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. "....in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;" http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/authors_rights.htm That being said, there are probably other sources that might be able to provide a better answer. It sure seems like there should be a way to be able to do what you are wanting to do, even if it is a copyright issue, such as getting permission to do so from the copyright owner of the movie or working through one of the companies that provides licensing for movies. I know that periodically free movies are shown at a theatre in Little Rock that are sponsored by a law office there. Mike Goad http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/index.html > Our local Civitan group is interested in providing recreation in our > small town. Our idea is to show old movies...youth oriented as well as > adult movies. We have a local "Gem" theater that our city owns. 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? > > > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A > virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through a > RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, Trojans, > Worms etc., go please to: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think > to keep your Anti-Virus up-to-date! > > ============================== > 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

Our local Civitan group is interested in providing recreation in our small town. Our idea is to show old movies...youth oriented as well as adult movies. We have a local "Gem" theater that our city owns. 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? Joyce Gaston Reece

You can find information about UK copyright here. http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/questions Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trina Huynh" <ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:00 PM Subject: [COPYRIGHT] Scotland laws? > Are books' copyright laws the same for Scotland. > I use public domain material alot and have come across a book published > in 1911 in Scotland...Can I treat this as Public domain material? > > Thanks > Trina > > > --------------------------------- > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the > boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or > historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in > Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old > Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To > subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com > (Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >

Are books' copyright laws the same for Scotland. I use public domain material alot and have come across a book published in 1911 in Scotland...Can I treat this as Public domain material? Thanks Trina --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

Joan - you keep answering the wrong parts of my responses to you. How you acquired the photocopy can be an important part of the citation because you may have to rely on the accuracy of whomever sent you the copy. But ... As I said in my most recent comment on this issue (which isn't exactly on topic here), if somebody sends me a photocopy of a record, that person is usually a part of the source citation. If I hire someone to get me a specific record (I often do this for NARA files, for example), then that person isn't a part of the citation. Or if long ago I copied from a county index and now I need a copy of an indexed document, I can often get it through a volunteer at a local genealogy society; if so, then the document is the source of the volunteer isn't mention. One more: If someone says they have such and such a document and they quote from it in a message to me, I will include the name of the person as a part of the source citation. If I later decide I need a copy of the document and send for it, I probably will cite it without reference to the person who originally alerted me to it. (If the person was among those who gave quite a bit of help, the recognition of that would come in an acknowledgement section.) Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Private e-mails update - VICTORY! > > In a message dated 7/23/2006 5:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, > richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > > Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked > at > it again I still think so. > > Richard > > > > Richard- > > I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing > with is > Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth > Certificate > SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the > certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what > I've been > arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent > me the > photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking > the person > for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of > knowing > something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I > refuse to > accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it > to me or how > I acquired it. > > Joan > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A > virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through > a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, > Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus > up-to-date! > > ============================== > 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 >

Joan, I was offering to send you a book. I wasn't being condescending. It's not only courtesy. It's self protection. If you know where you got your document or your information, you will be able to go back later if you have conflicting data, and be able to fix it. When you use someone else's work, you are also leading the reader to believe that you did it yourself, which is misinformation. As I stated earlier, I wouldn't trust your work. Debbie In a message dated 7/23/2006 6:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Would you like me to send you a book about how to cite sources? I could probably find a web site or two. Thanks for the condescending tone above. Can we not disagree without becoming disagreeable? For the record, I am quite capable of sourcing my research. But I do not confuse sourcing with courtesy. Nowhere have I ever condoned rudeness or lack of courtesy. And now I'm completely done with this discussion--I promise--no further comments. A source is how you know the information--and if you have a document, no matter how you obtained it, that is your source. Thanking a person for supplying a document is another matter entirely. Joan

In a message dated 7/23/2006 6:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Would you like me to send you a book about how to cite sources? I could probably find a web site or two. Thanks for the condescending tone above. Can we not disagree without becoming disagreeable? For the record, I am quite capable of sourcing my research. But I do not confuse sourcing with courtesy. Nowhere have I ever condoned rudeness or lack of courtesy. And now I'm completely done with this discussion--I promise--no further comments. A source is how you know the information--and if you have a document, no matter how you obtained it, that is your source. Thanking a person for supplying a document is another matter entirely. Joan

What's the difference between a copy published in a book, a copy obtained from someone's notebook, or a copy obtained from microfilm? None are original copies, and any could be mislabled. Debbie And there is where we are going to continue to disagree. I am in complete agreement that you can't attribute your source to a document you have never seen or only have seen copied in a book--in that case the source is HOW YOU KNOW THE INFORMATION--the book. But the same is not true if you have a photocopy of the pirmary record no matter HOW you obtained that record or who sent it to you.

