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

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