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? It was NOT a standardized form, such as a GedCom, but rather a word doc, formatted by me, with various notes throughout. One fear that I had, was that if I wanted to post MY OWN WORK online, it would appear that I was the one stealing copyrighted info, and would be difficult to prove otherw ise!! And since "Fair Use" has been mentioned a couple of times, I have another question....HOW MUCH text falls under Fair Use? In his response, he said that, while he DID take all of my material down, he didn't have to, because, in his opinion, it was not enough to have violated Fair Use. He did use the e-mails in their entirety, and the SMALLEST one would have been larger than this e-mail that I am currently sending to the list!!! I was under the impression that Fair Use only governed a line or two....can it be FAR MORE than that???? THANKS! Joan A. In a message dated 7/21/2006 11:00:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: I took it to mean that she didn't want him using her data -- just the data, not the quotes, and attributing it to her. The point is Joan has no control over data that is in the public domain--once she has given that info to anyone they can use it within their own content as their own conclusions. She just doesn't want it attributed to her. She can put her own data in her own words online herself and have it say just what she wants and nothing more. It is always better to have control of your own data under your own name. Joan

Joan, 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 Debbie- That would be fine IF, and here is where we part ways, Joan had wanted her information included in this file as being her own words and conclusions and had granted permission for him to use it. She didn't and that is all we need to know. What he can't do is use her copyrighted content even if he does quote her as the source if she hasn't granted her permission for him to do so. The material isn't being presented as she wants it--she'd rather put her own data in her own words online under her own control--and that is her privilege. As someone else pointed out, if you are quoting someone as your source and using only a small part of a larger text under "fair use" you can do that--but you can't infringe on someone's copyright by copying their entire original text. He could also quote Joan as the source for names, dates, and places she provided to him from her research--what he can't do is violate her copyright to her original text. Joan

In a message dated 7/21/2006 11:21:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: When I use someone else's data, I always cite them as a source, because that way I know where the info came from, they get credit for what they did, and I don't get credit for their mistakes or typos. Debbie- That would be fine IF, and here is where we part ways, Joan had wanted her information included in this file as being her own words and conclusions and had granted permission for him to use it. She didn't and that is all we need to know. What he can't do is use her copyrighted content even if he does quote her as the source if she hasn't granted her permission for him to do so. The material isn't being presented as she wants it--she'd rather put her own data in her own words online under her own control--and that is her privilege. As someone else pointed out, if you are quoting someone as your source and using only a small part of a larger text under "fair use" you can do that--but you can't infringe on someone's copyright by copying their entire original text. He could also quote Joan as the source for names, dates, and places she provided to him from her research--what he can't do is violate her copyright to her original text. Joan

Joan, When I use someone else's data, I always cite them as a source, because that way I know where the info came from, they get credit for what they did, and I don't get credit for their mistakes or typos. When I use someone else's work and they tell me their source, I cite them AND their source. I usually verify everything myself, but at times it's impossible. There's nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to use my data, I would expect them to do the same. Joan STILL can control her own data in her own words in her own work, regardless of what anyone else does. Debbie The point is Joan has no control over data that is in the public domain--once she has given that info to anyone they can use it within their own content as their own conclusions. She just doesn't want it attributed to her. She can put her own data in her own words online herself and have it say just what she wants and nothing more. It is always better to have control of your own data under your own name. Joan

Joan, I never intended to imply that it was OK to publish your emails without permission. I only meant to say that when my work is used anywhere, I like it attributed to me, except of course the time I mixed up a couple of a people in a private email and then the "facts" were broadcast in a huge database and copied over and over across the Net. Even then it would have been better had my name been attached, because the database owner would possibly have changed his information had he believed me when I told him of the mistake. Somebody once offered to share some research with me on a certain family. I thought I probably knew more about this family than they did, but I courteously accepted, and they sent me a very large printout of my exact words with no mention of any source. I was offended. I don't even know where they got it, but If they would have cited me as a source and had done a little of their own work, I would have been fine with it. My name is associated with some really bad research, but as long as I'm the footnote where my footnote belongs, I'm OK with it, because it's not usually my part of their information that's wrong. Debbie THANKS JOAN!!! THAT seems to be the point that I'm not getting across! I have NO problem with people having differing standards of proof, but I was completely uncomfortable even calling his standards proof!! I would FAR rather have him paraphrase to his hearts content, and claim the information as his own, than to have my diligently proven information appear as a collaboration with him! The bottom line is, he did NOT have the right to publish my e-mails, he knows that, and they are now gone....thanks in no small part to all the help I received from this list!! THANKS AGAIN!! Joan