I didn't say anything about publishing the photo. I was talking about using the data from it. The photo I would own. The data I would not. Don't worry. I won't share any with you. Debbie Now, in the case of the tombstone photo mentioned above--that photo, assuming Joan took it, would be under her copyright and she obviously would have to grant me permission to use it--say on a webpage for example. But where I have obtained a document--such as a court record, copy of a vital record--it doesn't matter where I got it--that document IS my source.

Richard, If I wrote to the court house for a copy of a will, I would consider the will to be my source -- but I would note how I obtained it, just in case. I actually have had trustworthy friends come back with documents that they messed up. Not usually, but it has happened. You do a good job with your citations. Debbie I do make some exceptions about "the source." If I ask someone - a professional or a volunteer (ones I have confidence in) to look up a specific piece of information at the court house and get back a photocopy of the document, then I consider that the same as if I had obtained the photocopy during a personal visit to the court house.

You are still wrong, Joan. If I sent you have a certified copy of a birth certificate, that would be documentation. It would be rude of you not to note where you got it, but that would just mean I probably wouldn't send you anything else. No big deal. If I sent you an uncertified copy, how do you know I didn't doctor it? It can be done pretty easily. How do you know I got it where I said I did? I could do that easily, too. I could take a will and add a couple kids to it. Easy enough to do in the digital age. If I sent you a tombstone photo, your source would be my photo, not the tombstone itself, and you would want to name me as the source. Maybe I accidentally wrote down the wrong cemetery when I sent it to you. Maybe I changed the dates on the photo. You write me as the source, and then I'm the idiot. You claim yourself as the source, it's all on you. If I had a translation done of some old German church records I had retrieved from an LDS film, and I sent you photocopies, which you were unable to read on your own, plus the translation, and you used the translation, you would, for the sake of courtesy and accuracy, cite the church record, the film, me, and the translator. Richard Pence has some deed abstracts that were taken, with permission, from some of Amelia Gilreath's books. If I used the abstracts, my source would be Richard Pence citing Amelia Gilreath. That gives Richard credit for his efforts and any typos he may have made and Amelia Gilreath credit for hers and any mistakes she may have made. If I used the abstracts directly from Gilreath's books, her book alone would be the source. If I used the deeds themselves, I would use the deeds alone. Even a scholarly website such as the Library of Virginia has some mistakes in identification of documents. You cite the document and not the Library of Virginia, you're not going to know where the mistake came from when someone emails you and tells you you made a mistake. You won't even be able to argue your data if you don't know the proper source. When you use an LDS film of wills from a court house, do you cite the Will Book or do you cite the LDS film number AND the Will Book? If I copied the will from the film and sent it to you, you would use all three. If not, you are rude and inaccurate. Would you like me to send you a book about how to cite sources? I could probably find a web site or two. Your citations are no good if you aren't telling the truth about where you got them. I'm not claiming it HAS to be both. I'm stating the FACT that properly it should be both. If you want to discredit yourself, knock yourself out. Faulty sources lead to inaccurate research. Debbie Richard- I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing with is Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth Certificate SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what I've been arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent me the photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking the person for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of knowing something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I refuse to accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it to me or how I acquired it. Joan

In a message dated 7/23/2006 5:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: I do make some exceptions about "the source." If I ask someone - a professional or a volunteer (ones I have confidence in) to look up a specific piece of information at the court house and get back a photocopy of the document, then I consider that the same as if I had obtained the photocopy during a personal visit to the court house. Richard- And this is my point and has been all along..see my reply to Debbie quoting her earlier comments in the thread (to save you the trouble of looking them all up). While I would thank (and reimburse) the person who copied the documents for me -- they are not my SOURCE. Joan

