Joyce, First, let me say that I do have respect for most professional genealogists, but what you say is not all true. As was pointed out in an earlier post, many clients do not know how to search the Internet and don't subscribe to sites that you might. I am an amateur genealogist, yet I have been approached on several occasions by professionals wanting my research. In some cases, when they have a problem that may have taken them a lot of work, I'm happy to send what I have already done. In other cases, when they are sly and sneaky, but obviously want to use my research so that they will be paid for it, I don't share. I'm not talking about Internet research. I'm talking about sources from courthouses and films that aren't available on the Internet. Your clients could find much of it by finding the right researcher for the right family, but they aren't as adept as it as you are. I'd be happy to send you a document I've obtained if you told me what it was for ... just not everything I ever did or wrote -- unless I liked you a lot. This is what I have been asked to do. Your clients probably don't have the network that many of us create by meeting others and sharing. This sharing may come from personal emails, but it really did come from the Net. I have a zillion (well, maybe not that many) copies of original documents that I have obtained not ON the Internet, but from people I have met on the Internet. You don't always have to go to the courthouse to get the documents. I am a lot better at finding things than many of my fellow researchers -- worse than others, but I can find things on the Internet that many people can't. I think you can too. Hope I'm making sense. It's past my bedtime. Debbie As for 'professional' genealogists....I can tell you a little something. Anything I can find on the internet that helps my client, my clients can also find. A true professional seldom does in-depth research on the internet....what's available for you is available to me. We can find basic data but can seldom use it for documentation. 99% of my clients are via the internet and all of them have indications of ancestry in the area where I live and can get to the 'hidden' information that isn't on the internet. The most reliable info on the net is primary resource information....which there is not enough of. I'm not sure if other professionals will agree with me but that's how we work. Joyce Gaston Reece ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joan, I guess I didn't explain that very well. The author, in some cases verbatim, copied pieces of personal web pages, sometimes very large ones, and wrote them into his book. In my opinion, the amounts he copied in many cases were well past fair use. He didn't even give credit to the author (which is of course another matter). 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, I believe violates the author's copyright. Of course these are mainly "hobby" pages, and the authors wouldn't lose much money due to these books, but it just can't be legal despite the fact it wouldn't be worth a lawsuit. I was very disappointed at my waste of time the first time I picked one off of the shelf and looked for information on some of my problem families ... And angered. If these books made it to my local library, they must have made it to many other places -- So he made money, likely by simply copying and pasting other people's hard work and original writings. Pointing out the inaccuracies was a feeble attempt to explain that he was blindly copying and not doing any more homework than someone who downloads a term paper from the Internet. Debbie That's a very vague statement. Whether there has been copyright infringement would greatly depend upon what data is included in these books--so the question you raise is unanswerable as you have presented it. One point...it isn't illegal to publish inaccurate information. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"W David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote: > are you a paid lackey for Ancestry? > David Ah, now it's not just rumors and misconceptions - lie? - it the fallacy of ad hominem. (Look it up, David.) Richard

