Trina, "I can tell that these manuscripts were just printed up on his own--which would make it in the public domain" If they were never published, then you can't say that for sure. He could have typed a single copy of each for himself, or he might have printed several copies of each for distribution. Do you think they were ever sold? "what if some publishing company found these same papers and decided to publish them later on like say 1943 (e.g.)." If they were not actually published, the author had a common law copyright which hasn't run out yet. In that case, the manuscript could only have been published in 1943 with permission. But, if the books were really published in 1924 and 1925, and without a copyright notice, then they immediately went into the public domain. Anybody could republish the entire work, but they would not get a new copyright on the previous work (except possibly to minor things like a new format and anything new added to the book like a new introduction). Facts can never be copyrighted, nor can public domain material. Only new, creative effort can earn a copyright. "Can someone actually buy the ownership to copyright this and say "hey I own this now!" A copyright to a written work can be bought from the copyright owner, but it has to be in writing. Many descendants might be the copyright owners today if the author is deceased. When you say it looks like he printed them on his own, do you mean that they were typed? If so, are they originals or carbon copies? I'm just trying to figure out if they were published or not. Where or how you got the books might help you or someone else make such a decision. Cliff Trina Huynh wrote: >Wow---this is very complicated. > I can tell that these manuscripts were just printed up on his own--which would make it in the public domain...however what if some publishing company found these same papers and decided to publish them later on like say 1943 (e.g.). Can someone actually buy the ownership to copyright this and say "hey I own this now!" > thanks for your help. > > > >

The following was posted and I am wondering if this is legal or does it breach copyright. The books in question are from a foreign country. I don't know if they have a copyright on the original books and I don't know who created the CDs. Thanks for any info. Linda -------------------------------------------------- Recently I had the opportunity to get a copy of four of the books (from foreign country), two for xxx and two for Mxxx. The copies I have are on CD in PDF form. ... The two xxx books were apperently given to a library in xxx. where they have hand writing in them from either a JoAnne xx and Judy xx. If anyone is interested I can send them copies of the CD or email them a copy.

Wow---this is very complicated. I can tell that these manuscripts were just printed up on his own--which would make it in the public domain...however what if some publishing company found these same papers and decided to publish them later on like say 1943 (e.g.). Can someone actually buy the ownership to copyright this and say "hey I own this now!" thanks for your help. Cliff Lamere <clifflamere@nycap.rr.com> wrote: "If they are less than 75 years old yes they are public domain." This means that something I wrote yesterday is in the public domain today because it is less than 75 years old. Obviously, you meant to write "more than 75 years old," but that would be wrong also. Date-wise, we can say that if it was *published* before 1923 it is in the public domain. If it wasn't ever published, that is a whole different issue with different dates. Unpublished works originating in 1885 (examples would be manuscripts and photos) went into the public domain in 2006. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended the copyright period you are talking about from 75 years to 95 years. 1923 + 95 = 2018. Therefore, the 1923 published works that were properly copyrighted, registered, and had the copyright renewed won't enter the public domain until the following year, in 2019. 1924 works that were published, registered, and renewed go PD in 2020, etc. You can expect film companies to attempt to extend the 95 year period. Certainly Disney will, or they will lose control of the Mickey Mouse image. The U.S. Supreme Court could uphold another extension, as they did with the SBCTEA of 1998 which I thought was unconstitutional. There is no guarantee that 1923 works will actually go into the public domain in 2019. Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joyce G. Reece wrote: > If they are less than 75 years old yes they are public domain. > > Joyce G. Reece > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trina Huynh" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:55 AM > Subject: [COPYRIGHT] inquiry > > >> I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed >> by Milo Custer in 1924 & 1925. >> There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in >> the public domain? >> >> Thanks in advance ..... >> ==== 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) ============================== 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 --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

