OK Jane : ) Unfortunately this man went well past the bounds of proper behavior. I'm sorry I got carried away, and 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? Proper sourcing does require both the original source and the manner in which it was obtained. This is protection for everybody. Would you have a problem if I snipped a short clip of either your opinion or fact you provided and incorporated it my own work to substantiate or refute my own data? Most people I study with don't. We all want to know where we got our information.. I think you had a problem with someone taking too much of it and using it in his own context. The subject matter drifted. I was only trying to emphasize proper sourcing and why we do it. Debbie Joan here....getting REALLY tired of seeing my name in print!! I don't think the OTHER Joan gave any reason for you to conclude that NOT giving recognition was the proper way to go, but I think you've gotten so far off the original topic, that perhaps it's been forgotten! The above "snippet" from your post brings us back to the original point....I DIDN'T WANT CREDIT, proper or OTHERWISE!!! This guy's work was, in my opinion, SO SUBSTANDARD, that I didn't want my name associated with it!! This all started over whether he had the right to use my name as a reference....apparently, he DID have that right, but since he did NOT have the right to post my e-mails, in their entirety, he took down everything attributed to me....which, REGARDLESS of his rights, was what I wanted!!! I'm certainly not gonna direct him to this list and point out that he CAN use my name! But what started all this was that I didn't want to be associated with his work, maybe I don't have a RIGHT to NOT be associated with his work, but I DO have the RIGHT to not WANT to be, even if it seems to confuse others that I would rather allow HIM to take credit for my GOOD work, than me be associated with his mistakes!!! Thanks! Joan

Wrong. The person who gave you the document is part of the source, just as if you had taken the same document from a book. Debbie This is the absolute last I'm going to say on the subject (which I'm sure is going to make many list members happy <g>) 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. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 6:23:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: I sure hope that you aren't accepting information or documents from other people and not giving credit for their hard work. If so, you are using other people's research without due regard for them or for yourself. Get it? Association of Professional Genealogists, Rule #7 starts out .... "Give proper credit to those who supply information and provide assistance Joan here....getting REALLY tired of seeing my name in print!! I don't think the OTHER Joan gave any reason for you to conclude that NOT giving recognition was the proper way to go, but I think you've gotten so far off the original topic, that perhaps it's been forgotten! The above "snippet" from your post brings us back to the original point....I DIDN'T WANT CREDIT, proper or OTHERWISE!!! This guy's work was, in my opinion, SO SUBSTANDARD, that I didn't want my name associated with it!! This all started over whether he had the right to use my name as a reference....apparently, he DID have that right, but since he did NOT have the right to post my e-mails, in their entirety, he took down everything attributed to me....which, REGARDLESS of his rights, was what I wanted!!! I'm certainly not gonna direct him to this list and point out that he CAN use my name! But what started all this was that I didn't want to be associated with his work, maybe I don't have a RIGHT to NOT be associated with his work, but I DO have the RIGHT to not WANT to be, even if it seems to confuse others that I would rather allow HIM to take credit for my GOOD work, than me be associated with his mistakes!!! Thanks! Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 6:23:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: "Give proper credit to those who supply information and provide assistance ..... " Debbie -- This is the absolute last I'm going to say on the subject (which I'm sure is going to make many list members happy <g>) 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. Joan