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

"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

Debbie When it got moved onto the non-paying subscriber pages no one was paying for the search capabilities. So you aren't paying to search. One world tree is a search engine also. You pay to access the search engine. It's up to you to decide if you use it or not. What ancestry was doing was providing a search engine that searched ONLY genealogical data. Yes, they cached the pages but so does every other search engine....so does your computer. Think about this...as long as the non-profit networks exist the FREE data will remain FREE. Why? Because folks like you and I are putting the data onto those sites and allowing folks access to it FOR FREE. It will be up to the individual researcher to either find it on your site or via a search engine. You can go elsewhere but that won't stop a site from being spidered and cached and if you block any spidering you'll have to send out a lot of links to get any hits because NO search engine will ever list your site. As for 'professional' genealogists....I can tell you a little something. Anything I can find on the internet that helps my client, my clients can also find. A true professional seldom does in-depth research on the internet....what's available for you is available to me. We can find basic data but can seldom use it for documentation. 99% of my clients are via the internet and all of them have indications of ancestry in the area where I live and can get to the 'hidden' information that isn't on the internet. The most reliable info on the net is primary resource information....which there is not enough of. I'm not sure if other professionals will agree with me but that's how we work. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <RoverLSmith@aol.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > It is not just nonprofit organizations or little genealogy groups who are > getting "screwed" by copyright violation on the Net. > > I pay for Ancestry to get information not easily available to me, not for > an > indexing system of information submitted by free-sharing souls. If > Ancestry > wants to index other websites they should do it through Rootsweb, and > they > should go through the home page of the web site instead of directly to the > information they want to pick out. A website is a publication, and people > are > ripping out pages of those publications and linking to them as if they are > their > own. Legal or not, it tricks people if they aren't careful and gives the > impression that the information belongs to Ancestry. > > 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'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. > > What Ancestry.com has been doing is, in order to avoid providing more > useful, hard to obtain data, enlarging their site with the labor of > others, that > others intended to be free. I don't want to pay for something I can get > with a > Google search. > > The downside of these "freepages" are that Ancestry.com / Rootsweb > controls > them. Best to pay a small amount of money and go elsewhere. > > 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. > > 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 > steal "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? > > Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com are full of dirty tricks. Eventually they > will be replaced by some of the free information coming online and we > won't have > to worry about them. > > An aside -- Last time I was at the library I found books written wholly > from > information obtained from web sites, some of it very inaccurate. Many of > the > passages were large enough to not be considered fair use. Any thoughts > about > these books ... Has anyone seen them? > > Thanks. > > Debbie > > Also, cached information is good and bad. Many of us put up web pages > before > we have done enough research. These sites are full of misinformation and > don't need to be floating around the Internet for eternity. > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** 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 > >

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> Joan said: >> This is very similar to One >> World Tree providing a search engine to find otherwise free data. The >> data >> remained free (as it did in this situation) but the tool was what was >> being >> charged for. > Obvious you have NOT tried without *paid subscription* to know the HUGE > difference. > They DID require paid subscription to even see a single free site, even > USGenWeb Project sites which are free, and even required paid access in > order to visit the sites that have NOTHING to do with Ancestry group at > all. That inclues the Political Graveyard site, many sites at USGenNet, > etc. > > That is the line Ancestry crossed too far. I don't think you understood - even a tiny bit - what Joan said. She said, accurately, the outside sites found by the World Family Tree search remained free. Anyone could find them on their own any time they wished and they could use the material freely. What the WFT did - and what subscribers were paying for - was having WFT do the search of all of the other sites for them. David, this issue was decided long ago when concerns were raised about professional genealogists charging clients for work in finding information that would be free at a Family History Center or at the Family History Library. After an initial flurry, the Church properly said that these professionals were not chargin for the information they were charging for the time they spent finding it. As witness to this approach, I ask you to consider that there are hundreds of professional genealogist who live in Salt Lake City and sepnd their days finding free information and then charging their clients for the time spent finding this information. > Also Ancestry went too far - with distorted cache links. Google had > clear cache link and they're very clear, very much unlike Ancestry. If > you have ACTUALLY seen what the cache link look like, you will not > tolerate what Ancestry did. You are talking cosmetics, not criminal activity, aren't you? > > Now it's Obituary Collection - still requiring paid access to see FREE > obituaries at many online newspaper sites. Copyright issue here now. David: Do you really, really want to spend your time going from newspaper to newspaper to find relevant obituaries? Wouldn't you rather have a quite inexpensive search engine do that for you? And are you saying that the copyright issue is because you have to pay for the search? I haven't used the Obituary Collection much but isn't it a collection of extracts from printed obituaries and not the actual written obituaries? If so, these facts are not copyrightable and anyone can extract the facts - and they can charge you to look at them if you are willing to pay for them. Richard Pence

