In a message dated 3/10/2006 8:27:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, deasonh2@netzero.com writes: What HeritageQuest has done (or its agents) is to make a digital image of a census page and add to it with some page identification information and that is the creation to which they hold the rights. If you think about it, HeritageQuest's digital images came not from photographs of the original pages (I think I am right on this) but from scan of microfilm (probably masters?). The source of HQ's digital images would have been another film. That film would also not have been copyrightable as it was merely a reproduction of the government census pages. The images themselves cannot be copyrighted because nothing original was created. HQ's copyright would not extend beyond the compilation copyright to their database as a whole. Photographing a tombstone which you seem to be trying to claim is similar to photographing a census image is not the same thing. In photographing a tombstone there IS a degree of originality and creativity in the photographic process and although the tombstone inscription isn't copyrightable by the photographer--the photo would meet the test of originality. Joan

Exactly what I meant, but so inadequately said. Rene' -------Original Message------- Again, the real point is that they have the right to their digital image creation and embellishment but you could go to the source and make your own digital image to which you would hold copyright as its creator.) Deason

At 07:44 PM 3/10/2006, Rene' wrote: >I was under the impression that it is copyright infringement to take someone >s transcription verbatim and publish it?? I believe that Sara is going to >put the material on a website - granted she is not selling it, but is it >still personal use when used on a website? > >Now who is to say where exactly she got the information from if it is in the >public domain, realistically only she knows. A straightforward transcription (without commentary, annotation, or interpretation as from one language to another) is a copy, and can not be copyrighted by the transcriber. If the original is protected by copyright, then the right to make copies resides with the copyright holder. If the original is public domain, then it belongs to the community at large, and anyone can copy. No copyright attaches to a "slavish" copy, only to original contributions of the author. Thus, if you transcribe a document as accurately as possible, your "copy" is no more original than a xerox copy of the original. On the other hand, if you add comments, analysis, etc., those are original to you and are copyrighted. The portions you copied are not. Pat

At 07:37 PM 3/10/2006, John Wylie wrote: >In other words, whose opinion can I trust? Citing case law here is rare. I >wonder why? Hmm The same questions come up over and over again, and those of us who are familiar with case law sometimes forget that newcomers to this list are not. Extensive list of relevant links to code, case law and other Opinion pages at the bottom of my copyright FAQ page for Freepages users: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/copyrtfaq.htm Specifically In regards copyright of copies, you'll want to read the Bridgeman v. Corel decision http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html Pat

John, Don't be so idiotic. Where could you ever find a whole mailing list of lawyers sitting around giving out free advice? If you thought this was a mailing list of lawyers, what made you think you could join it? If you want legal advice, consult the yellow pages of your local phone directory. Lawyers will be found shortly before Manners. Check both sections while you are there. Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Wylie wrote: >Does any of you here giving out what amounts to legal advice have formal >legal training? > >Are any of you lawyers? If so, are any of you intellectual property >specialists? > >Or, am I wasting my time reading amateur opinions by people who aren't >qualified to have them let alone tell others the law? > >In other words, whose opinion can I trust? Citing case law here is rare. I >wonder why? Hmm > >John > > >

I was under the impression that it is copyright infringement to take someone s transcription verbatim and publish it?? I believe that Sara is going to put the material on a website - granted she is not selling it, but is it still personal use when used on a website? Now who is to say where exactly she got the information from if it is in the public domain, realistically only she knows. Rene' -------Original Message------- From: James Capobianco Date: 03/10/06 16:19:25 To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [COPYRIGHT] transcribing and copyright protection (was HeritageQuest Images) Sara wrote: >Thanks. I was beginning to feel incredibly stupid. Copyright discussions do that to everyone, don't worry. There are so many different subtle concepts and emotions flying, it's hard to really understand what's going on most of the time. As for Rene's comments, namely: "You cannot freely give to others using their transcription or sell to others" and "Yes some of the images are of census items, but they have also transcribed those images," others have pointed out that U.S. Copyright Law affords no protection to facts, nor sweat of the brow, or "oh, that took so much time and money" arguments. Transcripts, if they faithfully represent public domain documents, are themselves in the public domain. No one can own them. Rene' also wrote: "Would you like others to take your information that you worked hard to find and transcribe, and sell it or give it to whoever?" Indeed, this is where the emotions and sense of justice or reward come in. Of course, we want to be properly rewarded for our efforts. However, we should go into a project to transcribe public domain documents with the desire for everyone's greater good in mind, since only the commentary and creatively written additions to that transcription will have copyright protection. Really, this is best for everyone in the genealogical community. Wouldn't we rather have all of this information available for free for those who need it, rather than needing big companies with lots of money as gatekeepers? Best, James ==== 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. ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429