In a message dated 7/23/2006 4:08:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: You are wrong, Joan, and it could lead to your work lacking credibility. The person who supplied the documentation is part of the source. If a will or birth certificate is published in a book, that book AND that will are your source. If a person sent you some documentation, that person is part of your source. Why? There are several reasons. For one thing, you did not obtain the material itself. Um...Debbie- The above is an ENTIRELY different situation than what we were discussing earlier in this thread and to which I've been taking exception. Quoting from your preivious posts in this thread: "Perhaps Joan sent me a court document, a tombstone photo, etc. Maybe Joan copied some microfilm and sent it to me." and... "Of course I'm going to go to the primary source where I can, but if Joan sent me a copy of the primary source, what would be my source? It would be Joan PLUS the source since I didn't retrieve it myself." And... "I'm sorry. You are completely wrong. If Joan sent me the document, Joan AND the document would be my source. I did not retrieve the document. Joan did." In the above situations Joan was merely the vector (and due thanks) but she is NOT the source or any part of the source unless she altered the records she sent me in some way--such as translating or transcribing a document. Now, in the case of the tombstone photo mentioned above--that photo, assuming Joan took it, would be under her copyright and she obviously would have to grant me permission to use it--say on a webpage for example. But where I have obtained a document--such as a court record, copy of a vital record--it doesn't matter where I got it--that document IS my source. And there is where we are going to continue to disagree. I am in complete agreement that you can't attribute your source to a document you have never seen or only have seen copied in a book--in that case the source is HOW YOU KNOW THE INFORMATION--the book. But the same is not true if you have a photocopy of the pirmary record no matter HOW you obtained that record or who sent it to you. Joan

Debbie <RoverLSmith@aol.com> wrote: > What you are doing by not properly citing where you got your > information is > laying claim both to someone else's work and -- possibly -- someone > else's > mistakes. indeed. I make enough mistakes of my own without copying other people's mistakes and pretending they are my own. <g> I have a whole lot of citations that quote a book's chapter and page and this information is followed with "quoting from Will Book 7, page ..." and so on. I do make some exceptions about "the source." If I ask someone - a professional or a volunteer (ones I have confidence in) to look up a specific piece of information at the court house and get back a photocopy of the document, then I consider that the same as if I had obtained the photocopy during a personal visit to the court house. I suppose I'll get burned on that one some day, but it is getting so my footnotes take up as much space as the narrative itself!!! Richard

In a message dated 7/23/2006 5:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked at it again I still think so. Richard Richard- I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing with is Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth Certificate SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what I've been arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent me the photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking the person for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of knowing something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I refuse to accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it to me or how I acquired it. Joan

Joan Young <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > The source is how you know the information. Precisely. If Sarah Smith wrote me a letter and said our mutal great unlce was born in 1850, then that is the source of the information. That does not mean, however, that I won't someday get a "better" source, such as a Bible record from another cousin. > And if I have a document such > as a birth certificate, baptimal record, marriage license, etc. THAT > is my > documentation and my source. Sure. Never have I said otherwise. > It doesn't much matter whether I obtained the baptismal record from > the > church or from Mary Smith or whether the document came > tumbling down out of the sky. I know the information because I have > it on a > document. Of course. But my point is that if someone wrote you a letter and said that s-and-so was born on a particular date WITHOUT any other piece of paper or citation, then THAT is the source. It can't be otherwise. > If the only way I know the information is because I got it from Mary > Smith's GEDCOM then Mary Smith's GEDCOM is my source (even if Mary > cites sources such as birth certificates in her GEDCOM--if I haven't > seen them > then Mary's GEDCOM is my source). If Mary Smith told me about > information > in her privately held family Bible then that is my source and Mary is > a part of it > because she supplied the information. Exactly and without a doubt. But suppose Mary never said anything about any Bible. The she is the source. And, again, it can't be otherwise until you get a different source. > But the point I've been trying to drive home all along is that if I > have a > baptismal record that is my source--I could have obtained in any > manner. Nobody said anything differently. And we never heard anything about anybodyt sending anyone a baptismal certificate, did we? > When the only reason I know the information is because I got it from > another > person or that person's GEDCOM or private family info, then the > person is the > source. Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked at it again I still think so. Richard