In a message dated 7/21/2006 10:55:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: I took it to mean that she didn't want him using her data -- just the data, not the quotes, and attributing it to her. The point is Joan has no control over data that is in the public domain--once she has given that info to anyone they can use it within their own content as their own conclusions. She just doesn't want it attributed to her. She can put her own data in her own words online herself and have it say just what she wants and nothing more. It is always better to have control of your own data under your own name. Joan

In a message dated 7/21/2006 9:50:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: Joan, That's not what I meant. I understand that she doesn't want quoted verbatim. When she wrote, "Of course, he used most of the data, but we ALL saw THAT one coming!! As long as the info on the living is gone, and my name is no longer attributed to his site, all is well with the world again!!!!" I took it to mean that she didn't want him using her data -- just the data, not the quotes, and attributing it to her. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Debbie Debbie- The reason Joan doesn't want her name attached to it is that it isn't what she'd have wanted listed as being HER work. There is no problem with the person paraphrasing her words and taking the public domain info from her research but allowing him to quote her verbatim and use her copyrighted private content is not what she wants and I understand that completely. It is actually worse to be quoted at length and have content attributed to you that you don't want online, than for someone else to take their own responsibility for it. Joan will now be able to prepare hew OWN files in the manner she wants them displayed and post them online herself under her name.

THANKS JOAN!!! THAT seems to be the point that I'm not getting across! I have NO problem with people having differing standards of proof, but I was completely uncomfortable even calling his standards proof!! I would FAR rather have him paraphrase to his hearts content, and claim the information as his own, than to have my diligently proven information appear as a collaboration with him! The bottom line is, he did NOT have the right to publish my e-mails, he knows that, and they are now gone....thanks in no small part to all the help I received from this list!! THANKS AGAIN!! Joan In a message dated 7/21/2006 9:50:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: I don't understand why, if he's using data you gathered, you wouldn't want it attributed to you. I wouldn't want more than one or two of my emails, public or private, posted verbatim without my permission at any one place, but I would want my efforts acknowledged. Debbie- The reason Joan doesn't want her name attached to it is that it isn't what she'd have wanted listed as being HER work. There is no problem with the person paraphrasing her words and taking the public domain info from her research but allowing him to quote her verbatim and use her copyrighted private content is not what she wants and I understand that completely. It is actually worse to be quoted at length and have content attributed to you that you don't want online, than for someone else to take their own responsibility for it. Joan will now be able to prepare hew OWN files in the manner she wants them displayed and post them online herself under her name. Joan

In a message dated 7/21/2006 9:26:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: I don't understand why, if he's using data you gathered, you wouldn't want it attributed to you. I wouldn't want more than one or two of my emails, public or private, posted verbatim without my permission at any one place, but I would want my efforts acknowledged. Debbie- The reason Joan doesn't want her name attached to it is that it isn't what she'd have wanted listed as being HER work. There is no problem with the person paraphrasing her words and taking the public domain info from her research but allowing him to quote her verbatim and use her copyrighted private content is not what she wants and I understand that completely. It is actually worse to be quoted at length and have content attributed to you that you don't want online, than for someone else to take their own responsibility for it. Joan will now be able to prepare hew OWN files in the manner she wants them displayed and post them online herself under her name. Joan

Joan, I don't understand why, if he's using data you gathered, you wouldn't want it attributed to you. I wouldn't want more than one or two of my emails, public or private, posted verbatim without my permission at any one place, but I would want my efforts acknowledged. Also, if he wanted to use information about living people, there isn't anything you could do about it aside from asking that it be removed. Information regarding living people is all over the Net, including government web sites and newspapers. Obituaries list surviving relatives and their residences. This is all perfectly legal. Most of us just consider publishing genealogical databases which include the living as unethical. The reality is, though, you just can't hide anymore. Many family history books dating at least back into the 1800s included the names of people living at the time, and much of this information was contributed by the living people themselves. The only difference now is that we can access the information more easily without having to buy a book or go to the library. Debbie Hi all, I just left the website, and all of my e-mails and the information on living people have been removed!!! It turns out that, as we know, the data isn't protected under copyright, but the wording is, and the living are protected by privacy acts. Of course, he used most of the data, but we ALL saw THAT one coming!! As long as the info on the living is gone, and my name is no longer attributed to his site, all is well with the world again!!!! Interestingly, all it took was for me to tell him that I KNEW the material was copyrighted, and off it came. Certainly seems to me that he must have known too!!!! THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL, FOR ALL THE HELP!!!!! Joan