That to which HeritageQuest holds the rights is not the census page or information thereon. The page and its information is in the public domain for several reasons. What HeritageQuest has done (or its agents) is to make a digital image of a census page and add to it with some page identification information and that is the creation to which they hold the rights. If you think about it, HeritageQuest's digital images came not from photographs of the original pages (I think I am right on this) but from scan of microfilm (probably masters?).You can look at their images and take information from it and share it. You can make copies of their online digital image for personal use. Look at it like this. Suppose there was a tombstone with name and birth and death dates. That is public information. If you take a picture of that tombstone, you cannot copyright the tombstone or the information. However, you could take a photograph of the tombstone and that creation would be protected by copyright when you created it. However, someone else could come along and take a picture of the tombstone and do whatever they like with it. If they took a picture of your picture of the tombstone and distributed or reproduced it for distribution to other (thus depriving you of the right to do so or to reap any rewards for doing so), they would be in violation of your copyright. There are technology solutions. Find a copy of the microfilm of that census, go to the page on a reader and print a copy and then scan it into a digital image. An area FHC here in East Texas has a computer which can take a digital image from a frame on a roll of microfilm. If you go the old technology film method, you could also use a digital camera to photograph either the reader "screen" or the paper photocopy. Again, the real point is that they have the right to their digital image creation and embellishment but you could go to the source and make your own digital image to which you would hold copyright as its creator.) Deason ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Capobianco" <James_Capobianco@emerson.edu> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: [COPYRIGHT] transcribing and copyright protection (was HeritageQuest Images) > Sara wrote: >>Thanks. I was beginning to feel incredibly stupid. > > Copyright discussions do that to everyone, don't worry. There are so > many different subtle concepts and emotions flying, it's hard to really > understand what's going on most of the time. > > As for Rene's comments, namely: "You cannot freely give to others using > their transcription or sell to others" and "Yes some of the images are > of census items, but they have also transcribed those images," others > have pointed out that U.S. Copyright Law affords no protection to facts, > nor sweat of the brow, or "oh, that took so much time and money" > arguments. Transcripts, if they faithfully represent public domain > documents, are themselves in the public domain. No one can own them. > > Rene' also wrote: "Would you like others to take your information that > you worked hard to find and transcribe, and sell it or give it to > whoever?" > Indeed, this is where the emotions and sense of justice or > reward come in. Of course, we want to be properly rewarded for our > efforts. However, we should go into a project to transcribe public > domain documents with the desire for everyone's greater good in mind, > since only the commentary and creatively written additions to that > transcription will have copyright protection. Really, this is best for > everyone in the genealogical community. Wouldn't we rather have all of > this information available for free for those who need it, rather than > needing big companies with lots of money as gatekeepers? > > Best, > > James > > > ==== 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. > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

Does any of you here giving out what amounts to legal advice have formal legal training? Are any of you lawyers? If so, are any of you intellectual property specialists? Or, am I wasting my time reading amateur opinions by people who aren't qualified to have them let alone tell others the law? In other words, whose opinion can I trust? Citing case law here is rare. I wonder why? Hmm John -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher [mailto:pasher@ee.net] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 5:18 PM To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Copyright of Census and Photographic Images / was HeritageQue... At 06:00 PM 3/10/2006, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >--- >This only means that they could possibly have patented the PROCESS whereby >the images were enhanced--they cannot COPYRIGHT the images themselves. > Joan, Patent and copyright are 2 entirely different things. Processes may be patented. A description of a process may be copyrighted. A copy of a public domain record, regardless of the process used to create it, is neither patented or copyrighted. At http://www.heritagequest.com/html/customer.html#using Heritage Quest appears to be claiming copyright for their "enhanced" copies. AFAIK, the right to copy resides with the copyright holder. If the original is in the public domain, it belongs to the community at large and can therefore be copied by anyone. No one can claim copyright of something copied from the public domain, regardless of the superiority of the process used to create the copy. Remember the mantra? If you did not create it, you can not copyright it. <g> Pat ==== 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

