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. I am somewhat confused by this. If I were to find one of these books in my local library, I would certainly feel free to put excerpts on my Web site and wouldn't necessarily know about HeritageQuest's copyright. I understand that they can own the images, but can they also own a photocopy made directly from the book or my typewritten transcription from either the book or their image? If HeritageQuest can indeed restrict the reproduction of these books or pages thereof, does it fall within fair use to post on a personal Web site a single article from a book that contains numerous articles? Sara Binkley Tarpley

Yes it was published in New York. Thank you for your response. Trina JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 2/21/2006 12:16:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca writes: Title: Old New England Houses Author: Albert Robinson Published:1920 with many illustrations from the Author's unique collection of Photographs Question: This book is loaded with old photographs of old houses---are these photographs in the public domain? Thanks Trina Trina- Based on the above--the book and pictures were all written/taken prior to 1923 and therefore they would be in the public domain--assuming we are talking about a book published in the USA. Joan ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus up-to-date! ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

In a message dated 2/21/2006 12:16:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca writes: Title: Old New England Houses Author: Albert Robinson Published:1920 with many illustrations from the Author's unique collection of Photographs Question: This book is loaded with old photographs of old houses---are these photographs in the public domain? Thanks Trina Trina- Based on the above--the book and pictures were all written/taken prior to 1923 and therefore they would be in the public domain--assuming we are talking about a book published in the USA. Joan

Title: Old New England Houses Author: Albert Robinson Published:1920 with many illustrations from the Author's unique collection of Photographs Question: This book is loaded with old photographs of old houses---are these photographs in the public domain? Thanks Trina --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:43:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, joe2phil@drizzle.com writes: Hello guys , As one person that HAS made a Direct comparison of the Actual Original census copy and the copy of the census shown on proquest ancestry heritage quest etal I can say with out fear , They can copyright those images , IN ALL Cases they are MUCH Better than the Original !!!!!!!! , Phil , who lives 20 minutes from the NARA Facility in Seattle No--the point I was making is that the process they use is original and could be (and probably IS) PATENTED. That doesn't mean the images produced by that process can be copyrighted--they cannot be. As Pat pointed out the DATABASE as a whole can have a compilation copyright and you have to agree to licensing agreements when you subscribe and use these subscription images--but the individual images are not copyrightable. Joan

At 01:02 PM 2/5/2006, you wrote: >I am not sure of exactly when that line is crossed between desire to copy >with perfection another work, and making a creative photorepresentation of >something, but then again, I am not sure the courts are exactly sure either. I am not a lawyer either, and I am sure there will continue to be discussion on the point <g> But in my untrained opinion, I believe Bridgeman v. Corel has an answer. [32] .... Most photographs are "original" in one if not more of the three respects [interpretation of the scene or object using technical knowledge, creation of the scene itself, opportunism i.e. the decisive moment], set out in the treatise and therefore are copyrightable. Plaintiff's problem here is that it seeks protection for the exception that proves the rule: photographs of existing two-dimensional articles (in this case works of art), each of which REPRODUCES the article in the photographic medium AS PRECISELY AS TECHNOLOGY PERMITS. Its transparencies stand in the same relation to the original works of art as a photocopy stands to a page of typescript, a doodle, or a Michelangelo drawing. Plaintiff admitted their copies were meant to reproduce the original works as accurately as possible without variance or interpretation. If they had photographed the paintings in the context of their location in the gallery (for example), then subjective decisions about lighting, angle, filters, etc. would all make that photograph original, even though the underlying artwork was public domain. Pat

At 01:16 PM 2/5/2006, you wrote: >After reading through the bridgeman corel decision about photoreproduction >of public domain art, I was struck by a certain part of the decision. I >think this is actually from a later judgement related to the original >decision, which I've found through LexisNexis: > >'There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming >majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for >copyright protection. "Elements of originality . . . may include posing >the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the >desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." >n39 [*197] But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical >skill and effort, does not qualify. n40 As the Supreme Court indicated in >Feist, "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the >sine qua non of originality. n41' > >Can someone explain, in the light of issues brought up in the paragraph >above, how database vendors (such as Proquest, for instance) can claim >copyright on digital copies of public domain censuses and other works? > >I am aware that most databases that reproduce public domain historical >data also have license agreements that prohibit publication and other uses >beyond fair use, but outside of these agreements, I wonder how could a >digital scan of a document fulfil the need for creativity, and not just be >a "slavish copy" requiring "technical skill and effort" described in the >above Bridgeman v. Corel decision? > I don't believe most reputable database vendors claim copyright of digital copies. They claim compilation copyright, i.e. whatever selection, coordination, and/or arrangement is original to their "collection". That is the reason most database compilers have licensing/access agreements <g> Enhancement of an image through a patented process would (I believe) be akin to any other technical skill or process used to create the copies. For example, the Xerox process was (is?) patented, but the copies it produces are exact copies within the capabilities of the process and are not copyrightable. Pat

