asking for help and thought I might be able to give her that. I've been doing genealogy for thirty-five years, and you forty. Maybe I haven't run into the right crowd yet. It also could be the Pence family that keeps the wolves at bay. Who needs a professional to research the Pences when they have you? You have posted on the Internet -- Let me guess -- Forty years of Pence research, minus some original documents, a map of some Pence property. You also answer emails freely and helpfully. When a search takes me to a page that contains the information I need, I find the index or home page and site it in my source ... And if my web page ever gets to the point I post it on the Internet, I would link to that. Google finding each page does not stop one from finding the main page. I like Google, too, and I agree it would be nice if Ancestry would take me to your "little" web site. I'd prefer, though, that Ancestry stuck mainly to information from public records, old books, census, old books, etc., unless it had a separate section of surnames to search for free where we could find pages such as yours. As for OneWorldTree, it's not as efficient as the original databases from which it derived its information. I will never pay for this index. For one thing, Ancestry picks and chooses which trees are included by standards they arbitrarily set such as whether or not there are dates to go with the names. Some very good researchers have pulled the dates and notes because they were sick of being copied over and over. If you only use OneWorldTree, you will miss some of the good research and be inundated with the bad just because they have dates. Some of this "bad" research was put in World Trees purposely to show what has been done in the past, not as verified data. I don't want Ancestry.com picking who goes with who just because people copied the wrong information over and over from each other. I also don't like paying for anything people submitted thinking it would be free. Many times they chose the Rootsweb trees over the Family Tree Maker trees just because they didn't want their data sold. AND .... Google's a pretty good index for the Ancestry trees, too. 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. By the way I don't complain about Ancestry.com on a regular basis, even when they annoy me. I was just expressing my opinion. I have a subscription to Genealogy.com, too, and it annoys me even more. They don't answer their emails and I have paid for them for almost a year unable to use the site. Ancestry.com called me once and offered me a trial subscription to something I didn't really want, but which if I canceled by the end of the month. I used it, didn't need it, and did as I was instructed and assured by the telemarketer. When I canceled, they canceled my entire subscription, which I had paid a lot of money for and had almost a year to go. I had to argue with three different people at Ancestry, including a manager, and nobody ever agreed to give me my subscription back. I did end up with it minus the month's free subscription, for which I was charged. At present I have a subscription to a feature I didn't order. Now I have to take away my credit card information from them. 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. I understand that professionals are paid for finding things. If I want other people to get these things for free, though, I have to put them on the net. I just don't have to put them there in a manner that would be suitable for use by a professional, although if I were asked I would probably send a copy. There are lots of options out there to control whose hands they reach. I am not concerned about identifying myself on an email. If my name isn't signed, I forgot. The only person I ever have known to have been robbed on the Internet opened an email with a virus. I do concern myself about my mother's maiden name, which is on the Internet, so I usually use another security question. I am not sure you understood what I said, or perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I have several times visited the sites of the Association of Professional Genealogists and the Board for Certification of Genealogists. I have some books written by professionals that I use. I considered becoming a professional genealogist, but don't reside in a good area for it. I have read the codes of standards and I try to follow them. I also know that a professional genealogist is supposed to reveal to their client the real source of their information. I'm sure most do. Just as in any business, there are bad and good apples. Asking for help or using other's material as footnotes does not a rotten apple make. Taking it or gaining it by false pretense does. Suggesting that someone else should do their work for them for free does. If I were to use you for a footnote, I would be comfortable with myself. If I were to use your work and not mention that it was your work, I would be ethically bankrupt. You did bring up something I hadn't considered. Perhaps the lady who wanted all my early research couldn't give me hers because someone else was paying her to do it. My point still stands, though. They were paying HER. Therefore, she should have been doing her own legwork. I'm not going to announce to the genealogy world who I think and who I don't think are corrupt or inept. Their colors will show in the long run and their reputations will ruin themselves. I do give hints to researchers who study the same surnames. I once caught an amateur genealogist with a good reputation for her writing skills repeatedly plagiarizing and called her on it. This caused a lot of stress, but she was outed. Anything like that, I would have to report at least to the family. Richard, genealogy has NOT always been a free culture. People for years paid to have their family trees traced, many fraudulently and many just poorly. It's been a hobby for some, and occupation for others. Just like everything else, including the family farm and local grocery, it's gone the way of big business and their bottom line. Once you get past it all, Ancestry offers things only a pay-for site could reasonably well. We don't have to go to the census readers anymore, and unindexed books are digital and searchable. As time goes on, more and more free things from reputable organizations are popping up and Ancestry will lose its luster. Another little note -- Professional genealogists are also supposed to research before they publish. I