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. Jean McCarthy nee Moore On 31/08/2007, Sara Binkley Tarpley <sarabtarpley@gmail.com> wrote: > Joan, > > You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to the actual > URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of it, which > was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid > subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the > material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the bottom of > each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no use in > properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for other kinds > of information, such as death records, the source information names the > specific record the information comes from and makes it possible to properly > source data you use. > > Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to the cached > image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to the actual > page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. Furthermore, I > know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the top; it is > certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I am not sure > that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not see it till > later. > > In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link to the > actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference between > real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non-hyperlinked > address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was certainly > plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. > > Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without impugning > us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for eleven > years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a database, > with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped many, many > people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e-mail that > contain all of my research notes, including record transcriptions. I have > sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked for one > penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query boards. I > currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley researchers. I > find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't think that > anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, mine." [It is > true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which are my own > creative work.] > > Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first saw what > Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to belabor > the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a > straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the format as it > last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a > genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up on its site > and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy-specific > the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained of finding > things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X-rated site.] > > > Sara Binkley Tarpley > > On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > > > > ---- > > Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make > > me > > have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are > > interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number > > of > > people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start > > screaming mine mine mine. > > > > Joan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Possibly But whose to say that the information that was up there originally was good solid information? I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and I'm quite able to make my own choices about what's good information and what's not. But more to the point, sometimes the information comes down simply because the person wanted to put something unrelated up. Why shouldn't I be able to use their previous version? 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. And calling that disrespectful is silly. Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Scott R. C. Anderson wrote: >> In a message dated 8/31/2007 7:19:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, >> wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: >> >> Sometimes the information is no longer on the original page, so I >> have to fall back on the Cached version. > > On Friday, August 31, 2007 5:22 PM MT, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >> In that instance the cached page serves the purpose of preserving >> history. > > Unless the page was in error, and was changed or taken down for > that reason. And in any case it's the author's right to do that — > who are we to say "once you've put up a page on the internet you > have no choice but to leave it there forever"? That's extremely > disrespectful of the authors. > > Web sites that maintain those pages outside of the author's context > are clearly violating their copyright. This isn't settled law, but > in time I think courts will come to realize this. > > Scott > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

On Friday, August 31, 2007 6:49 PM MT, Bill <wmwillis@earthlink.net> wrote: > But more to the point, sometimes the information comes down simply > because the person wanted to put something unrelated up. > Why shouldn't I be able to use their previous version? 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. > 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. 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. Scott R. C. Anderson srca@mindspring.com

"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

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> > 1. It is illegal to provide full cached image of file. Google tried and > lost in court. Oh boy! How much can I sue them for? I just looked. They have "a full cached image" of my web site, complete with the waving flags. 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 8/31/2007 8:22:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: Of all the sites spidered and cached only two people were shut out of their rootsweb sites during this ongoing controversy....those two people did the above. Perhaps they bit the feeding hand?? Or didn't read the aup? Bingo! That's precisely the issue at hand--misuse of the web space...failure to adhere to the agreement of what the FREE web space was to be used for. Anyone who follows the Ancestry Site Comments message board can tell you that the company has been VERY lenient with allowing folks to criticize (within reason) the company policies. But misuse of free web space and then screaming about the account being disabled is mind boggling to me. That's what I call chutzpah to the extreme. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

And she took down logos and emailed ancestry at least 3 times a day....along with phone calls. As well as posting her disclaimer on the web sites. Which I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with....I'm just saying the whole story should be told. Of all the sites spidered and cached only two people were shut out of their rootsweb sites during this ongoing controversy....those two people did the above. Perhaps they bit the feeding hand?? Or didn't read the aup?

