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.) If you click on Ancestry cached image or link, it is STILL imply that Ancestry own that site. (IBC is completely dismantled and removed, but Obituary Collection isn't just yet.) 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.) David Samuelsen Pat Asher wrote: > At 01:17 PM 8/31/2007, David Samuelson wrote: >> 1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed this >> one and lost. > > David, if you are referring to the Perfect 10 litigation, you are > wrong. In May of this year, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals > upheld Google's use of thumbnail images. Only one issue was returned > to the District Court for further consideration, that of possibly > "failing to respond adequately to Perfect 10's notifications that > Google's search results linked to infringing content." I am not > aware of that issue being decided yet. > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070517-google-v-perfect-10-appeals-court-affirms-that-thumbnails-are-fair-use.html > > Pat > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

In a message dated 8/31/2007 2:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: Joan I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. Some will say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for ancestry to use cached pages of thier web sites. Others are saying differently. Joyce Gaston Reece --- Joyce - I'm well aware of what is being written. We all know that anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't make their opinion factual nor does it mean they know the law or legal aspects. People tend to write from an emotional standpoint but copyright is a LEGAL issue. Cached pages -- including cached pages for a fee (which isn't what was being done here) have been around since the early days of the Internet. AOL caches pages for their proxy server so that web sites can be quickly accessed by their subscribers. Caching pages is a part of Internet life. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

At 01:17 PM 8/31/2007, David Samuelson wrote: >1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed this >one and lost. David, if you are referring to the Perfect 10 litigation, you are wrong. In May of this year, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Google's use of thumbnail images. Only one issue was returned to the District Court for further consideration, that of possibly "failing to respond adequately to Perfect 10's notifications that Google's search results linked to infringing content." I am not aware of that issue being decided yet. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070517-google-v-perfect-10-appeals-court-affirms-that-thumbnails-are-fair-use.html Pat

In a message dated 8/31/2007 2:18:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: If they had provided CLEAR DIRECT link to original sites, that would be different, but when Ancestry cache and pass off as if it is their own, that is illegal and and the wrath. ---- David- It is a moot point now but they DID have a clear direct link to the original and they made no changes to the original pages to make it appear they were Ancestry pages. The direct links to the LIVE PAGES were also quite clear and easy to find. They clearly identified the CACHED pages as exactly that. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joan I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. Some will say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for ancestry to use cached pages of thier web sites. Others are saying differently. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright-l@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > Thank you for that feedback. > > I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for > the benefit of future researchers. > After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in > most cases the information would not be available for long. > Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. > > Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, > one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a > specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would > they have been OK? > > > > ------ > Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and provided > a > link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. > Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the law and > without > understanding the issues involved. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > >

In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: Thank you for that feedback. I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for the benefit of future researchers. After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in most cases the information would not be available for long. Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would they have been OK? ------ Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and provided a link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the law and without understanding the issues involved. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Thank you for that feedback. I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for the benefit of future researchers. After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in most cases the information would not be available for long. Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would they have been OK? > 1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed > this > one and lost. 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? Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:17 PM, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > Ancestry removed the Internet Biographic search engine completely from > their servers as of this morning, having run afoul of the wrath of > researchers and genealogists as well as the law. I checked it out > to be > sure it is completely off servers. It is. > > 1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed > this > one and lost. > > 2. The way the link was cached was all wrong - lending the strong > impression that Ancestry own the content when it is not. This is what > incurred the wrath of site owners not only those at Rootsweb but also > outside of Ancestry/Rootsweb, too! > > W. David Samuelsen > > by way of Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: >> In a message dated 8/30/2007 2:05:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, >> sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: >> >> I have just learned that Ancestry.com <http://ancestry.com/> has >> incorporated people's personal Web pages into their Web site's >> search. This >> includes copyrighted material, in my case brief biographies of >> ancestors. >> ------- >> This is my 4th attempt at sending this reply and the previous >> responses >> didn't come through--so please bear with me if this eventually >> becomes a >> duplicate post. >> >> Sara- >> >> You are a day late and a dollar short on this issue. <g> The Bios >> collection has been withdrawn by Ancestry. So your "copyright" >> issues are a moot >> point. >> >> However, there really was no copyright issue to start with in >> that, legally, >> cached webpages have been around for a very long time and are >> legal and do >> NOT violate copyright in most case (and certainly not in this >> case). Google >> caches webpages, LexisNexus caches webpages for a fee, the >> Wayback Machine >> caches pages and every proxy server on the Web caches webpages. >> It isn't a >> violation of copyright and it is considered ethical as well by most >> sources. In >> fact page caching is absolutely necessary so that people can >> access Internet >> sites quickly. >> >> 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

Let's ALL wait and see what the courts decide. Anything else is blowing in the wind. Stan B. I am NOT old, I am experienced! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

Following your instructions I get no such results. On Aug 27, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Sara Binkley Tarpley wrote: >1. Go to <http://www.ancestry.com>www.ancestry.com > >2. Enter a name. > >3. In the results under "Birth, Marriage, and Death" records, click on > >"Internet Biographical Collection." Even this title implies ownership by > >Ancestry.