At 06:00 PM 3/10/2006, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >--- >This only means that they could possibly have patented the PROCESS whereby >the images were enhanced--they cannot COPYRIGHT the images themselves. > Joan, Patent and copyright are 2 entirely different things. Processes may be patented. A description of a process may be copyrighted. A copy of a public domain record, regardless of the process used to create it, is neither patented or copyrighted. At http://www.heritagequest.com/html/customer.html#using Heritage Quest appears to be claiming copyright for their "enhanced" copies. AFAIK, the right to copy resides with the copyright holder. If the original is in the public domain, it belongs to the community at large and can therefore be copied by anyone. No one can claim copyright of something copied from the public domain, regardless of the superiority of the process used to create the copy. Remember the mantra? If you did not create it, you can not copyright it. <g> Pat

In a message dated 3/10/2006 5:54:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, clifflamere@nycap.rr.com writes: It sounds like they created software for making pre-existing census images more readable. Then, they applied the software to the census images to make a slightly different image from the original image. At first glance, one might think that the creative-effort requirement has been fulfilled. But the question is, "To what does the creativity apply?" It would certainly apply to the new software. However, manipulating software to improve or change an image doesn't seem sufficiently creative to make the new image copyrightable. --- This only means that they could possibly have patented the PROCESS whereby the images were enhanced--they cannot COPYRIGHT the images themselves. Joan

I know this argument goes on and on but you really have to think about what is fair, not what you wish was fair because it benefits you. Since they produced the images on the net they do have a copyright. I am in the process of transcribing the mortality schedules for a couple of counties. I WILL NOT use Ancestry or any information posted on the internet, nor will I use the book which has been published. I will only use the microfilm of the original documents or the originals located at the state archives. I consider all work which has been produced by the efforts and cost of someone else copyrighted. These transcriptions will require lots more work but I don't believe in taking advantage of work someone else spent their time and money producing. It just isn't fair or ethical to use the efforts of someone else. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: JYoung6180@aol.com To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] HeritageQuest Images In a message dated 3/10/2006 2:11:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: *7) Proprietary Rights. All intellectual property rights, including without limitation, trade secrets, copyrights and patent rights to any software, materials, databases or hardware supplied to you by ProQuest will remain the sole property of ProQuest or its licensors, and no title or license right is granted to you except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.* It almost sounds as if you used facts from the materials in a database posted on Rootsweb, you would be violating this agreement. That makes no sense to me. Surely, just as there is no way to copyright a fact, there must be no way to license a fact. Also, some of the images [although I use those at Ancestry] are census images. Surely HeritageQuest cannot keep people from transcribing public records from their images. One problem with the above paragraphs is that HeritageQuest does not define *Products *or *materials.* It doesn't seem to me that they are saying you can't transcribe the DATA from the census images or that you can't rewrite the data as your own transcription. I believe what they are saying is that you can't copy their database and sell it or republish it on the Internet and/or take whole chunks from their database and give it to others. They don't seem to be limiting your own use and I don't feel they would object to looking up a specific entry for another person. They just don't want their entire database or large parts of it "stolen." Joan ==== 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) ============================== 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