In a message dated 2/5/2006 1:17:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, James_Capobianco@emerson.edu writes: Can someone explain, in the light of issues brought up in the paragraph above, how database vendors (such as Proquest, for instance) can claim copyright on digital copies of public domain censuses and other works? They can't claim copyright to the copies of the images but, if they used a process that they created and is original, they can patent the process. An image of a graphic is merely a reproduction just like reprinting a book would be--nothing creative or original. But a process that enchances a graphic image can be patented. Joan

After reading through the bridgeman corel decision about photoreproduction of public domain art, I was struck by a certain part of the decision. I think this is actually from a later judgement related to the original decision, which I've found through LexisNexis: 'There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. "Elements of originality . . . may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." n39 [*197] But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify. n40 As the Supreme Court indicated in Feist, "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. n41' Can someone explain, in the light of issues brought up in the paragraph above, how database vendors (such as Proquest, for instance) can claim copyright on digital copies of public domain censuses and other works? I am aware that most databases that reproduce public domain historical data also have license agreements that prohibit publication and other uses beyond fair use, but outside of these agreements, I wonder how could a digital scan of a document fulfil the need for creativity, and not just be a "slavish copy" requiring "technical skill and effort" described in the above Bridgeman v. Corel decision? I am sincerely trying to understand this application of copyright, so I'd appreciate any expertise and insight into this. Best, James

Pat, Thanks for the reply. Indeed, I had not read in depth the decision of the Bridgeman vs. Corel, which I have since done. And I admit, I had misunderstood the central point of the decision, which you correctly put is about the lack of copyright protection for "slaving copying" of another work. I am not sure of exactly when that line is crossed between desire to copy with perfection another work, and making a creative photorepresentation of something, but then again, I am not sure the courts are exactly sure either. Thanks for pointing this out to me! I am not a lawyer, so I am always trying to learn more about the intricacies of copyright law. (Though I suppose lawyers should do the same :) James -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher [mailto:pasher@ee.net] Sent: Fri 03-Feb-06 18:13 To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: RE: [COPYRIGHT] Re: Protecting copyrighted photos At 03:35 PM 2/3/2006, James Capobianco wrote: >Perhaps you've already had this discussion, but as far as I understand >copyright law, a photo seeking to faithfully reproduce a public domain >work (in this case, a tombstone), does not itself have copyright >protection. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999) made it >clear that exact photographic reproductions of works in the public >domain are not copyrightable. Um, I'm afraid you have missed some crucial language in the Bridgeman V. Corel decision. Actually, the decision ultimately had nothing to do with the public domain status of the work being copied. The question decided was whether a "slavish" copy was an original work eligible for copyright protection. The court decided it was not, i.e. "Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand -- could hardly be served." The Court indicated that technical skill in accurately reproducing the work being copied did not make the copy a creative work eligible for copyright protection. On the other hand. you and I could stand side by side and photograph the same tombstone at the same time and each of our photographs would be copyrighted. While the difference in perspective might be a matter of inches, each perspective was original. If I photographed a tombstone today, and marked the spot for you to stand on to duplicate the photo tomorrow, yours would still be "original". The time of day could be different, the day of the year (and therefore the light) would be different, if you were taller or shorter than I, the perspective would be different, and you might even decide to come back a month later when the sun would be lower in the sky <g> The data, i.e. names, dates, etc., inscribed on the tombstone is public domain. A photograph of the tombstone is copyrighted. Pat ==== 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) ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx

Hello guys , As one person that HAS made a Direct comparison of the Actual Original census copy and the copy of the census shown on proquest ancestry heritage quest etal I can say with out fear , They can copyright those images , IN ALL Cases they are MUCH Better than the Original !!!!!!!! , Phil , who lives 20 minutes from the NARA Facility in Seattle ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] another point, related to Bridgeman v. Corel decision > > In a message dated 2/5/2006 1:17:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, > James_Capobianco@emerson.edu writes: > > Can someone explain, in the light of issues brought up in the paragraph > above, how database vendors (such as Proquest, for instance) can claim copyright > on digital copies of public domain censuses and other works? > > > > They can't claim copyright to the copies of the images but, if they used a > process that they created and is original, they can patent the process. An > image of a graphic is merely a reproduction just like reprinting a book would > be--nothing creative or original. But a process that enchances a graphic > image can be patented. > > 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 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 >

Dennis, A few people wrote to me privately with methods that would overcome attempts at protecting photos. I'd like to thank them and those who wrote directly to the list for their responses. Everyone seems to agree that no matter what is done to protect the photos, a savvy computer person can copy them nonetheless. Frankly, I knew little about the subject, so I did some research. There are two programs by the same company that should be mentioned. http://www.protware.com/ HTML Guardian is a free program, and it encrypts webpages so the coding, scripts, text, etc. cannot be copied. It also gives a fair amount of protection to the photos. This program has options to disable the following: Print Screen, Clipboard, Save As, right click to save an image, and Internet Explorer 6 Image Toolbar. This free version will prevent a lot of copying. It may fulfill the needs of most people. If you want even better protection you have to buy a program. "To protect images on your website, you have to purchase HTML Guardian Enterprise Edition." That purchase costs $70 plus shipping. Even though the photo is stored in the cache (as was previously mentioned), it is stored in nine files that have to be reassembled before viewing the photo is possible. This makes it much more difficult for someone to copy the photo. It will prevent 95-98% of the copying. It may prevent access in other ways as well. http://www.htmlguardian.org/help_main.html I'd like to point out something else that can help to protect your photos. I have a large genealogy website with over 1300 links. Some of them get broken. In case a webpage has been renamed or put in a new location on the same site, I have to look for it. Look at the following long URL. http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tn/gibson/court/wallace1846.txt If you chop off the last part (wallace1846.text) and then hit enter, it will give you an index (directory) of the files and images in "court". Chop off back to the next forward slash / and you will see the index of gibson. You can chop off three more sections until you get back to the host's URL. Each step will show the contents of that folder. If you can see the name, you can open the file or image. Then, you can copy it. I mentioned this problem to a computer geek who told me about the following method of prevention. As a webmaster or person who is putting webpages online, you have probably learned that your home page is named index.htm or index.html (there may be others, but I'm not certain). If you create a file with one of those names, you can put it in a folder. It acts like a home page for that folder. You write a message in the index file. Mine says Access Forbidden and gives a link to my home page. Instead of seeing the contents of my folders, you will see the index file's message instead. If the folder has photos, you won't be able to see the names of the photos, so you won't be able to open them to copy them. (Thanks, Larry) Here is the URL I sent you earlier so you could see my message that prevents copying a photo by using a right click. If you delete the last part (the file name), you will no longer be able to access the index of the contents of the "Animals" folder. http://grandpacliff.com/Animals/Albinos-TEST.htm I was surprised and disappointed today when I was looking at that webpage using Netscape 7.0. The script I mentioned recently did not disable the right click box in that program. Cliff Lamere ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D Lohr wrote: >Hello Cliff, > > I believe that you've already been given a number of excellent examples of how one can--unfortunately--defeat any means you use to disable a right click. In the case of your JAVA script to defeat a right click, I was able to simply highlight the photo with a LEFT click, then copied & pasted the photo into a photo editor, word processor, etc. I was also able to print the entire page as a PDF document, something I routinely use when researching because it is a quick and simple way of obtaining a page's info. So one can actually defeat a right click in any number of ways, just as you can code to prevent somebody from harvesting your pictures using different methods. For example. besides JAVA you can code the pictures using Flash http://www.macromedia.com. This is one of the most secure but also most involved and expensive methods. Flash is routinely used by cartoonists, professional photographers, etc. when their works are placed on webpages. > > I think that protecting my photographs is like making my home "burglar-proof". You should likewise spend whatever amount of time and money you deem necessary to protect your "valuables". But just like your home, if somebody is unscrupulous enough there's always the chance they'll do whatever they can to get at your property. However, if those persons go to such extreme means to illegally obtain copyrighted materials, it would only make it that much grievous and obvious an offense if prosecution were required. (Just because I have a $100 bill I do not expect to get robbed, but I also won't walk around with it taped to my forehead.) > > Likewise, if another party cropped my photo to remove the copyright and source information after downloading it, it would seem to leave the stain of ink on their hands a second time. Even if the photo is cropped and decreased in size, it is usually quite obvious that they are clearly the same photo (in the case of tombstones, which I believe what most of us are referring to here) and therefore quite easy to visually prove infringement. > > To be quite honest, I could care less about any downloading of my photos unless somebody is seeking to profit and is clearly being deceptive to do it. However, I always want to be attributed to those photos as the "author" because I would like to be contacted by other researchers. > > To that end, I would actually encourage my photos to be downloaded and spread around. If you think about it, if your materials are freely available everywhere then how could someone else profit from it? And if they're available everywhere, then it becomes just that much more likely you are commonly referred to and known as their source. > > All the Best, > Dennis Lohr > Milwaukee, WI > > >