"If they are less than 75 years old yes they are public domain." This means that something I wrote yesterday is in the public domain today because it is less than 75 years old. Obviously, you meant to write "more than 75 years old," but that would be wrong also. Date-wise, we can say that if it was *published* before 1923 it is in the public domain. If it wasn't ever published, that is a whole different issue with different dates. Unpublished works originating in 1885 (examples would be manuscripts and photos) went into the public domain in 2006. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended the copyright period you are talking about from 75 years to 95 years. 1923 + 95 = 2018. Therefore, the 1923 published works that were properly copyrighted, registered, and had the copyright renewed won't enter the public domain until the following year, in 2019. 1924 works that were published, registered, and renewed go PD in 2020, etc. You can expect film companies to attempt to extend the 95 year period. Certainly Disney will, or they will lose control of the Mickey Mouse image. The U.S. Supreme Court could uphold another extension, as they did with the SBCTEA of 1998 which I thought was unconstitutional. There is no guarantee that 1923 works will actually go into the public domain in 2019. Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joyce G. Reece wrote: > If they are less than 75 years old yes they are public domain. > > Joyce G. Reece > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trina Huynh" <ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca> > To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:55 AM > Subject: [COPYRIGHT] inquiry > > >> I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed >> by Milo Custer in 1924 & 1925. >> There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in >> the public domain? >> >> Thanks in advance ..... >>

Trina, If they don't say that they are copyrighted, they are in the public domain. If they do say that they are copyrighted, then they are *probably* in the public domain, because unless they were a best seller they probably didn't have their copyright renewed. One technical point. We say "before 1923," so we should say "after 1922." The point I'm making is that 1922's published works are automatically in the public domain, but 1923's published works are not necessarily in the PD. They fall in the category with those from 1924 and 1925. Cliff Trina Huynh wrote: >I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed by Milo Custer in 1924 & 1925. > There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in the public domain? > > Thanks in advance ..... > > > >

If they are less than 75 years old yes they are public domain. Joyce G. Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trina Huynh" <ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: [COPYRIGHT] inquiry >I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed by Milo >Custer in 1924 & 1925. > There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in the > public domain? > > Thanks in advance ..... > > > > --------------------------------- > Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos > > > ==== 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 >

> I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed by > Milo Custer in 1924 & 1925. > There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in the > public domain? > > Thanks in advance ..... I don't know what Canadian copyright is since you're writing from Canada with Canada address... but at least in USA, 1. Before 1923 2. No copyright notice 3. If copyright is listed, was copyright renewed or lapsed before 1978? These are for those in USA only. In other countries, you need to check what copyright laws are in your countries. Not all treat them same. That is it. W. David Samuelsen

It would help to know more about what "2 old genealogy record books" are -- might not have been copyrightable to begin with. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trina Huynh" <ethans_mamma@yahoo.ca> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:55 AM Subject: [COPYRIGHT] inquiry >I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed by Milo >Custer in 1924 & 1925.

I have 2 old genealogy record books which were compiled and Printed by Milo Custer in 1924 & 1925. There is no publisher noted. Because it is after 1923 are these in the public domain? Thanks in advance ..... --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

