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

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