JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > >Interesting question, Richard. What I glean from this page: >http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp ...is that there can be no >copyright of a live presentation such as this until the content is placed into >a fixed and tangible medium. That means that the presentation itself isn't >copyrightable but the audio or video recording can be. To me that means the >entity doing the recording holds copyright to the recording--but I'm not sure >they could claim copyright to the material included in the >presentation--because they didn't create it--they only created the recording. Not sure anyone >can claim copyright to the content unless the lecturer also placed the text >of the presentation into a fixed and tangible medium (print, email, etc.). >Then I'd say the text would be under that person's copyright -- provided it >includes original creative material that is copyrightable. > >Joan > another thought.... it might depend on the circumstances of the presentation. IF you were a paid presenter, the presentation and thus the recorded copy could be considered a "work for hire" and thus the © would belong to the group who paid you?? If a gratis presentation, would think the copyright belongs to the presenter. ?? Joe

In a message dated 4/14/2006 5:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: An exchange in another list raised this issue in my mind. You give a lecture at a genealogy convention and, with your approval, it is taped (either audio or video). Absent any specific contract point on this, who owns the copyright - the person who gave the lecture or the person who taped it? Richard P. Fairfax, Virginia Interesting question, Richard. What I glean from this page: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp ...is that there can be no copyright of a live presentation such as this until the content is placed into a fixed and tangible medium. That means that the presentation itself isn't copyrightable but the audio or video recording can be. To me that means the entity doing the recording holds copyright to the recording--but I'm not sure they could claim copyright to the material included in the presentation--because they didn't create it--they only created the recording. Not sure anyone can claim copyright to the content unless the lecturer also placed the text of the presentation into a fixed and tangible medium (print, email, etc.). Then I'd say the text would be under that person's copyright -- provided it includes original creative material that is copyrightable. Joan

An exchange in another list raised this issue in my mind. You give a lecture at a genealogy convention and, with your approval, it is taped (either audio or video). Absent any specific contract point on this, who owns the copyright - the person who gave the lecture or the person who taped it? Richard P. Fairfax, Virginia

In a message dated 3/30/2006 5:07:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: I am sure that we have discussed obituaries before, but what is their copyright status? Do newspapers own the rights to a single obituary? If I write a detailed, personal obituary for someone [as I did for my mother], does the newspaper hold the copyright? If I want to copy an obituary do the same restrictions as to date [pre-1924] apply, or does the continuing existence of the newspaper with its copyright reach back in time? If a limited number of obituaries are copied and provided to someone for a small fee [exceeding copying costs] is fair use cancelled by the commercial nature of the exchange? Sara ----- Obits may or may not be copyrighted depending upon the date they were published and also upon their content--whether the specific obit meets the test of originality--many do not. An obit you wrote would be copyrighted by YOU as to the original content (facts cannot be copyrighted by anyone)...unless, of course, you signed any contract with the publishing paper granting them all rights. Usually you just grant them the right to publish without giving up your copyright. Any obit published prior to 1923 is in the public domain and most obits, even much more recent ones, were not copyrighted. Newspapers attempting to copyright obits is a fairly recent phenomena. Copying (and charging for) an entire obit (or several obits) that ARE copyrightable would not be Fair Use--as you would be copying the entire text of the copyrighted material. That's not Fair Use--Fair Use is a small snippet of a copyrighted text--not the entire thing. Joan

I am sure that we have discussed obituaries before, but what is their copyright status? Do newspapers own the rights to a single obituary? If I write a detailed, personal obituary for someone [as I did for my mother], does the newspaper hold the copyright? If I want to copy an obituary do the same restrictions as to date [pre-1924] apply, or does the continuing existence of the newspaper with its copyright reach back in time? If a limited number of obituaries are copied and provided to someone for a small fee [exceeding copying costs] is fair use cancelled by the commercial nature of the exchange? Sara

For those who don't get the RootsWeb Review or who failed to read today's copyright article--you might want to check it out in the newsletter archives: Tips from Readers: "Throwing More Light on False Copyright Claims" http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/review/2006/0329.txt Joan