At 03:35 PM 2/3/2006, James Capobianco wrote: >Perhaps you've already had this discussion, but as far as I understand >copyright law, a photo seeking to faithfully reproduce a public domain >work (in this case, a tombstone), does not itself have copyright >protection. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999) made it >clear that exact photographic reproductions of works in the public >domain are not copyrightable. Um, I'm afraid you have missed some crucial language in the Bridgeman V. Corel decision. Actually, the decision ultimately had nothing to do with the public domain status of the work being copied. The question decided was whether a "slavish" copy was an original work eligible for copyright protection. The court decided it was not, i.e. "Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand -- could hardly be served." The Court indicated that technical skill in accurately reproducing the work being copied did not make the copy a creative work eligible for copyright protection. On the other hand. you and I could stand side by side and photograph the same tombstone at the same time and each of our photographs would be copyrighted. While the difference in perspective might be a matter of inches, each perspective was original. If I photographed a tombstone today, and marked the spot for you to stand on to duplicate the photo tomorrow, yours would still be "original". The time of day could be different, the day of the year (and therefore the light) would be different, if you were taller or shorter than I, the perspective would be different, and you might even decide to come back a month later when the sun would be lower in the sky <g> The data, i.e. names, dates, etc., inscribed on the tombstone is public domain. A photograph of the tombstone is copyrighted. Pat

I'm new to this list, and late into this conversation, but I thought I'd bring up one small issue that I noticed with the last email in this discussion. I will quote the relevant section of the email. Dennis wrote: "Likewise, if another party cropped my photo to remove the copyright and source information after downloading it, it would seem to leave the stain of ink on their hands a second time. Even if the photo is cropped and decreased in size, it is usually quite obvious that they are clearly the same photo (in the case of tombstones, which I believe what most of us are referring to here) and therefore quite easy to visually prove infringement." Perhaps you've already had this discussion, but as far as I understand copyright law, a photo seeking to faithfully reproduce a public domain work (in this case, a tombstone), does not itself have copyright protection. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999) made it clear that exact photographic reproductions of works in the public domain are not copyrightable. I agree with this decision. If you snap a picture of a tombstone for the purpose of faithfully representing the information on it, how much creativity does that really take? Is it really an original work of authorship, or just a representational copy of the tombstone? Dennis wrote: "To that end, I would actually encourage my photos to be downloaded and spread around. If you think about it, if your materials are freely available everywhere then how could someone else profit from it? And if they're available everywhere, then it becomes just that much more likely you are commonly referred to and known as their source." For the reason above, I would agree that this is the way to go. It is also the best way to make sure that you are cited as the source. Though the use of your photo might not be copyright infringement, it is still better if you are given the credit for taking the photo. Best, James