Joan, 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. I assume she got it from the source she told me, but you never know. She could have made a mistake with a page number or book number. Additionally, I would be pretending to have done legwork that I didn't do .... Joan would have done it and I would rude not to give her credit. If Joan lived by an old cemetery that she saw destroyed, but had written down some of our ancestors' inscriptions, Joan would be the source, not the tombstones since I didn't see them. If Joan had taken me to the cemetery, she wouldn't necessarily be my source, but I probably would point out in my notes that Joan led me to the cemetery. If Joan sent me a page of a book, she may have accidentally stapled the wrong cover page to it. Joan AND the book would be my source. Besides, Joan took the time and effort to send it to me. I didn't go to the library and find it myself. Maybe later I would, but in the meantime, Joan would get credit. If Joan copied some microfilm, the source would be the microfilm, the source of the microfilm, and Joan. Somebody gives me something and they get credit. It's only right for both of us. What if she typed up a passage from a book and wrote the wrong dates, we later found different dates for the same person in the same cemetery, which I fortunately attributed to our cousin Jane. We need to figure out which is right. Since I wrote both Joan and Jane into my sources, I can email both of them and we can all figure out where the error occurred. What if Joan has some information for which she accidentally lost the source, but seems to be good information full of great clues necessary to continue our work. We need to find the documentation, but are having a very difficult time. My source would be an email from Joan, noting she didn't remember her source.. If I later found the original source, I could email Joan and tell her. If I didn't write down Joan as a source, she'd be out of luck. Joan, then, assuming she is a nice person and doesn't want to take credit for my errors, either, would use the actual source PLUS the person who sent it to her. If I retrieved a pension file from Heritage Quest, my source would be Heritage Quest AND the original document. If Joan got it from Heritage Quest and sent it to me, Joan would also be my source. It DOES matter how I obtained my copy or how I obtained my information. If I get a newspaper article from Ancestry.com, the source is the newspaper AND Ancestry.com. If you go to the library, court house, or wherever, and you dig through books and archives and court documents, and you send them to someone else, that someone else is part of your source of information. Every time I send anything out and any time I receive anything I write onto the copy the date, the original source, and the name of the person who gave it to me, or my own name in case I got it myself. I sure hope that you aren't accepting information or documents from other people and not giving credit for their hard work. If so, you are using other people's research without due regard for them or for yourself. Get it? Association of Professional Genealogists, Rule #7 starts out .... "Give proper credit to those who supply information and provide assistance ..... " Debbie In this case (and this was my point all along) Joan's word ceases to be your source--the DOCUMENT or copy thereof becomes your source. It doesn't matter how you obtained the copy--that is your source. The only time "I got this from Joan" would be a valid source is if the source is privately held familly notes, journals, or Bible entries--something not available publicly where you are noting who recorded and maintains it.

In a message dated 7/22/2006 5:11:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Perhaps Joan sent me a court document, a tombstone photo, etc. Maybe Joan copied some microfilm and sent it to me. In this case (and this was my point all along) Joan's word ceases to be your source--the DOCUMENT or copy thereof becomes your source. It doesn't matter how you obtained the copy--that is your source. The only time "I got this from Joan" would be a valid source is if the source is privately held familly notes, journals, or Bible entries--something not available publicly where you are noting who recorded and maintains it. Joan

Hi Pat, These e-mails were DEFINITELY NOT something that would fall under standard wording, genealogy terms! They were lengthy explanations of what facts I had found, and what it was about them that, in my opinion, either supported someone belonged in a particular family, or indicated they did NOT. They were loaded with my theories, hunches and opinions, as well as lots of local history to question what attracted people to this area, or why they might have moved to an area that was mountainous, yet remain farmers, when their land here was and still is extremely fertile farm land. Here's an example...."If Anna was a maiden aunt, why would she have been living with her widowed "niece-in-law", as opposed to one of her two brothers, who lived next door. The children were not young enough for the widow to have needed help raising them, and I would think that the last thing the young widow would have needed would be another mouth to feed." This was in support of Anna being the mother-in-law, as opposed to a maiden aunt. You get the picture!!! LOTS of stuff, loaded with MY ideas!! THANKS! Joan A. In a message dated 7/22/2006 5:02:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pasher@ee.net writes: At 01:36 PM 7/22/2006, you wrote: >I wasn't talking about her data but her personal >emails to him ... his publication of them as a whole >exceeds Fair Use. Kathi, You may be correct; but then again, you may not. My point was that just because facts are presented in narrative form, the narrative is not necessarily copyrighted. The words/intellectual concepts must be original to the author. Phrases such as he was born, he married, he had these children, he enlisted, are standard nomenclature used by all genealogists over and over again. It absolutely depends on the content and wording of the personal emails, which I have not seen. Analysis of facts and conclusions based on discovered facts usually result in some limited copyright to the narratives because there is some wording that is original to the author. But the equivalent of a "narrative" as would be produced by many genealogy programs contains nothing original. Producing copyrightable genealogical narratives requires thought -- and don't we all wish there was more "thought" before "publication". Pat