Joan, 1. It is illegal to provide full cached image of file. Google tried and lost in court. 2. Originally this IBC search engine required PAID subscription for access to sites that are FREE not only within Rootsweb but also OUTSIDE the Generations Network such as Political Graveyard (free site), Findagrave, etc. Ancestry changed it to free but it was not enough because of #1 above. Now Ancestry is about to run afoul of the newspaper owners. - same reasons! W. David Samuelsen JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > Thank you for that feedback. > > I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for > the benefit of future researchers. > After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in > most cases the information would not be available for long. > Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. > > Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, > one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a > specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would > they have been OK? > > > > ------ > Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and provided a > link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. > Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the law and without > understanding the issues involved. > > 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 > >

Comments below Bill wrote: > Thank you for that feedback. > > I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for > the benefit of future researchers. > After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in > most cases the information would not be available for long. > Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. > > Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, > one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a > specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would > they have been OK? If they had provided CLEAR DIRECT link to original sites, that would be different, but when Ancestry cache and pass off as if it is their own, that is illegal and and the wrath. > >> 1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed >> this >> one and lost. > > 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". When the site is there no more - Google will show a portion of it in cache, not complete. The only authorized site to have old backups - www.archive.org "Wayback Machine" David Samuelsen > Bill

that is correct - it had been purged as of this morning, having run afoul of law as well as incurring the wrath of many site and content owners within Rootsweb as well as outside of Rootsweb/Ancestry. David Samuelsen Bill (by way of donna@rootsweb.com) (by way of Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net>) wrote: > Following your instructions I get no such results. > On Aug 27, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Sara Binkley Tarpley wrote: > >> 1. Go to <http://www.ancestry.com>www.ancestry.com >> >> 2. Enter a name. >> >> 3. In the results under "Birth, Marriage, and Death" records, click on >> >> "Internet Biographical Collection." Even this title implies ownership by >> >> Ancestry. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >

Ancestry removed the Internet Biographic search engine completely from their servers as of this morning, having run afoul of the wrath of researchers and genealogists as well as the law. I checked it out to be sure it is completely off servers. It is. 1. the law - image of file is not permitted by law. Google appealed this one and lost. 2. The way the link was cached was all wrong - lending the strong impression that Ancestry own the content when it is not. This is what incurred the wrath of site owners not only those at Rootsweb but also outside of Ancestry/Rootsweb, too! W. David Samuelsen by way of Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: > In a message dated 8/30/2007 2:05:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: > > I have just learned that Ancestry.com <http://ancestry.com/> has > incorporated people's personal Web pages into their Web site's search. This > includes copyrighted material, in my case brief biographies of ancestors. > ------- > This is my 4th attempt at sending this reply and the previous responses > didn't come through--so please bear with me if this eventually becomes a > duplicate post. > > Sara- > > You are a day late and a dollar short on this issue. <g> The Bios > collection has been withdrawn by Ancestry. So your "copyright" > issues are a moot > point. > > However, there really was no copyright issue to start with in that, legally, > cached webpages have been around for a very long time and are legal and do > NOT violate copyright in most case (and certainly not in this case). Google > caches webpages, LexisNexus caches webpages for a fee, the Wayback Machine > caches pages and every proxy server on the Web caches webpages. It isn't a > violation of copyright and it is considered ethical as well by most > sources. In > fact page caching is absolutely necessary so that people can access Internet > sites quickly. > > Joan

In a message dated 8/30/2007 2:05:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: I have just learned that Ancestry.com <http://ancestry.com/> has incorporated people's personal Web pages into their Web site's search. This includes copyrighted material, in my case brief biographies of ancestors. ------- This is my 4th attempt at sending this reply and the previous responses didn't come through--so please bear with me if this eventually becomes a duplicate post. Sara- You are a day late and a dollar short on this issue. <g> The Bios collection has been withdrawn by Ancestry. So your "copyright" issues are a moot point. However, there really was no copyright issue to start with in that, legally, cached webpages have been around for a very long time and are legal and do NOT violate copyright in most case (and certainly not in this case). Google caches webpages, LexisNexus caches webpages for a fee, the Wayback Machine caches pages and every proxy server on the Web caches webpages. It isn't a violation of copyright and it is considered ethical as well by most sources. In fact page caching is absolutely necessary so that people can access Internet sites quickly. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

I have just learned that Ancestry.com <http://ancestry.com/> has incorporated people's personal Web pages into their Web site's search. This includes copyrighted material, in my case brief biographies of ancestors. In addition to my biographies, I am finding old photos that are on my Web site, photos that others have graciously shared with me. Now, I think that Ancestry might argue that they are simply acting as a search engine. The results are cached pages. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to tell the URL of the original site. To see what I am talking about: 1. Go to www.ancestry.com 2. Enter a name. 3. In the results under "Birth, Marriage, and Death" records, click on "Internet Biographical Collection." Even this title implies ownership by Ancestry. If you are not an Ancestry member or are not logged in, the search results will be locked. In other words, Ancestry is charging for search results that are free on other search engines and implying, I think, that they somehow have ownership. In the sources shown, the name of the owner of the Web site or the author of the material is not given. The only way that you would know is if it happened to be on the cached page. Is this legal? I certainly don't think that it is ethical. I am very angry. Sara Binkley Tarpley

"'If one purchases a dvd with old movies on it is it acceptable to show them to a group....even if no funds are taken for the movie? Are we violating copyrights?'" "Isn't this acceptable if the films are in the public domain, as many old movies now are?" I was out of town until just a little while ago so did not have a chance to respond to this question until now. public domain - a term referring to the status of a work that has no copyright protection. It literally means that the work belongs to everyone and is available for unrestricted access to anyone who wants to use it. Neither permission nor source citation is required for its use, though failure to cite the source could be considered as plagiarism. http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/glossary.htm If the copyright lapsed on the movie, no permission is needed from anyone. It is now in the public domain, and now belongs to everyone. Mike Goad http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/map.htm

Disney are reknowned for that! Lionel Bart productions threatened to sue the school I was Chair of Governors of for singing some songs from Oliver in a school concert. It came to nothing in the end, but was very upsetting for everyone. Hospitals are not allowed to show films to patients either Liz >From: Tim Kemp <tkemp@mindspring.com> >Reply-To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com >To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] movies >Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:33:51 -0400 > >The local school system was showing Disney movies on DVD's to elementary >classes as prizes when they had done good. They had to stop when Disney >threatened the entire school system with legal action. > >Tim Kemp > >mike@pddoc.com wrote: > >>It is likely an infringement of the rights of the copyright owner. >>Copyright reserves certain rights for the owner of the copyright. For >>movies, one of these rights is the right to "perform the copyrighted work >>publicly." It doesn't matter if it's for a profit or not. >> > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >To unsubscribe from this list click on >mailto:COPYRIGHT-L-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe (list mode) or >mailto:COPYRIGHT-D-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe (digest mode) – >Contact COPYRIGHT-admin@rootsweb.com for list related problems. For the >COPYRIGHT-L archives, go to >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/copyright. > >============================== >Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

In a message dated 8/16/2006 1:16:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: If one purchases a dvd with old movies on it is it acceptable to show them to a group....even if no funds are taken for the movie? ARe we violating copyrights? Isn't this acceptable if the films are in the public domain, as many old movies now are? There are several "collections" of old movies on DVD that are sold for very little because the copyright has expired; a lot of old film noir and horror movies are sold in multi-movie packages like this, as well as some of Laurel & Hardy's movies. I recently saw a documentary about "midnight movies" that explained the reason Night of the Living Dead caught on as a midnight show was because someone neglected to renew the copyright--so anyone could exhibit the film. This site provides a list of movies currently "thought to be" in the public domain: http://www.openflix.com/ Wouldn't showing one of these be okay, particularly for free?

The local school system was showing Disney movies on DVD's to elementary classes as prizes when they had done good. They had to stop when Disney threatened the entire school system with legal action. Tim Kemp mike@pddoc.com wrote: >It is likely an infringement of the rights of the copyright owner. >Copyright reserves certain rights for the owner of the copyright. For >movies, one of these rights is the right to "perform the copyrighted work >publicly." It doesn't matter if it's for a profit or not. >

Sometimes a gratis license will be provided to a civic or government group for music, movies, etc., if no profit is going to be made, i.e., free public showings. We did this all the time when I worked in copyright for a large music publisher. So you should contact the stated copyright holder and/or distributor and ask about gratis licensing for community organizations. Kathi Jones-Hudson MD Tombstone Transcription Project Manager http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/maryland/maryland.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com