Hi all, I just left the website, and all of my e-mails and the information on living people have been removed!!! It turns out that, as we know, the data isn't protected under copyright, but the wording is, and the living are protected by privacy acts. Of course, he used most of the data, but we ALL saw THAT one coming!! As long as the info on the living is gone, and my name is no longer attributed to his site, all is well with the world again!!!! Interestingly, all it took was for me to tell him that I KNEW the material was copyrighted, and off it came. Certainly seems to me that he must have known too!!!! THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL, FOR ALL THE HELP!!!!! Joan

Joan said: >and the living are protected by privacy acts. < Not exactly. I'd like to point out something that is often misunderstood about so-called "privacy laws." These laws basically pertain to what your federal government can and can't do with your "personal information." Your name, address, e-mail address, phone number, etc. are not private information. They can be obtained easily from telephone books, city directories, etc. While most of us prefer to keep our e-mail addresses off the Web due to the spambots who collect them to spam us with junk and porn, they still are not "private." The Privacy Act of 1974 provides for disclosure of, and personal access to, all federal records containing personal information, regulates their transfer to others, and allows for legal remedies in cases of their misuse under the law. The Right to Financial Privacy Act (1978) limits federal access to financial records but places few restrictions on access by states, businesses, and others. The privacy of most other information is not guaranteed. Computer and telecommunications advances have made credit, medical, and other data a readily available, highly marketable commodity, raising many concerns about individuals' privacy. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to privacy. However, most states in the U.S. grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts: 1.. Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs; 2.. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts; 3.. Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and 4.. Appropriation of name or likeness. Naturally, these are all matters of interpretation and specific instances and why we have lawyers. Genealogists should exclude posting online and/or sharing genealogical information (paper or GEDCOM) about living relatives out of courtesy, but there's no law about it. You might be surprised to know what's out there about you: http://www.peoplelookup.com/people-search.html --Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG

Joan, "all of my data posted on his website" - This is legal. Facts cannot be copyrighted. "my private e-mails to him are posted as well!!" - This is not legal. Since 1978, as soon as you write something you have a copyright on the 'creative' portion of what you wrote. In genealogy, it is common to quote your sources, so whole emails are sometimes used as proof, at least in your own private records. Without your permission, the facts from the emails could be extracted and put online. Under fair use, three or four sentences could probably be quoted from your email if the email was as long as the one you wrote below. In his own words, he could tell about the quality of your work, your standards, your theories, the general information contained in each email, the date of the email, etc. He would need your permission to post entire emails that were written privately to him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concerning standards of genealogical proof, very strict standards will not allow you to construct a family tree. How many of us can be positive that we were not adopted? If we were, but weren't told, we will be researching the wrong ancestors. How many of us can be absolutely certain that our father is really our biological father? Before DNA tests, you couldn't prove it. Any direct male in our heritage could have been wrong when he thought he fathered all of his children. There aren't many relationships that can be absolutely proved in genealogy. We assume that a baptism record proves parentage, but wouldn't an adopted child also get baptized? The fact of adoption might be ignored in the church records or by the person transcribing thousands of records. The 'adoption' may have been unofficial, like a nephew coming to permanently live with a family after its own family had one or more of the parents die. It is common to assume that the man and woman living together in a household in a census are man and wife, and that they are the parents of the children living there. But, are they just the children of the man? Did the marriage take place after the youngest child was born (then the wife isn't the mother of any of them)? Could they all be her children from a previous marriage, and this husband adopted them all? Could they just be using his surname out of convenience? Are some his, some hers, some born to both of them? Exceedingly strict standards pretty much prevent entering names into a database. My database has two categories of names: those for which I have reasonable proof, and those which are uncertain. I code the latter a different way. You construct the tree the best way you know how, as long as each link is reasonable. I code the weak links. Then, you keep looking for confirming information. When you get back earlier than 1850 with censuses (only the head of household is named), and if people were married at the Justice of the Peace (no record), and the children weren't baptized in a church (no record), you are in trouble. There is very little "proof" of family relationships unless you can find something in a will or land record. Obituaries before 1900 were often very short, in which case they did not name the children or parents of an adult. Most wills were not probated. If they were not, the government did not preserve them. They don't exist in NY unless the families preserved them. Land records seldom tell family relationships, but can hint at it if the properties adjoin each other (not good enough if you have strict standards). Many church records have been lost or not yet transcribed or microfilmed. Real proof seldom is extremely hard to find. You either make no progress, or you learn which circumstances give you the most reliability. 100% proof is hard to find. Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jma8763@aol.com wrote: > >Hi all, > > I've run into a bit of a "situation", and was wondering if I had ANY >recourse under copyright laws. I exchanged a series of e-mails with a guy who was >researching some of the same family names that I was looking for, and now I >find, not only all of my data posted on his website, but my private e-mails >to him are posted as well!! > We had stopped corresponding when he asked me to co-author an article on >these families, but since a LOT of what I had was speculative, I made it clear >that I was not comfortable portraying it as fact. He got upset, claiming >that I had too high of a standard for what consists of "proof" of a >relationship, and he finally stopped writing when he couldn't persuade me to lower my >standards to meet his, so he was VERY CLEAR on the fact that I did NOT want my >data published ANYWHERE yet! BTW, HIS standards, according to him, are: Come >up with a best guess theory, and if you can't find anything to disprove it, >it's more likely than not to be accurate......HUH??????? > Anyway, when he sent me an e-mail regarding updates to his website, I was >SHOCKED to find my e-mails to him copied into the notes section of various >pages! There was nothing earth shattering in there, but there was personal >information that I would never have wanted posted on a website! A couple of >examples....he asked me who I was and where I lived, which I replied to, and >it's now posted on his website. I forwarded him an e-mail that I had written to >another genealogy friend of mine who is legally blind, so I added a note >apologizing for the font size, and why it was so large....THAT'S posted on his >website!!! > I wrote to him and asked him to please remove my e-mails, as they contained >personal information, such as my name, my former occupation, as well as >those of LIVING people in the family, my e-mail address, the town where I live, >and personal information on some of my research contacts. His response was >that, unless I give him permission to use the data contained in my e-mails, >that he HAS to keep them posted in order to publish the information they contain >while preserving MY copyright?!!! > SO, does anyone know if I actually HAVE a copyright to my e-mails? And if >so, can someone publish them to the internet without my permission???? I >almost feel like I'm being blackmailed here....give my permission, or live with >my e-mails being published!!! PLEASE understand that I KNOW he has a right >to publish the public record data, even though it isn't his research, but >does he have the right to post my theories and other personal information, >verbatim, without my permission????? > In all fairness, he did say that he would remove some of the "personal" >information that he didn't feel was relevant to "telling the story", which in >my humble opinion was never HIS story to tell!!! BUT, he said that I have >only found a portion of my e-mails so far, and that he will only remove >information that I specify, and then only IF he deems it unimportant to the story! >He has some 60,000 names in his database, and now he's claiming that the only >way I can have ANY of MY information removed, is to go through all of the >entries that pertained to the people we discussed, which are HUNDREDS, and read >through ALL of their notes, to see if my information is there, and then beg >to have it removed?!!! > Am I really at his mercy here, or do I have any recourse to have this >information removed, without giving him my permission to take credit for my >research and theories?!!!! Any and ALL advice on this matter would be GREATLY >appreciated!!!! > >THANKS!! >Joan > > > >

<Jma8763@aol.com> wrote: > BTW, HIS standards, according to him, are: Come up with a best > guess theory, and if you can't find anything to disprove it, > it's more likely than not to be accurate......HUH??????? Without suggesting he is right and you are wrong, I will point out that the above process is often the ONLY way to reach a "genealogical proof." (And, yes, reasonable people do differ about conclusions reached under this process.) Instead of calling it a "best guess," of course, it is a "working hypothesis." Once you establish the hypothesis, you start collecting evidence that supports or contradicts it. If you collect enough bits and pieces - and NONE are contradictions that cannot be rationally explained - at some point you should be convinced that the hypothesis is correct. This approach is sometimes called "preponderance of evidence," but that criminal legal concept places too high a test ("beyond a reasonable doubt") before reaching a conclusion. If you are interested, there is a chapter covering this topic in an on-line course I prepared many years ago. You can find it at: http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/classdoc.htm#partfour 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 7/19/2006 10:38:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jma8763@aol.com writes: Hi John, THANKS for the reply, and actually, it DOES help to know you aren't alone when something like this happens!! It's unfortunate that some people just seem to be determined to ruin things for others, cuz it's people like this who make people like me, far less willing to share info the next time around! THANKS AGAIN!! Joan Joan- I don't view the solution to the problem as refusal to share genealogical data with others--but I think the best method of sharing it is to publish it yourself--either on your own website or in a database like WorldConnect at RootsWeb. If you publish your database yourself and display it exactly as you want it to be viewed by others and have complete control over how you edit and remove it if/when needed--then, and only then, does it become irrelevant what others might copy from it and publish elsewhere--because your data under your name and your control is always there for others to find and weigh against anything else they might find on this same family. We can't own or control our ancestors but we can own and control the data WE researched and publish under our own name. Joan