know there is a lot of pressure on writers to come up with help features ... but I read an article by a well known certified genealogist that stated that the old part of the cemetery in which most of my Dad's ancestors have been buried since the 1850s had shifted and the bodies weren't necessarily where they were supposed to be. A quick note to someone in the area would have shown this certified genealogist that people are still buried in the old part of this cemetery ... I've been to two burials in the past few years where this shift supposedly occurred. My father is going to be buried in the supposedly shifted part, and my family still owns plots there. I don't know of anyone buried on top of anyone else yet. So while some genealogists are using the net to avoid legwork, others aren't even using it to verify facts to illustrate their "professional" articles. I have nothing against professional or certified genealogists. I have used them for translations. But I have to be skeptical about some, just like anything else. Not much to do with copyright, so I'll stop at this one. Debbie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Now, Joan, you are selectively reading. Of course I didn't mean to imply any such thing and I'm guessing you already know that. <g> What I said was that this person took my _copyrighted_ narrative on one my ancestors, put it on his web site, said - wrongly - that he was descended from the fellow. After much back-and-forth Genealogy.com acknowledged my copyright and said they would remove the material. However, by that time, the fellow agreed to add my copyright to the material and to say it was used with my permission. He also agreed with me that he had incorrectly assumed he was a descendant. Since he now knew he wasn't a descendant, my material was no longer of interest to him so he removed it. I don't give a hoot who claims whom as an ancestor, rightly or wrongly, or what he or she posts. I just object to them posting what is obviously my copyrighted material. The fact that there was erroneous genealogy was a side issue and had nothing to do with my copyright claim. But, of course, I zealously try to clean up those messes, too. <g> I hope I made it more clear this time. Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 9/1/2007 12:25:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, > richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > > I had been in touch with the person who posted > the material and he agreed that he indeed was not a descendant > > > Richard- > > I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that someone has no right to post > genealogical data about a family unless he is a blood descendant of the > family. I > just wanted to make certain that no one misinterpreted your statement > above to > imply that. 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? > > 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

Plenty and I worked within USGenWeb Obits Project so I know what I am 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) Legacy.com has a lot of newspapers on line and access is free and easy to access. At least Legacy does NOT cache any obits. Mange for specific periods of time in accordance with contracts with the newspapers (usually 7 days, 30 days, 6 months or 1 year.) The line I draw is where Ancestry requires paid subscription for access to FREE sites that are OUTSIDE Ancestry. I'm not silly about the comment that Ancestry has EXACT same tactic they did with now-demise Internet Biographic Collection. I checked. Suggest you re-read latest message from Ancestry about the demise of Internet Biographic Collection and their future plan to do it right with consulting the free site owners. No timetime is given. The message is on Ancestry's blog site. David Samuelsen Richard A. Pence wrote: > "W David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote: > >> Newspaperarchive.com is NOT included in Obituary Collection. If you will >> just go direct to that - you will find the list of lots of newspapers who >> have their own online obituaries available FREE ACCESS. > > Do you have any idea how many newspapers are in the U.S.? You can spend your > time searching all of them to get free access. I'm going to pay Ancestry to > do it for me. Besides, many - if not most - of them do not archive > obituaries for any length of time. > >> I talked with my >> favorite newspaper publisher and she is having attorneys on this because >> she tried herself and was bamboozled by the statment telling her she need >> paid subscription to access HER OWN NEWSPAPER site. > > Ah, but she could still look at it free at her own site, right? > > I just went and refreshed my memory about Ancestry's Obituary Collection and > I was right: It contaians only abstracts. If I were your favorite publisher > I would send you a bill for wasting her time and that of her lawyer. > >> Ancestry is using exact same tactic it tried with Internet Biographic >> Collection. > > Now you are being silly. > >> Did you know you can access newspaperarchive.com through Godfrey >> Library for much lower fee? Not only that, better results, too. > > I made my evaluation and apparently you have made yours. It this means you > are not a subscriber to Ancestry, then you should stop complainging about > it. That right is reserved for us paying sustomers. > >> W. David Samuelsen >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: W. David Samuelsen >>> To: copyright@rootsweb.com >>> Sent: 31 August, 2007 12:13 PM >>> Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages >>> >>> <snip>Now Ancestry is about to run afoul of the newspaper owners. - same >>> reasons! >>> >>> >>> David, >>> >>> You have mentioned the newspaper collections in several of your posts and >>> quite frankly I cannot understand your issue with these collections. The >>> Historical Newspapers clearly come from Newspaperarchive.com for which >>> one >>> would have to pay $99 for an annual membership if using them directly. >>> The obituaries clearly come from Legacy.com and also a large number of >>> the >>> obits they host require payment of $2.95 for one obit for 24 hours of use >>> - in other words - 1 day. >>> >>> Clearly Ancestry has agreements with both Legacy.com and >>> Newspaperarchive.com and this is what part of our subscription to >>> Ancestry >>> pays for. >>> >>> The pages at Ancestry are clearly marked from where they come from. The >>> Historical papers view screen clearly is marked Newspaperarchive.com at >>> the lower left of the view screen and the images themselves also have >>> their name on them at the bottom of the page. >>> >>> The obituary pages, if one scrolls to the bottom of the webpage, it is >>> clearly stated "Powered by Legacy.com". >>> >>> Are you trying to say that we should get LESS for the cost of our >>> subscription to Ancestry? >>> >>> Linda >>> in Costa Rica >>> Monroe County, NY Records and Family Genealogy >>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/ >>> Monroe County, NY History >>> http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >

Debbie <RoverLSmith@aol.com> wrote: > I am an amateur genealogist, yet I have been approached on several > occasions by professionals wanting my research. That's remarkable. I've been doing genealogy for 40 years, I've been to maybe a dozen national genalogy meetings, been a featured speaker at four of them and on panels a couple of others and I have been on line for 20 years. I know dozens of professional geneaalogists, many quite well, some have been guests in my home and I regularly exchange message with a few of them. 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

In a message dated 9/1/2007 1:10:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: << Some days I sort of wish I wer the CEO of - what is it now? The Generations Network? I'd call in my top aid and holle, "You know what? I'm damned sick and tired of all the compaints we get for providing free web space at RootsWeb and the 4,000 mailing lists that we support free. Close RootsWeb down and let them find somebody else to be their angel and then they can complain about them. And look at all the money we'll save." >> ----- And we've seen how quickly the company responds when there are enough complaints--whether those complaints are roote in fact or whether they are merely the voices of an angry ill-informed mob as in this case. I think your above scenario is a definite possibility if people with a mob mentality keep tempting fate. It reminds me of the old saying "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." << Like I've said before, many times, what you pay the genealoist for is finding things, not the thing itself. If you don't want the professionals to download a document, don't put it on the net. >> ---- What you pay the genealogist for is putting in the time--whether or not he finds things. If the Internet makes actually finding things easier and faster--so be it. All the better. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"Joyce G. Reece" <bjreece@bellsouth.net> wrote: > I really don't understand why some people have such a bee in their bonnets > over this. I'll admit to addressing ancestry to please remove the cached > pages...but I did that hoping they would be removed and all the nay-sayers > would be happy. Man was I ever wrong. > > I'll also admit to urging all those to allow the leaders of the non-profit > networks handle the situation with TGN. I still feel like basic > communication between the staff at TGN and the non-profits will help > achieve Want to know what the root of the problem is? Genealogy has always been a "free" culture. It was build on sharing. The Internet started out pretty much the same way when it was pretty much an academic toy. The slightest hint of commercialism brought howls of protest from around the world. Then the shysters began to take over and EVERYTHING was commercialized. When Ancestry - a genealogy publishing company with a spotless reputation - decided to have an Internet presence it needed money to do that. Enter the big venture capitalists - I saw then on CNBC talking about how much they had invested in Ancestry and how very much more they were going to make. So not only did Ancestry outrage the folks who for years had been giving stuff away by charging for access to records, Ancestry also "proved" that it was another one of those Internet shysters by its hard-nosed subscription policies (put in place because of pressures from the big fast-buck investors). There you have it. Two virgins despoiled. Genealogy and the Internet. The howls will never go away. Richard

Debbie <copyright@rootsweb.com> wrote: > In respect to Richard Pence's website, I have it in my favorites. If > anyone > wants to find Pence family information all they have to do is search > Google, > and his writings will pop up. If I were to link to Richard's website, I > would > go through the front page unless I had already been given permission to > do > otherwise. > The issue of linking to subpages of websites has been brought up, but I > don't know if there has been any litigation concerning this. Maybe someone > can > enlighten me. The Internet isn't fully represented in our laws yet. I know > some > webmasters that are very upset about their subpages having been > linked by > for-profit organizations. I appreciate the kind words about my web site. However, I do have to point out that depending on which Pence you search for Google will take you directly to the internal page where that name is found - and it will be cached by Google. I soon will be posting a database with 6,000 verifiable Pence marriages (that is I have the full names, dates and places of the marriages so that the original record can be easily found). My be it that soon after that Google will take you right to the page that contains the marriage you are looking for. I think Google is the cat's meow and am happy - even proud - that my little web site shows up in their searches and their caches. Wouldn't it be nice if Ancestry could do the same for all the other little web sites that may not have been spidered by Google. > I'm offended by OneWorldTree and am happy to have not submitted anything > to any Rootsweb tree. We shouldn't have to pay for our own submissions. I don't understand this argument. You never have to pay for it. It's still there free. Ah, but if someone wants help in finding what you submitted, then they can pay Ancestry for it. > The downside of these "freepages" are that Ancestry.com / Rootsweb > controls > them. Best to pay a small amount of money and go elsewhere. Where you would have less control? Don't be silly. Some days I sort of wish I wer the CEO of - what is it now? The Generations Network? I'd call in my top aid and holle, "You know what? I'm damned sick and tired of all the compaints we get for providing free web space at RootsWeb and the 4,000 mailing lists that