In a message dated 3/11/2006 5:48:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: The only reason I can think of to copy census pages aside from examination offline would be to cut out pieces where the handwriting is poor or unfamiliar to others. I seriously doubt that any of these companies would protest the use. It's always nice to ask. I've NEVER had anyone turn me down. A footnote giving them credit is great advertising for them. --- I don't believe ANY company that has reproduced census images could or would object to a subscriber copying and printing out the image for their own personal genealogical research and records. Of course, where you got the census record should be a part of the documentation--but mainly because it is your SOURCE for knowing the information you learned from the census record. Joan

Wow. Without the indexing these for profit and nonprofit organizations I would NEVER have been ever to so quickly find the passages in books and census pages I sought. The companies are not at all limiting the use of public domain works. As has been stated by others, these are public domain works that can be found elsewhere, only NOW we can find the ones we need more easily. Armed with that information we can go to the library and copy pages from the original works without the hassle of browsing through them, and MANY of them are not indexed. Aside from census, pensions, and the like, the graphics in the books are not well done and it is best to copy and scan the original if you want anything good to use. The only reason I can think of to copy census pages aside from examination offline would be to cut out pieces where the handwriting is poor or unfamiliar to others. I seriously doubt that any of these companies would protest the use. It's always nice to ask. I've NEVER had anyone turn me down. A footnote giving them credit is great advertising for them. Why not follow ethical as well as legal standards? Build upon the work of others, but don't violate their wishes. Debbie If large companies make public domain works available on the Internet but severely limit their use, I am not sure how helpful that is.

Two peas in a pod!! :-} Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deason Hunt" <deasonh2@netzero.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] transcribing and copyright protection (was HeritageQuest Images) > Hi Joyce, > That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. > Deason > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joyce G. Reece" <bjreece@bellsouth.net> > To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:16 AM > Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] transcribing and copyright protection (was > HeritageQuest Images) > > >> Deason >> >> That is, basically, what I said in reply earlier on but was told that I >> was wrong about it. I don't think I was and agree with you. Simply put, >> it is a matter of them owning the images but not the originals the images >> were taken from....they did the imaging work so therefore it is theirs. >> If someone else wants the images they'll have to scan them for >> themselves. Correct? >> >> Joyce Gaston Reece >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> ==== 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) â?" Contact COPYRIGHT-admin@rootsweb.com for list related problems. >> For the COPYRIGHT-L archives, go to >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/copyright. >> >> ============================== >> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx >> >> > > > ==== 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 > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 3/9/2006 > >

At 01:53 PM 3/11/2006, you wrote: >That's because he held the copyright and must have granted you permission >to modify it. When the material being copied is in the public domain, no >such permission is required and the resulting creative work is copyrighted >by the "artist." No. The skill employed by the copyist (me), i.e. choice of film, exposure, development time; then choice of paper grade, exposure time, dodging and burning to enhance detail and unblock shadows in the final print, were all editorial decisions based on my expertise, made with the intent of making the best possible print/copy suitable for conversion to half tone. Many times my final prints were much "better" than the original. But, my expertise/technical skills did not make a new, creative original eligible for copyright protection. In terms of copyright law, those editorial skills were no different than changing a type face in a second edition to make that edition more "readable". A copy is a copy is a copy. Now, if you want to talk about making an artistic arrangement of microfilm reels on the desk in your office, then lighting them to highlight the metallic glint of the reels, and choice of lens for distortion control and/or emphasis, and .... According to the summaries I have been able to find, that was the basis for the Eastern America v. Tang decision. Pat

Everyone has stated their opinions, many of you several times over. No one seems to be willing to accept anyone else's opinion. If much of what was now being stated was new there would be reasons to continue, but "He said *** - She said *** - I didn't say *** - Yes you did say ***" disagreements are getting a bit old. Can't we just agree to disagree and not keep repeating the same arguments over and over?