Pat Asher wrote that Heritage Quest has the following statement online: "While it's true that the original documents are "public domain," we have painstakingly processed the records through our proprietary enhancement systems. It is through this synthesizing process that we have generated a new product, which is fully protected by U.S. and International copyright law." It sounds like they created software for making pre-existing census images more readable. Then, they applied the software to the census images to make a slightly different image from the original image. At first glance, one might think that the creative-effort requirement has been fulfilled. But the question is, "To what does the creativity apply?" It would certainly apply to the new software. However, manipulating software to improve or change an image doesn't seem sufficiently creative to make the new image copyrightable. I have used both Heritage Quest and Ancestry.com. When my library had only HQ, I used it. When they later added Ancestry, I noticed that the images were brighter (and I could search for more than just the head of household). At times, I couldn't read some names on Ancestry's census image, but they weres readable on HQ images due to a difference in brightness. The images were different from each other, but probably neither represented the whole page as well as the original document page. In the work that the two companies are doing, they are trying to make the image as readable as the original document. "Bridgeman Art, Inc v. Corel, Inc." might apply here. That ruling said that images of paintings that were an attempt to reproduce the painting as exactly as possible in the new format could not be copyrighted. I agree with Pat and James that the HQ images are not copyrighted. Cliff Lamere ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Pat Asher wrote: > <snip> > I did find this at the Customer service link: > "While it's true that the original documents are "public domain," we > have painstakingly processed the records through our proprietary > enhancement systems. It is through this synthesizing process that we > have generated a new product, which is fully protected by U.S. and > International copyright law." > > However, since copyright protects only original intellectual concepts, > it seems to me that copies (product) of public domain documents, no > matter how much they are enhanced, are not protected by copyright. > Again, they may be protected by the licensing agreement for access, > but that is not copyright. > > <snip>

In a message dated 3/10/2006 5:31:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: There are some who say the licensing agreement is to strict to be legally enforceable - but I think I'll leave it to someone else to test it in court! <g> Richard Which is precisely why I said waaaaay back in the beginning of this thread that no matter what I think I'd not advise anyone to ASSume that the company wouldn't enforce their licensing agreement. <g> Joan

I am not sure what it is you are saying here, James. I don't think Heritage Quest or any of the on-line companies are claiming to own a copyright to the images that place on line, particularly census images. But as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, this is NOT a copyright issue. The terms and conditions set forth - to which you as a user agree when you access the data - govern how you can use the material. You can choose not to access the data or you can choose to use it in accordance with the licensing agreement. Copyright is not involved except as it affects peripheral issues. There are some who say the licensing agreement is to strict to be legally enforceable - but I think I'll leave it to someone else to test it in court! <g> Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Capobianco" <James_Capobianco@emerson.edu> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:38 PM Subject: RE: [COPYRIGHT] HeritageQuest Images > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Asher [mailto:pasher@ee.net] > I did find this at the Customer service link: > "While it's true that the original documents are "public domain," we > have painstakingly processed the records through our proprietary > enhancement systems. It is through this synthesizing process that we > have generated a new product, which is fully protected by U.S. and > International copyright law." > > However, since copyright protects only original intellectual concepts, > it seems to me that copies (product) of public domain documents, no > matter how much they are enhanced, are not protected by copyright. > Again, they may be protected by the licensing agreement for access, but > that is not copyright. > ------- > > Indeed, this is one of the misinterpretations of copyright law that I've > heard a lot in the genealogical community, no doubt propagated by > companies such as Proquest. I am fairly certain that this and other > companies know that this statement is not true, and would not stand up > in court (as far as I understand it, lacking law credentials and all) > but write it anyway because they can get away with it, and most users > don't know any better. > > It would be nice if there were a law under which to prosecute companies > from making false claims to copyright such as these. I know that the > Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) successfully sued Diebold for > sending a frivolous Cease and Desist Letter to a website that had put up > some emails from their company during the voting machine scandal some > years back. I believe that was a part of the DMCA which forbids the > threat of lawsuit when not warranted, but I'm not so versed in that. (I > do know that most ISPs simply listen to the C&D Letters, since by doing > so, they fall under the safe harbor provision, and can't be sued for the > user's alleged infringement) > > http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/ > "Online Policy Group v. Diebold > EFF protected online speakers by bringing the first successful suit > against abusive copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright > Act (DMCA). > When internal memos exposing flaws in Diebold Election Systems' > electronic voting machines leaked onto the Internet, Diebold used bogus > copyright threats to silence its critics. EFF fought back on behalf of > an ISP, winning an award of damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Equally > important, the case set a precedent that will allow other Internet users > and their ISPs to fight back against improper copyright threats." > > Sorry for the slight tangent here. > > James > > > ==== 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. > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > >

In a message dated 3/10/2006 4:40:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, James_Capobianco@emerson.edu writes: It would be nice if there were a law under which to prosecute companies from making false claims to copyright such as these. I think they do it on purpose so as not to UNDERstate their interest in the databases. There is no question that they do have a compilation copyright to their databases as a whole or lare chunks of it being reproduced, and they may well have a patent on the process that enhanced images--but that would be the extent of what they could control that I can see. Joan

-----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher [mailto:pasher@ee.net] I did find this at the Customer service link: "While it's true that the original documents are "public domain," we have painstakingly processed the records through our proprietary enhancement systems. It is through this synthesizing process that we have generated a new product, which is fully protected by U.S. and International copyright law." However, since copyright protects only original intellectual concepts, it seems to me that copies (product) of public domain documents, no matter how much they are enhanced, are not protected by copyright. Again, they may be protected by the licensing agreement for access, but that is not copyright. ------- Indeed, this is one of the misinterpretations of copyright law that I've heard a lot in the genealogical community, no doubt propagated by companies such as Proquest. I am fairly certain that this and other companies know that this statement is not true, and would not stand up in court (as far as I understand it, lacking law credentials and all) but write it anyway because they can get away with it, and most users don't know any better. It would be nice if there were a law under which to prosecute companies from making false claims to copyright such as these. I know that the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) successfully sued Diebold for sending a frivolous Cease and Desist Letter to a website that had put up some emails from their company during the voting machine scandal some years back. I believe that was a part of the DMCA which forbids the threat of lawsuit when not warranted, but I'm not so versed in that. (I do know that most ISPs simply listen to the C&D Letters, since by doing so, they fall under the safe harbor provision, and can't be sued for the user's alleged infringement) http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/ "Online Policy Group v. Diebold EFF protected online speakers by bringing the first successful suit against abusive copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). When internal memos exposing flaws in Diebold Election Systems' electronic voting machines leaked onto the Internet, Diebold used bogus copyright threats to silence its critics. EFF fought back on behalf of an ISP, winning an award of damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Equally important, the case set a precedent that will allow other Internet users and their ISPs to fight back against improper copyright threats." Sorry for the slight tangent here. James

Sara wrote: >Thanks. I was beginning to feel incredibly stupid. Copyright discussions do that to everyone, don't worry. There are so many different subtle concepts and emotions flying, it's hard to really understand what's going on most of the time. As for Rene's comments, namely: "You cannot freely give to others using their transcription or sell to others" and "Yes some of the images are of census items, but they have also transcribed those images," others have pointed out that U.S. Copyright Law affords no protection to facts, nor sweat of the brow, or "oh, that took so much time and money" arguments. Transcripts, if they faithfully represent public domain documents, are themselves in the public domain. No one can own them. Rene' also wrote: "Would you like others to take your information that you worked hard to find and transcribe, and sell it or give it to whoever?" Indeed, this is where the emotions and sense of justice or reward come in. Of course, we want to be properly rewarded for our efforts. However, we should go into a project to transcribe public domain documents with the desire for everyone's greater good in mind, since only the commentary and creatively written additions to that transcription will have copyright protection. Really, this is best for everyone in the genealogical community. Wouldn't we rather have all of this information available for free for those who need it, rather than needing big companies with lots of money as gatekeepers? Best, James

At 03:02 PM 3/10/2006, Rene' wrote: >Yes some of the images are of census items, but they have also transcribed >those images. I believe on ancestry you can send images to friends, but you >are still limited on certain copyright and licensing agreements. I don't >believe that you can use their images on a website. After all it is their >image - their picture if you will. You can go to the library get the film >and copy it, then you have your own image. Rene, As far as I know, Ancestry does not claim copyright of their census images. They claim compilation copyright to the collection/index. Transcriptions/indexes are probably only copyrightable if interpretation is involved. A straight transcription (even though it may contain errors) is no different than a xerox copy of a document in terms of the "original intellectual concept" required for copyright. I do agree with your underlying thought -- we need to respect the costs and/or effort needed to create the collection, whether made by our local genealogical societies or commercial companies. Without them, we would not have access to an enormous range of research material. On the other hand, false claims of copyright don't help anyone, and can ultimately rebound to the detriment of the claimant. Pat