In a message dated 8/31/2007 10:55:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: << 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. >> ----- Debbie- Deep linking under some circumstances CAN be a copyright violation -- but that doesn't involve the current cached pages discussion. << 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. >> ----- You may be offended by it if you like but what is being charged for is the search engine--not the data. The data is still freely accessible and searchable in its original location as always. <<What Ancestry.com has been doing is, in order to avoid providing more useful, hard to obtain data, enlarging their site with the labor of others, that others intended to be free. I don't want to pay for something I can get with a Google search.>> ----- That is all well and good for people who know how to use Internet search tools effectively--but not everyone does and any additional tool that makes the searches yield better results should be welcomed. << The downside of these "freepages" are that Ancestry.com / Rootsweb controls them. Best to pay a small amount of money and go elsewhere. >> ---- You really DO need to re-read the AUP section on User-provded data. All you are granting RootsWeb is the right to display and redistribute (for backups, and search tools, etc.) your data. RootsWeb/Ancestry is not claiming any ownership. << An aside -- Last time I was at the library I found books written wholly from information obtained from web sites, some of it very inaccurate. Many of the passages were large enough to not be considered fair use. Any thoughts about these books ... Has anyone seen them? >> ----- That's a very vague statement. Whether there has been copyright infringement would greatly depend upon what data is included in these books--so the question you raise is unanswerable as you have presented it. One point...it isn't illegal to publish inaccurate information. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Well, Richard, I'm glad somebody had the guts to say what I was almost afraid to say but danced around for days about. I'd stated several times that the search engine was a great idea but poorly implemented....needed work....just at first. After it was also added to the free pages that should have been the end of it. Now, we're reading the crys of anguish of people who had sites on rootsweb, and have had them removed because of aup violations. I'm not saying they were or weren't violations....that isn't my call to make...I'm just stating the facts as I read them. 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 a search engine that will be extremely beneficial to all researchers. Hardly a day goes by that I don't access data at ancestry...I just don't know how I'd research without it. A person REALLY has to watch what they say on some of these lists. I've had people climb my pole plenty of times....sometimes because they don't understand my use of the 'hillbilly' language. *G* Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

It is not just nonprofit organizations or little genealogy groups who are getting "screwed" by copyright violation on the Net. I pay for Ancestry to get information not easily available to me, not for an indexing system of information submitted by free-sharing souls. If Ancestry wants to index other websites they should do it through Rootsweb, and they should go through the home page of the web site instead of directly to the information they want to pick out. A website is a publication, and people are ripping out pages of those publications and linking to them as if they are their own. Legal or not, it tricks people if they aren't careful and gives the impression that the information belongs to Ancestry. 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'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. What Ancestry.com has been doing is, in order to avoid providing more useful, hard to obtain data, enlarging their site with the labor of others, that others intended to be free. I don't want to pay for something I can get with a Google search. The downside of these "freepages" are that Ancestry.com / Rootsweb controls them. Best to pay a small amount of money and go elsewhere. 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. 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 steal "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? Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com are full of dirty tricks. Eventually they will be replaced by some of the free information coming online and we won't have to worry about them. An aside -- Last time I was at the library I found books written wholly from information obtained from web sites, some of it very inaccurate. Many of the passages were large enough to not be considered fair use. Any thoughts about these books ... Has anyone seen them? Thanks. Debbie Also, cached information is good and bad. Many of us put up web pages before we have done enough research. These sites are full of misinformation and don't need to be floating around the Internet for eternity. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote; > Greta Van Sustern, the attorney that's often on TV, specializing in > these type of cases may be already stepped in - having been asked by her > cousin whose site was corrupted by Ancestry.com. She's a genealogist > herself. And what is she going to sure them for? Being dumb? Last time I heard, that wasn't a crime. Otherwise the courts would be clogged. Richard

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote: > Mob rule? - tell that to those who have their sites NOT at > Rootsweb/Ancestry but elsewhere. They were outraged, equally-wise > because even if it was free, the cached links still strong imply to > visitors it's a Ancestry-owned, when it is not. The links are still very > wrong-url linked. I do not have my site at RoorsWeb/Ancestry. I pay for it. I am not outraged at Ancestry. I am, in fact, more than upset at those - shall we say, "the mob" - who didn't think through what was being done and now have deprived the genealogy community of what could have been an extremely valuable tool. The changes that needed to be made were cosmetic, not fatal. 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/>