Joan, There are a ton of exceptions. I never suggested simply "Joan told me," although I do have helpful clues with no more than "Joan's word." Perhaps Joan sent me a court document, a tombstone photo, etc. Maybe Joan copied some microfilm and sent it to me. Maybe Joan's grandmother's birth date isn't recorded anywhere, but Joan's grandmother told her and she shared with me. Maybe Joan had an old deed from a court house that burned. Maybe she had a letter her grandfather wrote her. Maybe Joan saw an old cemetery that was later destroyed and told me about it. Perhaps Joan translated something and gave me a copy. Maybe she had some information whose source she lost. If I don't put down Joan's name, I'm not going to know where I got my information. Maybe Joan shared some family lore which I backed up with some other documentation. 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. Point is, facts are WORTHLESS without knowing where they came from. Maybe Joan sent me some photocopies from a book. If I just simply wrote down "Joan," and found something that disagreed with it, I could write Joan and find out if she made an error. If I wrote down nothing, I might not know where to look. Debbie Let's take a look at facts. Facts are names, dates, places...and how do you know those names, dates and places? There has to be something supporting them other than just "Joan told me." If I'm going to use a name, date, or place in my research I will want to find the names and places on a census, in a document, or some record--not just "Joan told me." If Joan did tell you the facts then she got them from some document--and that is what your actual source needs to be--after you check that record, of course. The one exception to this would be if you are quoting from a family Bible that is in Joan's possession and you and other don't have access to it--there would be nothing wrong with stating that the following data comes from a family Bible in the possession of Joan. That would be entirely acceptable.

At 01:36 PM 7/22/2006, you wrote: >I wasn't talking about her data but her personal >emails to him ... his publication of them as a whole >exceeds Fair Use. Kathi, You may be correct; but then again, you may not. My point was that just because facts are presented in narrative form, the narrative is not necessarily copyrighted. The words/intellectual concepts must be original to the author. Phrases such as he was born, he married, he had these children, he enlisted, are standard nomenclature used by all genealogists over and over again. It absolutely depends on the content and wording of the personal emails, which I have not seen. Analysis of facts and conclusions based on discovered facts usually result in some limited copyright to the narratives because there is some wording that is original to the author. But the equivalent of a "narrative" as would be produced by many genealogy programs contains nothing original. Producing copyrightable genealogical narratives requires thought -- and don't we all wish there was more "thought" before "publication". Pat

In a message dated 7/22/2006 2:55:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Facts are not owned, but it's pretty hard to state them as fact without a source. I don't even believe "facts" that aren't supported. --- Let's take a look at facts. Facts are names, dates, places...and how do you know those names, dates and places? There has to be something supporting them other than just "Joan told me." If I'm going to use a name, date, or place in my research I will want to find the names and places on a census, in a document, or some record--not just "Joan told me." If Joan did tell you the facts then she got them from some document--and that is what your actual source needs to be--after you check that record, of course. The one exception to this would be if you are quoting from a family Bible that is in Joan's possession and you and other don't have access to it--there would be nothing wrong with stating that the following data comes from a family Bible in the possession of Joan. That would be entirely acceptable. Joan

Joan, Facts are not owned, but it's pretty hard to state them as fact without a source. I don't even believe "facts" that aren't supported. Sometimes the source HAS to involve another person's or another entity's research. Examples of this are translations done by someone else even when they are purchased by you, public records or tombstone photos that someone shared with you, eyewitness accounts, and transcriptions or abstracts of records which no longer exist. Even when you cite microfilm, you do not cite the original source alone. You also cite the person or group that microfilmed the material. Sharing private emails to the web is a no-no, whether it's one or a zillion. It isn't ethical without permission. Messages posted to groups or on a web page are another story. Within reason, it's perfectly legal and perfectly ethical. If you don't want facts attributed to you, you'd be best off keeping them off of a group mailing list or web page, and specifying to people when you privately email them that they can't share with others. There's a catch, though. If you don't want to share, you shouldn't expect someone else to share with you. This does not mean that it's OK to publish a ton of some else's work of any kind. Debbie think we have probably run this subject into the ground <g> but FACTS are not owned by anyone and, as such, don't really need to be attributed to anyone--especially if that person doesn't wish to be associated with them. If anything--you would want to attribute the facts to the original records from which they were found.

Hi all, Kathi and Joan are SPOT ON!! I get that data isn't protected, it was the e-mail after e-mail, verbatim, that he copied and pasted into the notes section of each individual that I was refering to. And yes, they were copied complete, and were far more than a few lines! THANKS AGAIN! Joan A. In a message dated 7/22/2006 1:37:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mdcat.geo@yahoo.com writes: Pat: I wasn't talking about her data but her personal emails to him ... his publication of them as a whole exceeds Fair Use. Forwarding my email to this list elsewhere as a whole without my consent would exceed Fair Use and be of violation of my copyright on my email. It was my understanding that he published her emails in their entirety. Data of course is a different story. Bottom line on this for researchers be careful of what you share until you know someone really well unless you want to see it published all over the place, with or without "credit", correct or not. Kathi Jones-Hudson