we support free. Close RootsWeb down and let them find somebody else to be their angel and then they can complain about them. And look at all the money we'll save." > It's also true that professional genealogists crawl the Internet and grab > documents others have traveled far and paid much to obtain. The answer to > that is to alter the documents and clearly state in a light background > where > they were obtained and when. Same with any other graphics. Like I've said before, many times, what you pay the genealoist for is finding things, not the thing itself. If you don't want the professionals to download a document, don't put it on the net. It's the same thing I tell people who don't fully identify themselves in their emails: If you don't want anyone to know who you are, then shut your computer off, don't get a drivers license, buy a home, register to vote, title your car, or even shop at a department store. All of those things easily reveal who you are. And if you are afraid someone might steal your identity if andy data about you apears on the Internet, here are som facts: In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission - charged by law with keeping track of "identity theft" in the U.S. - commissiond a large telephone survey. It discovered, among other things, that in the previous three years some 27 million American had been the victim of "identity theft." But if you read the fine print, none of them actuall said that. What 95 percent of them said that their credit card, phone credit card or checkbook had been lost or stolen and then fraudulently used. The number of people who said they had been defrauded by someone getting their personal information off the Internet was so small it was lumped into the last 1 percent labelled "all others." Oh, and one more thing: Half of those whos credit cards or echeckbooks had been fraudulently used said that the perpetrator was a relative or some other person known to them. So it's OK to be vigilant about what you put on the Internet, but keep a much closer eye on your nephew. The chances are several thousand times greater that the grief will come from that direction rather than the Net. > I've been approached by professional genealogist wanting my work to help > them make money. These are the people with whom I do not share. A lot of > times they are also the people who refuse to share with an amateur in > fear >they will "teal "their" information. One actually told me "Well, they never >told >me where I had to get my information". Not from me, for sure. I'm all for > professional genealogists. They can do their own work, or ... At least ask > before they copy? There are simply too many allegations and innuendoes in the above to begin responding to. May I suggest you visit the sites of the Association of Professional Genealogists and the Board for Certification of Genealogists and see for youself the high ethical standards to which true professionals aspire. And, aside from the fact that they aren't in business to give away what the find to nonclients, they are contractually and ethically bound not to reveal to others what they find without the permission of the client. And, as I suggested to someone else, if you have verifiable knowledge of unethical behavior (I believe you called it "stealing") on the part of a professional, please make sure that the genealogy world knows of it so that those persons can be avoided by the public. Richard A. Pence 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030-1900 Voice 703-591-4243 / Fax 703-352-3560 Pence Family History <www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>

In a message dated 9/1/2007 12:25:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: I had been in touch with the person who posted the material and he agreed that he indeed was not a descendant Richard- I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that someone has no right to post genealogical data about a family unless he is a blood descendant of the family. I just wanted to make certain that no one misinterpreted your statement above to imply that. 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? Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"Bill" <wmwillis@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ultimately, what most people need to be using > (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. Just as a research update, Bill: The people who set the standards for genealogical reserch have decided that records are no longer to be called "primary" and "secondary." The are now "original: or "deivative." The information in an original record can be either primary or secondary. (I think I have that right! <g> . its when they simply > take information from someone's web page (particularly without citing > it---and especially if they take the information verbatim) that > fosters accusations of stealing, and copyright infringement. For the > most part, in theory, copyright should never be an issue in genealogy -- > because the majority of the information needed originates Bill: Copyright is often an issue. I have much narrative material at my web site and it is marked as copyrighted material. One time a fellow copped a whole bunch of it, put it up on his web site and then he really made me made by claiming that HIS ancestor was a descendant of this particular ancestor of mine - which he was not. He had a site at either Genealogy.com and I wrote and compained to it that a person had posted my copyrighted material at a web site maintained by Genealogy.com. They at frst that they were not responsible for what their users posted. I persisted and finall they agreed to remove the material, especially after I was albe to firmly establish that I indeed was the author of the material. By this time I had been in touch with the person who posted the material and he agreed that he indeed was not a descendant and said he would post my copyright and "used by permission" on his stie. But since it was no longer his ancestor, he pulled it himself. I also have many copyrighted "how-to" articles at my web site and policing them is more than a little problem, but every once in a while I read something that sounds suspicously familiar and I have to check and then ride herd. It's really not that I expect to make anything from all of these articles - I donated most of them to some genalogy publication or another to start with - but I demand that credit is given where credit is due. Richard