At 03:01 PM 3/10/2006, you wrote: >Here it is. > >http://www.il.proquest.com/legal/terms_conditions.shtml Okay, It seems to me the relevant provisions to your original question, i.e > HeritageQuest has posted images of books that are now in the > public domain. > However, the HeritageQuest user agreement says that you cannot republish > [or > even share, as far as I can tell] materials that you find > on HeritageQuest. are addressed by LICENSE Section 1b) "You will use the Products solely for your own personal or internal use. You will not publish, broadcast or sell any materials retrieved through the Products or use the materials in any manner that will infringe the copyright or other proprietary right of ProQuest or its licensors." The material you retrieve is the copy of the public domain document, which you agree not to publish broadcast or sell. Extracting data from the retrieved product does not infringe anyone's copyright if the copied document is public domain. Systematic retrieval of all documents to prepare a competing database would be prohibited under the licensing agreement as explained next. "You represent and warrant to ProQuest that you will not use the Products or any material retrieved from the Products to create products or perform services which compete or interfere with the publications and services of ProQuest or its licensors." This prohibits you from preparing a competing product. It does not prohibit individual lookups or individual use. Pat

Sara, As I understand it, Heritage Quest is saying that you can't collect a large number of the IMAGES from their databases of images, and then republish them. As I recall, they have only images (censuses, books, newspapers). They say, "Downloading of all or parts of the Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of materials comprising all or **PART** of the Products is strictly prohibited whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form." (my emphasis) That is poorly worded and misleading, I think. They should have said something like "significant part." When you read it, it probably sounded like ANY part, even a single page, but that is not what they mean. For your personal use, you can make a small collection of their images on your computer (perhaps 50, perhaps 100, perhaps more). Before doing something like that, download one of them and see if you can view it properly. Censuses are all in the public domain. You are free to transcribe as many census images as you want. There is no restriction to transcribing public domain materials. You can then put whatever you transcribe onto a website, even though it came from their images. The Heritage Quest books are probably all in the public domain as well, but I'm not certain of that. If the books are all pre-1923, then they are in the public domain. Books after that can be in the public domain as well, but that can't be determined easily. Another problem that I see in the paragraphs of their licensing agreement that you sent is that they are addressing both U.S. and English copyright laws at the same time. If you don't know each law, you could think that some of the parts apply to you when they actually don't. Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sara Binkley Tarpley wrote: >Well, I think it would require a lawyer to full comprehend what the >licensing agreement means. Actually I agreed to the terms only by use; the >subscriber is my local public library: > >*b) You will use the Products solely for your own personal or internal use. >You will not publish, broadcast or sell any materials retrieved through the >Products or use the materials in any manner that will infringe the copyright >or other proprietary right of ProQuest or its licensors. You may not use the >Products to execute denial of service attacks nor may you perform automated >searches against ProQuest's systems to the extent such searches unduly >burden ProQuest's systems (including, but not limited to automated "bots" or >link checkers). You may print and make copies of materials retrieved through >the Products only as permitted in Section 1 (d) of this Agreement. You >represent and warrant to ProQuest that you will not use the Products or any >material retrieved from the Products to create products or perform services >which compete or interfere with the publications and services of ProQuest or >its licensors.* >** >*d) You may create printouts of materials retrieved through the Products via >on-line printing, off-line printing, facsimile, or electronic mail. All >reproduction and distribution of such printouts, and all downloading and >electronic storage of materials retrieved through the Products shall be for >your own internal or personal use. Downloading of all or parts of the >Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of >materials comprising all or part of the Products is strictly prohibited >whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form. Notwithstanding >the above restrictions, this paragraph shall not restrict your use of the >materials under the doctrines of "fair use" or "fair dealing" as defined >under the laws of the United States or England, respectively. >* ><snip> > > Sara