In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:47:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruthplay@scrtc.com writes: Sounds like you need to pay a visit to a copyright attorney, Joan. THANKS for the reply!!! The information wasn't anything earth shattering, or worth a law suite, but it certainly was shocking and disturbing to see my e-mails posted on that website! Good thing I didn't give out anything juicy!! Thanks again for the reply! Joan

In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:44:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jwt@geusnet.com writes: I sure wish I could help you but I can't. I realize this in not any help, but I have had the same thing happen to me. I even had the surnames changed to what someone thought they should be. Good luck in whatever route you travel. John Hi John, THANKS for the reply, and actually, it DOES help to know you aren't alone when something like this happens!! It's unfortunate that some people just seem to be determined to ruin things for others, cuz it's people like this who make people like me, far less willing to share info the next time around! THANKS AGAIN!! Joan

Hi Joan, Hmmmm, leave it to another Joan to be the first reply I've had that hasn't made me want to cry!!!! I just didn't want to e-mail him back, telling him to remove all references to me, if I didn't have a leg to stand on!! The thing that gets me, is that my e-mails DO say exactly what I wanted them to say, BUT, since he has my theories posted as fact on his personal data sheets, and then has my theories copied into the notes section below, it appears to the unknowing researcher that I passed along a theory, and he proved it, which he hasn't....which will leave people giving FAR more credulity to the info than it should merit!!!! Thanks again! Joan In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:47:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:29:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jma8763@aol.com writes: His response was that, unless I give him permission to use the data contained in my e-mails, that he HAS to keep them posted in order to publish the information they contain while preserving MY copyright?!!! SO, does anyone know if I actually HAVE a copyright to my e-mails? My suggestion: tell him to remove ANY reference to you and suggest that if he wishes to extract public record type info from your emails and post that as his OWN then he can do it, but let him know in no uncertain terms that neither YOU nor your original content are to be used on his website. That IS copyright infringement. There is nothing you can do if he wishes to use your assumptions and speculations to create his OWN assumptions and speculation -- if he posts misinformation under his own name then that is his right--but he can't take your original copyrighted text nor use you as a reference when you do not wish to be included on his page. If he doesn't cooperate with you then contact his hosting website to have the data about YOU and your copyrighted original text removed. Make sure, if this is necessary, that you explain he isn't cooperating with your removal request. It doesn't sound as though you would have any trouble proving he is using YOUR content since he is quoting you. Most hosting sites will act on a copyright complaint if you can prove your claim and if the violator is not cooperative. If not, your only recourse would be legal--OR...making sure you post your OWN data online as you would like it to appear. Then people can compare what he has vs. what you show and decide for themselves which to accept. Joan

JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: --- If he doesn't cooperate with you then contact his hosting website to have the data about YOU and your copyrighted original text removed. Make sure, if this is necessary, that you explain he isn't cooperating with your removal request. It doesn't sound as though you would have any trouble proving he is using YOUR content since he is quoting you. Most hosting sites will act on a copyright complaint if you can prove your claim and if the violator is not cooperative. If not, your only recourse would be legal--OR...making sure you post your OWN data online as you would like it to appear. Then people can compare what he has vs. what you show and decide for themselves which to accept. ---------------- I agree with Joan's suggestion here of contacting the hosting website. Whether or not you actually have a copyright claim you can win, most hosting companies will take down the data if requested, rather than chance the expense of a copyright claim. Plus, if they do respond, they cannot be held liable of copyright infringement (or abetting it) themselves. You could also quote the email he sent to you after your email requested he take down the material. I am sure that as before getting access to web space, this person signed something (or acknowledged) that said they would not post the copyrighted works of others on their site. Thanks, Joan, for your suggestion! James

In a message dated 7/19/2006 6:58:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, James_Capobianco@emerson.edu writes: I believe from what I know of copyright law, it would be difficult to litigate and win such a claim. It would also be expensive and time consuming. I wonder if there isn't some kind of privacy law that the person is violating. In a copyright claim, the person could probably cite fair use, since most of what he's probably using is factual, and I assume he is not making money from the use. James- All that you state above is true. However, it IS copyright infringement in its purest form, and the hosting service is often quite willing to cooperate if it is brought to their attention. Or sometimes just a letter from an attorney can jog a person into action. Public data such as your name, address, birthdate, etc. are not copyrightable and they ARE considered to be public--unless, of course, someone is including your SS number or credit card info or bank account data. THAT would be private. Joan