Dear Jean: If you have proof that people are doing what you say, I suggest you notify appropriate entities, including Better Business Bureaus, the Association of Professional Genealogists, the Board for Certification of Genealogists, the Family History Library, the various societies - including especially the Federation of Genealogical Societies, the National Genealogical Societies and the New England Historic and Genealogical Society - so they can tell the public about these crooks. It is in their own interest that all of these groups want to rid genealogy of such people. If you don't have proof, then I would find something else to be annoyed about. Richard Pence Disclaimer: I am a member of the Association of Professional Genealogist, but I do not take clients for pay. I am not a certified or accredited genealogist. I am a member of the National Genealogical Society. I write article on genealogy and - rarely - get paid for them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean McCarthy" <jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > Yes I agree with you 100% Pat that people who do professional > research should be paid for their work. Trouble is, the unscrupulous > researchers that I am referring to charged their clients for travel > expenses as well as many hours of searching microfilms at LDS family > history centres. This was the 10 years of work that I did and made > available for free. They just sat at home and took the information > from my web site for free without moving out of their house. To me > that is fraud against their clients. > > Jean McCarthy nee Moore > > > On 31/08/2007, Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: >> At 04:09 PM 8/31/2007, you wrote: >> >I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is >> >there to help people with their research. However, as has happened >> >many times in the past, professional researchers take information from >> >my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that >> >annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. >> >> Some people hire someone to clean their house, or do their yard work >> -- because they don't want to do it themselves. Would you object to >> the people who actually did do the work being paid? Of course not. >> >> Some people are just not into "do it yourself" genealogy >> research. They would prefer to pay someone else to do the research >> and just provide them the finished report. The people who do the >> research are providing a service and IMO should certainly be paid for >> the service they provide. >> >> 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 >> > > > -- > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanmccarthy36/ > > jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com > > ------------------------------- > 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

> What professionals get paid to do is find information for people > who don't > know how to find it or don't want to take the time to find it. In > any event, > I suspect you actually have no way of knowing if a professional has > found > and used information from your site. And, except in the most > unusual of > instances, a professional would use what is on a private web site > only as a > clue for finding the original record or other substantiation. > Finally, if > the professional did use information from your web site, then it > surely > would have been properly cited and credited. Why, in that case, > would you be > annoyed? Didn't you say that you "openly invite people to use what > they > want." That seems like a very fair assessment. Well said > > What really annoys me are the folks who freely take from my web cite, > improperly copy it, don't use the citations and then use just as if > they had > spent the years of research that I did. THAT is something to be > annoyed > about. Regretfully, that is the nature of information use in genealogy. The vast majority of genealogists, sincere and dedicated as they may be, (or not) simply do not understand the significance of sourcing their information. Yet many of those who fail to source their information will complain incessantly about other people "stealing my stuff". Ultimately, none of us know of our own personal knowledge, anything about our ancestors prior to (roughly) 1800. And most of the information that we use has ultimately been obtained from some bone fide source---not a web page, not a family history, but some source documents contemporary with the persons we research---like their will. Those are the things that need to be cited, not someone's web page that provided the information---especially if that web page did not cite the source. Ultimately, what most people need to be using (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. If they are doing that than copyright is not an issue. 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 (or should originate) in uncopyrighted sources---like pubic records. Bill

>From Ancestry's Blog > http://blogs.ancestry.com/circle/?p=1792 > received the following from one of my colleagues at Ancestry regarding the > Internet Biographical Collection: > > Hi, my name is Kendall Hulet, and I'm a product manager at Ancestry.com. > I've probably met a lot of you at FGS, NGS, and other conferences. If not, > I > look forward to meeting you in the future. > > I wanted to write you a note because I'm extremely concerned about the > frustrations that the recently-removed Internet Biographical Collection > has > caused. We had hoped to provide a way for you to be able to search the > entire web easily for genealogically-relevant pages and provide for > preservation of sources for future generations. In looking back, we > understand why members of the community are upset. We've heard you loud > and > clear, and we've removed this product with no intention of re-releasing > it. > Instead, it is my hope that someday we'll be able to provide a free web > search engine that links directly back to the live web pages, and can > become > a useful tool to the genealogical community. If we do move forward with > this > type of initiative, we will seek your input and talk more with community > leaders to make sure we get it right. > > Kendall Hulet

It is a legal issue that will never be a legal issue until someone forks over the money for the attorney or find one who is willing to spend years litigating a case fee 'gratis {sic?} These non-profits don't have the funds for it. Frankly, there is now only a few who are rolling stones and those are the ones who went too far in biting the hand that fed them Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > "Stanley M. Berkner" <smberkner@yahoo.com> > >> Let's ALL wait and see what the courts decide. Anything else is blowing >> in >> the wind. > > 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? > > I spent a good many years of my life advising companies on the right way > to > do things - or trying to bail them out when they do it the wrong way. > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >

You are, I think, confusing issues. > You can, until the person takes it down. That's their decision, > because they are the author, and you should respect their right to > control their work. Of course they can take it down anytime they want. But its like a book in a library---once the information is out there, its out there. If not in a cache, than in someone's storage file. If you choose to use their information, they really have no complaint. They did, afterall, place it out there for use. The fact that they changed their mind about having their web page available is neither here no there. If you choose to use the information recovered from a cache, that's pretty much your perogative. But of course, that has NOTHING to do with copyright issues, which is the subject here. The information is not what's copyrighted. >> If a hard copy author happens to issue an update of one of his books, >> and deletes some of the previous data (perhaps for no other reason >> than he wanted to add something else, but wanted to keep the page >> count down), I can still use the earlier addition if I want. > > First off, if you had previously pulled down the information from > the web site for your own personal use (as the author clearly > intended by putting it there), then just like the old edition of > the book you have that information, and no one is trying to take it > away from you. Even if I agreed with you on that point, and I don't, its not really relevant is it? How would you know how the information was obtained? Someone could have captured the page themselves, or someone could have recovered it from a cache. After they've used the information, you would not be able to tell how, or where they obtained it, or from what version of a particular source they obtained it. > > But if you then turn around and make copies of that old edition and > start selling them to the others (or even giving them away), then > that is republishing that material. If it's a physical book, it's > clearly illegal copyright infringement. Yet this is exactly what > Ancestry and Google are doing with their cached pages. > >> And calling that disrespectful is silly. > > I disagree. From what I've seen, so do most people who author > anything significant. You do not understand the copyright issues here. You really need to go back in and read the archives on this subject. In particular you need to understand the difference between "information" and "Creative text". You might wish to look at Mike Goads discussion of this at http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/genealogy_copyright_fundamentals.htm Bill

In a message dated 8/31/2007 9:50:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, R.C.srca@mindspring.com writes: But if you then turn around and make copies of that old edition and start selling them to the others (or even giving them away), then that is republishing that material. If it's a physical book, it's clearly illegal copyright infringement. Yet this is exactly what Ancestry and Google are doing with their cached pages. --- Scott- And what legal precedent can you cite to support your statement above? If, indeed you CAN support it (which I'm quite certain you cannot), why is a site such as The Wayback Machine permitted to continue caching dead webpages? Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"Jean McCarthy" <jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com> >I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is > there to help people with their research. However, as has happened > many times in the past, professional researchers take information from > my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that > annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. What professionals get paid to do is find information for people who don't know how to find it or don't want to take the time to find it. In any event, I suspect you actually have no way of knowing if a professional has found and used information from your site. And, except in the most unusual of instances, a professional would use what is on a private web site only as a clue for finding the original record or other substantiation. Finally, if the professional did use information from your web site, then it surely would have been properly cited and credited. Why, in that case, would you be annoyed? Didn't you say that you "openly invite people to use what they want." What really annoys me are the folks who freely take from my web cite, improperly copy it, don't use the citations and then use just as if they had spent the years of research that I did. THAT is something to be annoyed about. Richard

Yes I agree with you 100% Pat that people who do professional research should be paid for their work. Trouble is, the unscrupulous researchers that I am referring to charged their clients for travel expenses as well as many hours of searching microfilms at LDS family history centres. This was the 10 years of work that I did and made available for free. They just sat at home and took the information from my web site for free without moving out of their house. To me that is fraud against their clients. Jean McCarthy nee Moore On 31/08/2007, Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: > At 04:09 PM 8/31/2007, you wrote: > >I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is > >there to help people with their research. However, as has happened > >many times in the past, professional researchers take information from > >my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that > >annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. > > Some people hire someone to clean their house, or do their yard work > -- because they don't want to do it themselves. Would you object to > the people who actually did do the work being paid? Of course not. > > Some people are just not into "do it yourself" genealogy > research. They would prefer to pay someone else to do the research > and just provide them the finished report. The people who do the > research are providing a service and IMO should certainly be paid for > the service they provide. > > 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 > -- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanmccarthy36/ jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com