[SNIP] Are the hundreds of personally-taken photos (mostly tombstones, houses, streets and places that have the isolated and obscure-single-surname across the country) different from the obituaries I searched out, went to locations of newspapers, copied and then tediously typed out? What about the biographies, since they were public and after all, others could have gotten them from libraries and books if they had done the same years of effort of digging and typing? Can people download other people's stuff without asking, with attribution? [SNIP] Hi Bruce, I know that whoever took the original photo owns the copyright and I have a website where folks contibute tombstone photos. In order to protect those kind giving people I put their names on the photos before posting them to the web, thus if anyone harvests the pics, the names of the copyright holders are right there in plain view for all. see example: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb com/~ohio/seneca/duke/ms/sec_1and2/ingraham_remeber_01a4.jpg The program I use to do this is called Irfanview and is a FREE program available on the net. http://www.irfanview.com/ It is a great small little photo editing program, easy to use, yet very powerful in its options! Just put your copyright information on the pics you take before posting them on the web. This will not stop the Unscrupulous folks from editing your name off, if they so choose. But does give you a better chance of getting credit for your efforts! As for citing sources of Public Domain information, transcribed by another person... Sometimes this depends on the software folks use, and their knowledge of how to properly use it! many "not so geeks" have no clue how to properly enter the source of their information... thus when they create a printout using that software, it just doesn't look right"... So it is possible, there is an "ignorance" problem there too.... My software has a place to put additional notes in the source. So I can post a source and add to the end... "As transcribed by John Doe" not sure if all folks would know how to do some of these things. I know a woman that has told me she can NOT figure out how to properly enter her sources... into her genealogy software source master list. but she HAS printed out genealogy reports and sent them to people. I know "ignorance is no excuse for the law", as the saying goes.... but also keep in mind, all folks are not intentionally doing something illegal, they just may not know that what they are doing is wrong. Kristina Kuhn Krumm Columbus, Ohio "dedicated" Genealogist Homepage: http://kriskuhn.net software I use: The Master Genealogist (TMG) available at: http://www.whollygenes.com All e-mail from this address is automatically scanned by Norton Antivirus before sent.

In a message dated 1/15/2006 1:41:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: I fully understand how Bruce feels about other people using his work with attribution. As others have said, that is a problem of courtesy and ethics, not copyright. However, when I send someone a text report on a genealogical line, I always include this request on the title page of the report: "Although facts cannot be copyrighted, I would appreciate credit for my research if you share it with others." I don't know whether it does any good, but it makes me feel better, LOL! Sara Binkley Tarpley --- In addition to courtesy and ethics--there is the added issue (as Pat brought out) of accuracy. If you know who did a transcription you can possibly contact them if you do examine an original record for yourself and find errors--or at the very least you can point out differences you have found between your own and someone else's transcription. It really comes down to an issue of citing sources. Joan

> > However, a serious researcher will always acknowledge the original > transcriber. First, it is courteous to acknowledge the time, money, > and/or > effort expended. But for purposes of scholarship, a competent researcher > recognizes that most transcriptions contain errors. Old handwriting may > be > difficult to read. Newspaper type setting may result in a lower case RN > (rn) looking like M (m). Typos are more frequent than we would like to > admint. [ed. note: I didn't mistype "admit" on purpose, but since I did, I > left it as a perfect example of how errors can creep in <g>). Sometimes, > our brains or fingers simply short-circuit and type 1981 instead of 1781. This brings up something that I have been pondering. Another researcher recently sent me her transcriptions of two documents from public records and informed me that I could use them if I gave her credit. Now, I am scrupulous about documenting and about giving people credit; and if the documents she transcribed were some that I did not have access to, I would use her transcriptions and definitely credit her. However, I have access to these documents, and it is my usual practice, to retranscribe them myself and to use simply the public record citation as my source. On the other hand, I don't know how long it might have taken me to find these particular documents. To satisfy courtesy should I both credit the other researcher and do my own transcription? I must admit that no one has ever told me that I could use something that he or she provided only if I gave him or her credit. [Again, I do that anyway.] I fully understand how Bruce feels about other people using his work with attribution. As others have said, that is a problem of courtesy and ethics, not copyright. However, when I send someone a text report on a genealogical line, I always include this request on the title page of the report: "Although facts cannot be copyrighted, I would appreciate credit for my research if you share it with others." I don't know whether it does any good, but it makes me feel better, LOL! Sara Binkley Tarpley

