-----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