Joan said: >>Actually, that's precisely what Joan said on March 9th <g> and that's why I >>responded (quoting her in my message). Others have made similarly blanket >>statements which perpetuate false rumors about what falls under copyright >>and what does not. > >Actually you are taking that statement out of context as it referred >specifically to the census images in question and the situation at hand in >this >discussion--enhanced quality images of public domain census films. I considered the context, thanks. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006

Mike said: >I understand that you, as President of Archive Books USA, have a vested >interest in this topic. Of course. I've made no secret of that. I also have interest in having done more exhaustive research than most on the subject through a team of intellectual property attorneys. That doesn't make me unbiased but it also doesn't make me wrong. >Have you, or your company, taken anyone to court over these issues? No, I haven't had to do so. >Do you place a copyright notice on the books or CDs? Yes. We also require a license agreement. >Are you aware that claiming copyright on material that one knows to be false >is a criminal offense under U.S. copyright law? If there is fraudulent intent, yes. And falsely inferring that someone has done so may also be an offense. >I agree with Pat Asher when she wrote, "False and/or misleading claims of >copyright are a disservice to the genealogical community." I do too. >When one uses public domain material, she or he should understand that they >cannot claim ownership of that material, no matter how much work, effort, or >money one puts into it. Readers are welcome to examine our evidence and evaluate our respective credibility themselves. I have made my case and I don't intend to debate it with those who would merely repeat themselves as supposed evidence of a stronger position. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006

In a message dated 3/11/2006 2:14:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, bvelke@whollygenes.com writes: I can't help but wonder how one might enhance something without altering it <g>. They may not have altered it in a way which is significant to you (i.e., insofar as the text content) but they clearly do claim to have altered ("processed", "enhanced", "synthesized") it. We went through this type of discussion back when Ancestry first developed the "grayscale" process by which they enhance census images. They don't claim to copyright the photos (probably after considering all the legal options) although I believe (don't quote me on it) that the process by which the photos are made IS patented. Unless Heritage Quest is doing something different and more creative in altering or adding to their census images the same would apply. I'm with Mike and Pat that overstating the applicability of copyright where one probably doesn't exist is harmful to the genealogical community. If you want to have licensing agreements, fine---let the subscriber/user decide whether he wants to use your product and adhere to the licensing terms or not--but don't threaten copyright infringement where there is a tenuous at best claim to the aplicability of copyright. Joan

Joan said: >With a census image I'm quite certain they didn't ALTER the original >film--they may well have enhanced it but not ALTERED it. I can't help but wonder how one might enhance something without altering it <g>. They may not have altered it in a way which is significant to you (i.e., insofar as the text content) but they clearly do claim to have altered ("processed", "enhanced", "synthesized") it. >If they did, indeed, alter it--then there wouldn't be much point in using >their census images as being >original evidence. Quite right. It is an inexact (HeritageQuest admits different and claims better) *copy* of an original source. >Well, I wouldn't be testing it in court but not for the reason >you give...I'd not be violating the terms of a licensing agreement--but >then that has >nothing to do with copyright. HeritageQuest claims (previously quoted in this thread) that you are bound by both copyright and license. If they take you to court, I think it is up to them to decide why you're there <g>. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006

Hi Joyce, That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Deason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joyce G. Reece" <bjreece@bellsouth.net> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] transcribing and copyright protection (was HeritageQuest Images) > Deason > > That is, basically, what I said in reply earlier on but was told that I > was wrong about it. I don't think I was and agree with you. Simply put, > it is a matter of them owning the images but not the originals the images > were taken from....they did the imaging work so therefore it is theirs. > If someone else wants the images they'll have to scan them for themselves. > Correct? > > Joyce Gaston Reece > ----- Original Message ----- > > ==== 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) > â?" Contact COPYRIGHT-admin@rootsweb.com for list related problems. For > the COPYRIGHT-L archives, go to > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/copyright. > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > >

In a message dated 3/11/2006 1:54:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, bvelke@whollygenes.com writes: Actually, that's precisely what Joan said on March 9th <g> and that's why I responded (quoting her in my message). Others have made similarly blanket statements which perpetuate false rumors about what falls under copyright and what does not. Actually you are taking that statement out of context as it referred specifically to the census images in question and the situation at hand in this discussion--enhanced quality images of public domain census films. Joan

Pat said: >I don't think anyone on this list has said you can not copyright an image >of public domain material. Actually, that's precisely what Joan said on March 9th <g> and that's why I responded (quoting her in my message). Others have made similarly blanket statements which perpetuate false rumors about what falls under copyright and what does not. >For many years, I made internegatives and prints from slides for a major >text book publishing company in New York. They sent the work half way >across the country because the process I used was superior to others >available nearer to hand, and because of the skill and artistry I employed >in making the prints for half tone reproduction. That skill and artistry >included removal of defects, enhancement of faded or shadowed areas, >etc. However, the superiority of the process and skills I used did not >create an original work eligible for copyright protection. The copyrights >remained with the photographer who had created the original work I was copying. That's because he held the copyright and must have granted you permission to modify it. When the material being copied is in the public domain, no such permission is required and the resulting creative work is copyrighted by the "artist." >I agree that the subject matter of the image is irrelevant to the >copyright status of the image. However, Kaplan said in Bridgeman: >"Only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- >will render the reproduction original." Yes, I've repeatedly referred to a creative element, beyond technical skill. As the court held in Eastern America Trio v. Tang, that creative element includes enhancing an image by computer in an effort to achieve a desired result. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006

In a message dated 3/11/2006 12:53:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, bvelke@whollygenes.com writes: <<It may be questionable to you - but, then, you haven't seen their original image which they claim to have altered to produce the final product. So you have no foundation from which to question the level of creativity that went into it or their resulting claim of copyright.>> Bob- With a census image I'm quite certain they didn't ALTER the original film--they may well have enhanced it but not ALTERED it. If they did, indeed, alter it--then there wouldn't be much point in using their census images as being original evidence. <<You're welcome to challenge them in court or to defend yourself when they take you there <g> but if they can demonstrate that the version that they published bears any creative difference from their original image slavishly copied from the public domain, then you'll lose.>> Well, I wouldn't be testing it in court but not for the reason you give...I'd not be violating the terms of a licensing agreement--but then that has nothing to do with copyright. Joan

At 12:52 PM 3/11/2006, Bob wrote: >It may be questionable to you - but, then, you haven't seen their original >image which they claim to have altered to produce the final product. So >you have no foundation from which to question the level of creativity that >went into it or their resulting claim of copyright. > >You're welcome to challenge them in court or to defend yourself when they >take you there <g> but if they can demonstrate that the version that they >published bears any creative difference from their original image >slavishly copied from the public domain, then you'll lose. > >In the meantime, I maintain that it is supremely irresponsible to tell >people in this context that "you can't copyright an image of public domain >material." Bob, I replied to your post early this morning, but my reply was caught in Blocked Mail, so if it is eventually released by the Admin, I apologize for repeating :) I don't think anyone on this list has said you can not copyright an image of public domain material. What many of us are saying is that technical skill in making a copy has no bearing on the copyrightability of the copy. For many years, I made internegatives and prints from slides for a major text book publishing company in New York. They sent the work half way across the country because the process I used was superior to others available nearer to hand, and because of the skill and artistry I employed in making the prints for half tone reproduction. That skill and artistry included removal of defects, enhancement of faded or shadowed areas, etc. However, the superiority of the process and skills I used did not create an original work eligible for copyright protection. The copyrights remained with the photographer who had created the original work I was copying. I agree that the subject matter of the image is irrelevant to the copyright status of the image. However, Kaplan said in Bridgeman: "Only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original." To me, that seems to say that the "quality" of the reproduction has no bearing on copyright status. That is why companies who reproduce public domain material rely on licensing agreements to protect their investment in product. However, they are not doing it to benefit the genealogical community, but to make money. False and/or misleading claims of copyright are a disservice to the genealogical community. Pat