At 11:21 AM 1/15/2006, you wrote: >Aside from copyright (the legal issue) there is also the issue of >scholarship. In the case or your transcriptions...if others plan >on lifting it -- >copying and pasting your work -- into another document they should be >giving you >credit for having done the work of the transcription. However, >plagiarism is >an issue of ethics, not a legal issue. To add just a bit to Joan's answer, plagiarism *is* a legal issue, but like copyright infringement, plagiarism involves claiming the ideas or words of another as your own. Straightforward transcriptions are simply "copies". The transcriber can not copyright a copy of someone else's work, and it is not illegal or unethical for someone else to copy your copy of public domain material. However, a serious researcher will always acknowledge the original transcriber. First, it is courteous to acknowledge the time, money, and/or effort expended. But for purposes of scholarship, a competent researcher recognizes that most transcriptions contain errors. Old handwriting may be difficult to read. Newspaper type setting may result in a lower case RN (rn) looking like M (m). Typos are more frequent than we would like to admint. [ed. note: I didn't mistype "admit" on purpose, but since I did, I left it as a perfect example of how errors can creep in <g>). Sometimes, our brains or fingers simply short-circuit and type 1981 instead of 1781. Assert your copyright for the photographs you took, but I'm afraid expecting credit for the rest will be largely wishful thinking. Pat

thankyou so very much for the prompt and professional reply! This helps immensely and you have provided some excellent information for me to digest. In fact, I am going to print it out and go sit down and read it again.

In a message dated 1/15/2006 9:13:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bcinders686@aol.com writes: This is a sort of 3-fold (photos, obituaries, biographies) inquiry, I guess, being I don't know who else to ask and am older enough as not familiar with some areas of genealogy <snip> Bruce- Biographies and obits and other genealogical info which is in the public domain, and that you transcribed can't be copyrighted by you or anyone -- anyone can use them. If you added anything that was original or creative in the formatting then possibly you could claim copyright to the format--but merely posting these items over time doesn't normally meet any test of originality. If the bios and obits are copyrighted (and some are--depending on various factors such as when and where they were first published, etc.) then didn't have the right to recopy them either and the original copyright holder would need to complain if they have any issues with the usage of their original text. Now, as to the photos you took yourself---they are copyrighted to you and as long as you can prove you took them others would be violating your copyright if they used your photos and republished them in the manner you indicate they plan on doing. Unless, of course, you give them permission to use the photos...and assuming that the photos are not old enough to be in the public domain. See: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Aside from copyright (the legal issue) there is also the issue of scholarship. In the case or your transcriptions...if others plan on lifting it -- copying and pasting your work -- into another document they should be giving you credit for having done the work of the transcription. However, plagiarism is an issue of ethics, not a legal issue. Hope this helps. Joan

This is a sort of 3-fold (photos, obituaries, biographies) inquiry, I guess, being I don't know who else to ask and am older enough as not familiar with some areas of genealogy. I belong to several groups other than the Rootsweb that are those single-surname groups of Yahoo and MSN,etc. will host. For many years and years I have worked hard and incurred a lot of expense to travel and post up to them, with (for starters) literally hundreds of photographs of individuals, their tombstones and even their old homesteads into their archives and files. Without exception, on every group, I have exceeded the total all the others combined (many offering none, some only one, or as many as 3 or 4), while I continue to post 10 and 20 at a time, compiling and traveling across the country. I'm certainly not tooting my own horn, and I'm not good at legalese or how to express things without stepping on toes, but it has been a lot of expense and time, as very few can understand, imagine or relate. I am not real verbal but I am better at digging and delving, going to courthouses and doing more offline, so I just don't have internet savvy. Since I send it in and know how to put it into the correct files, all that I have posted at least has my name attached as the submitter. To give examples, with the vast array of my own diligent efforts, I even take months or years to get their obituaries from newspapers(writing away, travel), and then take time to transcribe and type out to correspond to their death (dozens of times, over 50-60, I have even gotten their death certificate - but thankfully, as I deemed inappropriately, never contributed those or did anything with them other than save in a folder and use for reference). Many times a local library will have a biography, so I copy those and type them out, then post also, with the correct source of where I got it from. Now some computer-geeks as they call themselves, (I've observed many are the younger zealous ones who make up their charts in a month to broadcast getting it all "done" from other online sources) are pronouncing to the others in the group chat-communications how they downloaded all the photos and are going to make them into a book (interestingly, they have never contributed even one)that they can publish. Others say great idea and they will take all the other files and then make their own book to put out there of another kind, since there is so much great stuff there all sitting in these files. Somebody else jumps in and says don't worry they already took all the stuff and keep master copies of the stuff nobody else could ever find, because "of the wealth of unearthed information" (mostly mine). I'm not the showy or aggressive type, and I am stunned. My name never comes up, or acknowledged in any of this. Perhaps somebody may appreciate how I feel just sitting here; but I haven't said anything because (1) I really don't know if it all belongs to them, or anybody else who wants to grab, distribute and even publish it? (2) sure, I want to share and the whole object of sharing is not really to get credit - but then why should others be permitted to snag my work and get their name attached, their own credit applied for only thing they did was the effort of downloading and taking my years of hard work and lots of money? I don't want to be scrooge, for I am a kind and giving person, but have I a right to say anything? or what should / could I say that is correct? Or did I relinquish any of my own say or rights when I posted into their groups? Are the hundreds of personally-taken photos (mostly tombstones, houses, streets and places that have the isolated and obscure-single-surname across the country) different from the obituaries I searched out, went to locations of newspapers, copied and then tediously typed out? What about the biographies, since they were public and after all, others could have gotten them from libraries and books if they had done the same years of effort of digging and typing? Can people download other people's stuff without asking, with attribution? Please don't think I do not want to 'share', or else I would not be doing this. But!! Is sharing with Rootsweb different from any of the private groups such as Yahoo? Who owns this material, anyway, without sounding selfish. Maybe before they get started on their own books, I should just get busy and post everything of mine into some archive (or places?) outside of the private groups (where?), somehow attach my name and feel better that it is all out there for the masses, and that I got some sort of credit or recognition? Or am I being too sensitive or petty? Bruce D.

Thank you Cliff, I have now written to the host as the information still remains on their site. All the best, Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Lamere" <clifflamere@nycap.rr.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Website > Jan, > > A person can have their own domain, or they can post their webpages on a > website hosted by another person or company. If the posting person > violates the written agreement with the host, complaints can be made to > the host. > > http://www.blogspirit.com/en/index.php >

Hello Guy, Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, the information is still there as of now. The whole section "Hospitals, past and present" including text regarding Asylums, Almshouses and Hospitals is copied. I have now written to the web blog host, and await a reply. Thanks again, Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <guy.etchells@virgin.net> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Website >From what has been said the offender has removed the content from the blog site, that should be the end of the matter.

From what has been said the offender has removed the content from the blog site, that should be the end of the matter. He/she was in breach of BlogSpirits terms of use which state "5. upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, rights of privacy or publicity, or other proprietary rights of any party ;" It sounds as if it was simply a naive mistake, if it happens again complain to the hosting service Blogspirit. Cheers Guy Rossbret wrote: >Hello All, >I set up and run the UK Institutions website, and have put in alot of hard work in updating and improving the information available. >I have a copyright disclaimer on each page of the site: >www.institutions.org.uk > >A certain website has copied copious amounts of information from my site and pasted it on to their web blog as if their own: >http://lancasterthecity.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/week46/index.html > >I have written a comment on their form stating that what they have done is plagiarism and violates copyright ..... but the answer is that "it was a bit of fun" > >Is there anything I can do about this please? > >With thanks, Jan > > >==== 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 > > > > > -- Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! http://anguline.co.uk/ An organisation dedicated to bring rare books on CD, at an affordable price, to the local history researcher and to the family history researcher.

Hello All, I set up and run the UK Institutions website, and have put in alot of hard work in updating and improving the information available. I have a copyright disclaimer on each page of the site: www.institutions.org.uk A certain website has copied copious amounts of information from my site and pasted it on to their web blog as if their own: http://lancasterthecity.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/week46/index.html I have written a comment on their form stating that what they have done is plagiarism and violates copyright ..... but the answer is that "it was a bit of fun" Is there anything I can do about this please? With thanks, Jan