You are wrong, Joan, and it could lead to your work lacking credibility. The person who supplied the documentation is part of the source. If a will or birth certificate is published in a book, that book AND that will are your source. If a person sent you some documentation, that person is part of your source. Why? There are several reasons. For one thing, you did not obtain the material itself. It's polite to mention who did. You should give credit where credit is due. Another reason is, that if something "fell from the sky," you really don't know for sure where it came from. I could send you a will on which I wrote where I got my information, book and page number, and accidentally write, "Will Book I, p 3." How do you know I didn't mistake an "8" for a "3." Your source is EXACTLY where you obtained it, not where someone else did. What you are doing by not properly citing where you got your information is laying claim both to someone else's work and -- possibly -- someone else's mistakes. By the way, I have cited Richard Pence as a source. He was citing another source, but I haven't come across it yet. I'm not going to claim I did. Debbie Richard- The source is how you know the information. And if I have a document such as a birth certificate, baptimal record, marriage license, etc. THAT is my documentation and my source. It doesn't much matter whether I obtained the baptismal record from the church or from Mary Smith or whether the document came tumbling down out of the sky. I know the information because I have it on a document. If the only way I know the information is because I got it from Mary Smith's GEDCOM then Mary Smith's GEDCOM is my source (even if Mary cites sources such as birth certificates in her GEDCOM--if I haven't seen them then Mary's GEDCOM is my source). If Mary Smith told me about information in her privately held family Bible then that is my source and Mary is a part of it because she supplied the information. But the point I've been trying to drive home all along is that if I have a baptismal record that is my source--I could have obtained in any manner. When the only reason I know the information is because I got it from another person or that person's GEDCOM or private family info, then the person is the source. Joan

In a message dated 7/23/2006 2:26:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: On the contrary, the person who supplied the information is indeed the source. Richard- The source is how you know the information. And if I have a document such as a birth certificate, baptimal record, marriage license, etc. THAT is my documentation and my source. It doesn't much matter whether I obtained the baptismal record from the church or from Mary Smith or whether the document came tumbling down out of the sky. I know the information because I have it on a document. If the only way I know the information is because I got it from Mary Smith's GEDCOM then Mary Smith's GEDCOM is my source (even if Mary cites sources such as birth certificates in her GEDCOM--if I haven't seen them then Mary's GEDCOM is my source). If Mary Smith told me about information in her privately held family Bible then that is my source and Mary is a part of it because she supplied the information. But the point I've been trying to drive home all along is that if I have a baptismal record that is my source--I could have obtained in any manner. When the only reason I know the information is because I got it from another person or that person's GEDCOM or private family info, then the person is the source. Joan

Sorry that you are going to fold your tent on this one, but here's my response to what you wrote: > . . . but giving proper credit to someone who helped you out isn't the > same > thing as SOURCING. There is nothing wrong with thanking a person for > supplying you with a document--but that doesn't make the person the > SOURCE > of the fact the document is supporting -- the document the person > supplied to > you is the source. On the contrary, the person who supplied the information is indeed the source. Every bit of information a genealogist collects has a source: "Aunt Martha said ..." is a source. "An email from Sam Jones said . . . " What Aunt Martha said and what Sam wrote, however, do not mean they are true and what the genealogist needs to do is to use what Martha and Sam said in order to determine whether the information is correct. DOCUMENTATION is needed. I try to put a source on everything - and the main reason is that it helps me keep track of how I found the information. Sources aren't the same as documentation, nor are they the same as citations. Anyone interested in pursuing this topic can look at "Sources, Citations and Documentations," a lesson in an on-line class I wrote several years ago. Go here: http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/classdoc.htm#Partone 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 7/22/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: if he published your emails, he was wrong, but would there be anything wrong with an ethical genealogist using you as a source within the bounds of fair use? Ahhhhhhhh, THIS Joan IS VERY HAPPY.....enough to even go by Joan again!! NOW YOU HAVE IT, in a nutshell.....had I not had the misfortune of seeing how this guy works, I would have probably allowed him to use any, maybe even ALL of my explanations, AND include my name, as I stand by my research 100%....mistakes and all!!! Of course, if he had been a credible, ethical individual, then only the portions of my e-mails that were pertinent to the story would have ended up online, and I never would have gone into this tailspin at all!! I have NO PROBLEM with people crediting me for contributions, and generally feel quite proud to have been credited....which is HOW this all started! I sent him a file that had been previously sent to a credible, reliable genealogist friend of mine, who has my permission to pass on my work to anyone he sees fit, and does so regularly....as I do with his material. He gets credit for his work, and I for mine....as it should be! Unfortunately, this JERK published my entire e-mail, in which I apologized for the file font being large, as my TRUSTED friend is legally blind. No disrespect was intended, but I doubt my friend would have been pleased to find that information posted on the internet....and it had NO BUSINESS going up in the first place!! Mr. Jerk was just too eager to post my material, and too lazy to edit out things that had no business being posted!!! THANKS, I feel better now!!!! Joan