Hello Cliff, I believe that you've already been given a number of excellent examples of how one can--unfortunately--defeat any means you use to disable a right click. In the case of your JAVA script to defeat a right click, I was able to simply highlight the photo with a LEFT click, then copied & pasted the photo into a photo editor, word processor, etc. I was also able to print the entire page as a PDF document, something I routinely use when researching because it is a quick and simple way of obtaining a page's info. So one can actually defeat a right click in any number of ways, just as you can code to prevent somebody from harvesting your pictures using different methods. For example. besides JAVA you can code the pictures using Flash http://www.macromedia.com. This is one of the most secure but also most involved and expensive methods. Flash is routinely used by cartoonists, professional photographers, etc. when their works are placed on webpages. I think that protecting my photographs is like making my home "burglar-proof". You should likewise spend whatever amount of time and money you deem necessary to protect your "valuables". But just like your home, if somebody is unscrupulous enough there's always the chance they'll do whatever they can to get at your property. However, if those persons go to such extreme means to illegally obtain copyrighted materials, it would only make it that much grievous and obvious an offense if prosecution were required. (Just because I have a $100 bill I do not expect to get robbed, but I also won't walk around with it taped to my forehead.) Likewise, if another party cropped my photo to remove the copyright and source information after downloading it, it would seem to leave the stain of ink on their hands a second time. Even if the photo is cropped and decreased in size, it is usually quite obvious that they are clearly the same photo (in the case of tombstones, which I believe what most of us are referring to here) and therefore quite easy to visually prove infringement. To be quite honest, I could care less about any downloading of my photos unless somebody is seeking to profit and is clearly being deceptive to do it. However, I always want to be attributed to those photos as the "author" because I would like to be contacted by other researchers. To that end, I would actually encourage my photos to be downloaded and spread around. If you think about it, if your materials are freely available everywhere then how could someone else profit from it? And if they're available everywhere, then it becomes just that much more likely you are commonly referred to and known as their source. All the Best, Dennis Lohr Milwaukee, WI COPYRIGHT-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:25:02 -0500 From: Cliff Lamere <clifflamere@nycap.rr.com> To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Protecting copyrighted photos <EDIT> I believe it would be appropriate to discuss methods of protecting photos on this mailing list, so I welcome comments. Here is the URL for the webpage I made. http://grandpacliff.com/Animals/Albinos-TEST.htm Cliff Lamere --------------------------------- Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

Just thought I would mention if you can see it on your monitor there is nothing anyone can do to stop you copying it, everybody has a keyboard with PrtScn key and there software programmes which enable you to capture the whole screen of just part of it. If you don't want anyone to copy a picture the best thing is not to put it on the web ;-) Steve. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Lamere" <clifflamere@nycap.rr.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:25 PM Subject: [COPYRIGHT] Protecting copyrighted photos > The Irfanview discussion has been useful to me. I downloaded the > program, but would prefer the availability of a smaller font. I'd like > to have my name on photos, but have it be more subtle. I see nothing > wrong with this discussion on this mailing list. It expands our > knowledge of how to protect our copyrights. To that end, I'd like to > mention a couple of other things that I have seen in the past few days > since the original question was asked. > > A person who "borrows" a photo might make the photo considerably smaller > before displaying it again. At the smaller size, it may be impossible > to read your name. That is a problem, of course. A user may even cut > off the copyright notice before reposting the photo. So, perhaps it is > best to prevent another person from copying the photo altogether. > > On a webpage, if you right click on an image such as a photo, normally a > box pops up that will allow the photo to be copied to your computer. I > have recently noticed two websites that prevented this from happening. > > 1) On one website, the box would not appear for any photo on the site. > I believe I only got a cirle with a slash through it (meaning something > like "You can't do this."). At times, I didn't even get that. > > 2) On another site, a different box appeared that said that you > couldn't copy the photo. > > I didn't investigate the first site, but I found the second site today > and decided to find out how it worked. I looked at the codes and copied > a JavaScript from it into a webpage I made for interested members of > this list to view (revised from one I already had). I didn't like the > warning that the script gave, so I rewrote it to say the following: > > "This photo is protected by United States and international copyright > laws. Please contact the copyright holder if you would like permission > to use it." > > An email address should be provided so that a person can do that. > > I learned that the full statement had to be on a single line of the > script or it wouldn't work, although it appears on two lines as a popup > message. I placed the message right after the </head> code. > > For this technique to work, a person would have to have access to the > html coding of a webpage so that the script could be added. By that I > mean that you must be a person who knows how to makes webpages and can > view and change the codes before puting the webpage online. If your > computer knowledge is limited, and you normally send photos to a website > where the host's software makes all of the codes for you, you probably > can't use this method. I believe you would have to upload the completed > webpage yourself, including all of the html coding, but the host might > be able to help you with this. > > So, the technology exists to protect photos from most being copied. If > you can see the photo on your computer, however, there is already a copy > on your computer (somewhere in the temporary cache). It's name has been > changed to a number, I believe. A computer savvy person can find the > photo, but I don't remember how to do that. Photos that are protected > against copying probably won't be copied from the cache very often. > There are probably also other means of getting around the script, but > the people trying to use a photo illegally probably won't know how to do > that. > > I believe it would be appropriate to discuss methods of protecting > photos on this mailing list, so I welcome comments. Here is the URL for > the webpage I made. > > http://grandpacliff.com/Animals/Albinos-TEST.htm > > Cliff Lamere > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus up-to-date! > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