In a message dated 7/22/2006 12:48:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, pasher@ee.net writes: Whole pages can be written containing nothing but facts, or only a very few original concepts. They can thus be copied verbatim and "fair use" is not an issue since they were (by and large) not copyrightable to begin with :) Pat True...but going back to the original post that started this thread we see that Joan's emails were copied verbatim including *her originally worded notes and her explanations of her reasons for her conclusions and hypotheses* so what was copied from her was more than mere facts--it was original creative content. Joan

At 11:31 AM 7/22/2006, Kathi Jones-Hudson wrote: >Fair Use is deliberately not well defined and there >are no specific amount of words, lines, etc. that >constitutes Fair Use. > >Here's what the Copyright Office says: >http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html > >If he posted everything you sent to him, including >personal emails, he went way beyond Fair Use. Kathie, Not necessarily. It depends on whether the personal emails contained original intellectual concepts expressed in original words. Presenting/sharing factual data in a text format MAY be original, but often is not. A sentence such as John Veeblefester was born in 1840 and enlisted in the Confederate Army, Company A, 1st Mounted Virginia Calvary August 21, 1863 is nothing but facts. There is nothing orignal about the sentence and it contains nothing that can be copyrighted. Whole pages can be written containing nothing but facts, or only a very few original concepts. They can thus be copied verbatim and "fair use" is not an issue since they were (by and large) not copyrightable to begin with :) Pat

Pat: I wasn't talking about her data but her personal emails to him ... his publication of them as a whole exceeds Fair Use. Forwarding my email to this list elsewhere as a whole without my consent would exceed Fair Use and be of violation of my copyright on my email. It was my understanding that he published her emails in their entirety. Data of course is a different story. Bottom line on this for researchers be careful of what you share until you know someone really well unless you want to see it published all over the place, with or without "credit", correct or not. 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

In a message dated 7/22/2006 7:47:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, Jma8763@aol.com writes: Just to add another point here.....this guy's website has "Copyright" all over it! So, had he left my "data files", which he did NOT attribute to ME, but rather to my e-mail address, just the e-mails with the explanations of the data files had my name attached....would he then have held a copyright over my formatting? Joan- A person can't claim copyright to something he didn't create and which wasn't original with him. There are many false claims of copyright on the Internet--but that is another subject for another day. <g> Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 7:00:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: I never suggested that anyone be able to publish an unfair amount of copyrighted work whether they used her as a source or not. I only suggested that the facts that they took from her should be credited to her. Debbie- I think we have probably run this subject into the ground <g> but FACTS are not owned by anyone and, as such, don't really need to be attributed to anyone--especially if that person doesn't wish to be associated with them. If anything--you would want to attribute the facts to the original records from which they were found. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 8:31:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, VaGreen100@aol.com writes: About 25 years ago, I send quite a bit of information to a young man who was researching the same family that I was. Some of it was "facts" easily obtainable by anybody who did the work. Some of it was family knowledge. It was sent thinking I was working with someone who was genuinely doing research. Some of it probably could be considered copyrightable material. He sent me a copy of what he put together. Lo and behold, he or the computer (this was a new computer age) had melded together his two wives into one and another couple who had the same names, resulting in a family with 22 or so children. At the point I pointed out to him the errors and forgot all about it. Years later, the LDS site is up and low and behold there is all this garbage and it is credited to me! I still hear from people who find that mess, and have tried to trace their family to it. And want me to explain it! Such is life. Virginia Green PERFECT EXAMPLE, and an experience I have had myself!!!! THIS is WHY I want NO association with his work!!! I would rather he take credit for MY work, than me take BLAME for his!!! THANKS! Joan A.

Fair Use is deliberately not well defined and there are no specific amount of words, lines, etc. that constitutes Fair Use. Here's what the Copyright Office says: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If he posted everything you sent to him, including personal emails, he went way beyond Fair Use. 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

About 25 years ago, I send quite a bit of information to a young man who was researching the same family that I was. Some of it was "facts" easily obtainable by anybody who did the work. Some of it was family knowledge. It was sent thinking I was working with someone who was genuinely doing research. Some of it probably could be considered copyrightable material. He sent me a copy of what he put together. Lo and behold, he or the computer (this was a new computer age) had melded together his two wives into one and another couple who had the same names, resulting in a family with 22 or so children. At the point I pointed out to him the errors and forgot all about it. Years later, the LDS site is up and low and behold there is all this garbage and it is credited to me! I still hear from people who find that mess, and have tried to trace their family to it. And want me to explain it! Such is life. Virginia Green