"W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> >> Yet Google continues to provide access to cached images---which I >> personally find very helpful, particularly if the original site has >> been taken down. >> Is this something that contravenes law? > Google doesn't do that anymore, only the authorized ones. Google has to > comply with the court orders concerning this area "Right of Display". I'm not sure what you are saying that Google doesn't do any more. If I Google my web site, it is cached and appears exactly as it does at my site. I haven't authorized Google to do anything. Of course, I am happy they are doing this. The whole purpose of the web site is to share the data. Google helps people find it. Even more people would find it if Ancestry could go ahead with its project. It may be that the manner in which the cached files were displayed at Ancestry caused some people to object, but I really don't understand this. My understanding is that the most vociferous objections came form the USGenWeb people, where their private mailing list really got hot about it. Now I am sure the aim of the GenWeb folks is to make their files available to as many folks as possible. Ancestry is good enough to support RootsWeb, where USGenWeb files are housed and made available. I should think they would be happy to have Ancestry include them in the new search routine. I didn't have the opportunity to see if Ancestry cached my web site (Pence Family History) and how Ancestry may have displayed the cache. In some circumstances I might be mildly upset - but the benefits of added user access would far outweigh my wounded ego. The initial object from USGenWeb came because Ancestry had the cached database as a part of its subscription. The issue GenWeb raised at this was that the donors of the GenWeb databases intended them to be free. This is a false issue. The files remain free at the original RootsWeb site. People are perfectly free to find then at that site and use them with no charge. In effect, what Ancestry was charging its subscribers for was an easier way of finding this data (and more efficient matches with its patented search process) - not for the data itself. I also think that USGenWeb ought to be more cognizant of the fact that it is Ancestry that is making it possible for the GenWeb project to exist by providing the storage for the more than 1 million files of GenWeb. Or maybe they are planning to find another angel. <g> A tempest in a teapot. BTW, I have inquired of a GenWeb leader if it its president had sent an official complaint to Google similar to the one sent to Ancestry. No answer. 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 8/31/2007 7:49:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: It does not serve the purpose if the content is copyrighted. Ancestry just stole 3 sites from one lady today and locked her out of them. The contents belong to her. She was in process of moving her pages to her own server and she is a USGenWeb Project lady. W. David Samuelsen David- This is getting outside the realm of COPYRIGHT but did you check the pages that were taken down? The webmaster had taken down the original pages herself and replaced them with a notice blasting Ancestry which was providing her with the free web space. That is hardly locking her out of her pages--they locked her out because the site was being misused by the webmaster. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 8/31/2007 7:19:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: Sometimes the information is no longer on the original page, so I have to fall back on the Cached version. In that instance the cached page serves the purpose of preserving history. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

David, You did NOT read my message carefully. The obituaries are hosted through Legacy.com NOT newspaperarchive.com. Just Google Legacy.com and it will be the first hit. Add a surname to the search box and you will see the same results as available at Ancestry. Some are paid, some are not. In my experience, the majority are available for a fee. The only difference is that those that are for a fee at Legacy.com are available for viewing at Ancestry.com as long as you are a paid subscriber. 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/ ----- Original Message ----- From: W David Samuelsen To: copyright@rootsweb.com Sent: 31 August, 2007 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages Linda, You did NOT look further. 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. 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. Her newspaper is NOT included in Historic Newspaper or even Newspaperarchive.com for that matter. Ancestry is using exact same tactic it tried with Internet Biographic Collection. Did you know you can access newspaperarchive.com through Godfrey Library for much lower fee? Not only that, better results, too. 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

As an FYI This is not how I use cached pages on Google. If the page is up and running I go to the original, but Very often the original site is no longer operating, so I get the information from the Cached page. Sometimes the information is no longer on the original page, so I have to fall back on the Cached version. On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:10 PM, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 6:28:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, > lilacarlhg@amnet.co.cr writes: > > The issue of the cached pages, however, is more than just the fact > that they > show the image of a cached page of someone's website on THEIR > site, it also > brings in another matter - if they were allowed to continue, just > how often > would the cached pages be updated? > > > --- > Linda- > > I don't view this as a problem. Cached pages are never intended > to take the > place of being able to access the live pages via the links. The > cached > pages were to preserve history and to give the reader the option > to scan the > cached page to decide whether the live page was of interest to > them. I, for one, > would never quote a cached page as a source--I'd check the live > page and > quote it as my source. > > 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

In a message dated 8/31/2007 6:28:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, lilacarlhg@amnet.co.cr writes: The issue of the cached pages, however, is more than just the fact that they show the image of a cached page of someone's website on THEIR site, it also brings in another matter - if they were allowed to continue, just how often would the cached pages be updated? --- Linda- I don't view this as a problem. Cached pages are never intended to take the place of being able to access the live pages via the links. The cached pages were to preserve history and to give the reader the option to scan the cached page to decide whether the live page was of interest to them. I, for one, would never quote a cached page as a source--I'd check the live page and quote it as my source. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

> In a message dated 8/31/2007 7:19:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > Sometimes the information is no longer on the original page, so I > have to fall back on the Cached version. On Friday, August 31, 2007 5:22 PM MT, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >In that instance the cached page serves the purpose of preserving history. Unless the page was in error, and was changed or taken down for that reason. And in any case it's the author's right to do that — who are we to say "once you've put up a page on the internet you have no choice but to leave it there forever"? That's extremely disrespectful of the authors. Web sites that maintain those pages outside of the author's context are clearly violating their copyright. This isn't settled law, but in time I think courts will come to realize this. Scott

In a message dated 8/31/2007 5:24:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: << 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.>> ---- David- My point is that the sites were free as always for ANYONE who wished to FIND them and access them via other means--even at the very beginning the search tool was what was being offered to Ancestry subscribers. Not the database you were led to. << 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.>> ----- I saw no difference and had no difficulty in knowing what was being done--cached pages vs. live page links. << Now it's Obituary Collection - still requiring paid access to see FREE obituaries at many online newspaper sites. Copyright issue here now. >> ----- The obituary search tool is, once again, what is included in the subscription fee, NOT the obits themselves--you can find them through other means if you want--but the tool is nice to have. Also, I think when all is said and done--you will find there are no copyright issues involved in caching pages and linking to live sites in these instances. As Pat pointed out most obits have no copyright issues anyway. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

A) How do you know that > 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. I would guess that you don't know that, but think that might have been done. There is a difference. B) If you didn't want the information used why did you place it on the net? Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Jean McCarthy wrote: > 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

In a message dated 8/31/2007 5:57:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: Joan, this is from EOGN.com commentary. - David ---- David- I'm not sure how the rumors and discussion from a public forum pertain to the actual copyright and legal issues. There is a vast difference between a public relations issue and a legal one. I've not seen any evidence that has been substantiated of a legal issue (copyright) here. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

are you a paid lackey for Ancestry? David > At 04:53 PM 8/31/2007, David wrote: >I am not referring to thumnail images. It's the other one. Google is >>still trying to overturn this one "Right to Display". (it is the very >>thing that Ancestry did that incurred the wrath.) > > David, > > Rumors, innuendos, and outright false statements of fact have no > place on COPYRIGHT-L. Please verify your opinions before posting > them as "fact". > See: Google Wins the Right to Display Thumbnails and to "Frame" > Copyrighted Material Used Without Permission: > http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070523.html > > >>You also wrote: >>And attorneys are stepping in now - coming from newspapers groups in >>objection to what Ancestry is doing to THEIR copyrighted sites >>(requiring pay access to free obituary sites). They just found out about >>Ancestry's Obituary Collection which is nothing but a collection of >>cached links to online newspaper obituary sites, most are free access. >>Believe me I know because I called my favorite newspaper publisher to >>see if any permission were ever given - none were given.) > > And what copyright does "anyone" have in a boilerplate obituary > consisting of facts supplied by the family/funeral home? > > Answer: none > > 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 >

Linda, You did NOT look further. 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. 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. Her newspaper is NOT included in Historic Newspaper or even Newspaperarchive.com for that matter. Ancestry is using exact same tactic it tried with Internet Biographic Collection. Did you know you can access newspaperarchive.com through Godfrey Library for much lower fee? Not only that, better results, too. 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 >

At 04:53 PM 8/31/2007, David wrote: >I am not referring to thumnail images. It's the other one. Google is >still trying to overturn this one "Right to Display". (it is the very >thing that Ancestry did that incurred the wrath.) David, Rumors, innuendos, and outright false statements of fact have no place on COPYRIGHT-L. Please verify your opinions before posting them as "fact". See: Google Wins the Right to Display Thumbnails and to "Frame" Copyrighted Material Used Without Permission: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070523.html >You also wrote: >And attorneys are stepping in now - coming from newspapers groups in >objection to what Ancestry is doing to THEIR copyrighted sites >(requiring pay access to free obituary sites). They just found out about >Ancestry's Obituary Collection which is nothing but a collection of >cached links to online newspaper obituary sites, most are free access. >Believe me I know because I called my favorite newspaper publisher to >see if any permission were ever given - none were given.) And what copyright does "anyone" have in a boilerplate obituary consisting of facts supplied by the family/funeral home? Answer: none Pat