maybe I am confused here, but this came of the copyright list but had a tail end bit about Latin-L or am I just addled Liz P PS - what is Infanview >LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or >historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in >Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old >Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To >subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com >(Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > >============================== >Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >New content added every business day. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Lamere" clifflamere@nycap.rr.com > The Irfanview discussion has been useful to me. I downloaded the > program, but would prefer the availability of a smaller font. I'd like > to have my name on photos, but have it be more subtle. [snip] Cliff, there are any number of font sizes available with Irfanview that you can choose. so if you want small, you can have small. www.irfanview.com using Irfanview to open a photo you want to work on. now use your curser to click on the photo, and hold down on left click to drag and create a box where you want to inject your text. Let go of left mouse button and you will see where the box is (if you do not like it.. then do it over, practice makes perfect!) Now go up to "edit" and down to "insert text into selection" This will open a window with many options. first: click on the "append copyright" button, and it will put the "C" thingy in the text box for you. second: just after the copyright symbol, left click in the text box, to get your cursor working there and type in your name and a date. third: click on "choose font" button to open a window of choices for that. As a rule I click on the color and choose "white" as that shows up the best on photos, and then the size font depends on resolution of the photo.. but I usually use a 14 or 20 point font. now click on OK and look at the results. If you do not like how it is, just click on Edit and "undo" and start over. You will notice it saves whatever text you entered the first time, when the text window opens again, so you don't have to retype all that all settings are saved! so for the next billion photos... you just make your box (remember to try to choose a dark place in the photo, so your text shows up nice) and then hit "CTRL -T" as a short cut... (this inserts your text) and "CTRL -S" to save it (another short cut) name the file and you are ready for the next pic. Just hit your spacebar at this point, to open the next photo in that same folder. -Kristina Kuhn Krumm Columbus, OH homepage: http://kriskuhn.net

I recalled somebody in Pennsylvania had a very clever way to insert copyright in. - inside the carving, you can see it but can't remove it without ruining the photo. DAvid Kristina Kuhn Krumm wrote: > In regards to choosing the size of the font... > so if "borrowing folks" don't loose the copyright in case the make it > smaller,.. > > That is why I choose a font that is proportionate size to the photos > and while maybe not so "subtle" it does not disappear when made smaller... > > In my case, if they make it smaller than to read the copyright > they will also not be able to read the inscription on the tombstone in the > photos > > and as to Cliff's java script to prohibit copy of a photo... > 1. I use Mozilla browser and I have all javascript blocked, unless I hit and > "allow" in an extension. > so I was able to copy all his photos and then open Irfanview and hit "CTRL-V > and that paste > his pics in with no problem. > 2. for folks who do not have that... all they have to do is hold down the > shift key and hit the "print Screen" key on their keyboard... > open Irfanview and then again hit "CTRL-V" and it pastes the whole page as > seen on their screen. > from there you drag your curser over the photo itself, to up to "edit" on > Irfanview and hit "crop" > and viola you have any photo that you can see on any webpage.... > > Here is page with links to some tombstone photos which I posted on the net > which were submitted to me: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohwyand2/w/st_mary_carey_a.htm > > You will see I tried to choose a font that was close to the size of the > letters in the tombstone inscription. > > > Kristina Kuhn Krumm > Columbus, Ohio > Webmaster for Wyandot County, Ohio genealogy > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus up-to-date! > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > >

Firefox busted right through with a simple right side click. nothing to stop Firefox users. David samuelsen Larry Slavens wrote: >>I believe it would be appropriate to discuss methods of protecting >>photos on this mailing list, so I welcome comments. Here is the URL for >>the webpage I made. >> >>http://grandpacliff.com/Animals/Albinos-TEST.htm >> >>Cliff Lamere > > > A javascript like that will stop the majority of people, but it's still easy to > get around. All you have to do is choose "View source" from the IE menu bar and > find the photos' urls in the source. Then you paste the url in the address bar, > hit "enter" and there's the photo in right-clickable/save-able form. For > example, here's the direct link to the lovebird: > > http://grandpacliff.com/Animals/Img-Animals/Img-Albinos/albino-lovebird-b.jpg > > It's not possible to completely block a knowledgeable user. They can always go > to the browser's cache file while the window's open and move the files to > another directory... > > Larry > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus up-to-date! > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > >