"Bill" <wmwillis@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ultimately, what most people need to be using > (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. Just as a research update, Bill: The people who set the standards for genealogical reserch have decided that records are no longer to be called "primary" and "secondary." The are now "original: or "deivative." The information in an original record can be either primary or secondary. (I think I have that right! <g> . its when they simply > take information from someone's web page (particularly without citing > it---and especially if they take the information verbatim) that > fosters accusations of stealing, and copyright infringement. For the > most part, in theory, copyright should never be an issue in genealogy -- > because the majority of the information needed originates Bill: Copyright is often an issue. I have much narrative material at my web site and it is marked as copyrighted material. One time a fellow copped a whole bunch of it, put it up on his web site and then he really made me made by claiming that HIS ancestor was a descendant of this particular ancestor of mine - which he was not. He had a site at either Genealogy.com and I wrote and compained to it that a person had posted my copyrighted material at a web site maintained by Genealogy.com. They at frst that they were not responsible for what their users posted. I persisted and finall they agreed to remove the material, especially after I was albe to firmly establish that I indeed was the author of the material. By this time I had been in touch with the person who posted the material and he agreed that he indeed was not a descendant and said he would post my copyright and "used by permission" on his stie. But since it was no longer his ancestor, he pulled it himself. I also have many copyrighted "how-to" articles at my web site and policing them is more than a little problem, but every once in a while I read something that sounds suspicously familiar and I have to check and then ride herd. It's really not that I expect to make anything from all of these articles - I donated most of them to some genalogy publication or another to start with - but I demand that credit is given where credit is due. Richard

Richard >> Ultimately, what most people need to be using >> (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. > > Just as a research update, Bill: The people who set the standards for > genealogical reserch have decided that records are no longer to be > called > "primary" and "secondary." last time I looked at the BCG standards they were still using primary and secondary. I'll recheck "Original" and "derivitative" seem perfectly reasonable, and would have the advantage of being somewhat more intuitive. However, the research world in general (beyond genealogy) has used the terms "primary" and "secondary" in this way for much longer than you or I have been around. And I can certainly see how using the term "original" to describe a primary source, would be misunderstood by many genealogists. > The are now "original: or "deivative." The > information in an original record can be either primary or > secondary. (I > think I have that right! <g> I believe information is never copyrightable. There's good case law on that point. What's copyrightable is the original presentation. You can't copyright a DOB or a POB but you can copyright an original discussion of when someone was born and where they were born. The distinction is significant. > . its when they simply >> take information from someone's web page (particularly without citing >> it---and especially if they take the information verbatim) that >> fosters accusations of stealing, and copyright infringement. For the >> most part, in theory, copyright should never be an issue in >> genealogy -- >> because the majority of the information needed originates > > Bill: > > Copyright is often an issue. Yes, it is an issue, but it shouldn't be, at least as far as the information is concerned. > I have much narrative material at my web site > and it is marked as copyrighted material. One time a fellow copped > a whole > bunch of it, put it up on his web site and then they took your material whole cloth (say a long bit of narrative) and placed it on their web site, and pretended it was their own research... That would be, I believe, a copyright violation. But the issue is not the information but the narrative presentation. Its the narrative presentation that's copyrightable. They can use the information contained in your work with impunity--- they just can't use your words. However, I think you mis-stated what made you mad. You wrote > he really made me made (sic) by > claiming that HIS ancestor was a descendant of this particular > ancestor of > mine - which he was not. The fact that they misunderstood the information, drawing a connection that wasn't sound (according to you) might have conceivably made you mad, but I don't know why. People screw up genealogies all the time. You have only go to Ancestry family tree for information about your favorite (well searched) ancestor, and you'll find dozen's of lineages that are totally inconsistent with each other: Different parents, different spouses, different DOB's....Some of those lineages are wrong. Can't say which ones, but some are wrong. If you're going to get mad because someone else has their lineage wrong, you are going to be in a perpetual state of mad. To be honest, I find that view a bit mad. pun intended. > I also have many copyrighted "how-to" articles at my web site and > policing > them is more than a little problem, but every once in a while I read > something that sounds suspicously familiar and I have to check and > then ride > herd. It's really not that I expect to make anything from all of these > articles - I donated most of them to some genalogy publication or > another to > start with - but I demand that credit is given where credit is due. You realize that EVERYTHING that is posted on the net is copyrighted, unless the copyright is explicitly given up? Even on a Wiki there's a copyright---its just that the right to use the information is given to anyone who wants it under conditions of whatever "leftright" that governs the wiki. Yes, narrative is protected by copyright. Its certainly reasonable to by concerned with people infringing on a copyrighted work. The point was that the information contained in a copyrighted article is not itself copyrighted. As far as doing genealogy itself is concerned, copyright SHOULD not be an issue. It does come into play when people use large portions of narrative without permission. With or without permission, the material should be referenced as to the source anyway, but that's an issue of plagerism, not copyright. --- of course, they could be (and often are) violating copyright law at the same time they are plagerizing. The reason it SHOULD not be an issue is because what people SHOULD be doing is citing the original primary sources. And those sources are probably public sources and/or long out of copyrighted. The copyright issue comes into play when doing genealogy when people quote those long narrative passages from someone else's interpretion of their family history. But the real problem here is not "stealing someone else's stuff", but in not going back to the primary sources in the first place. Bill

> last time I looked at the BCG standards they were still using primary > and secondary. I'll recheck I just did. And it must have been a while since you checked! I've been reading about "original" and "derivative" sources for what must be a couple of years. The judges will surely dump applicants who seek certification and talk about "primary" and "secondary" sources <g>. Richard

Fortunately, I've no desire to see professional certification. The fact remains, however, that irrespective of what a professional genealogical society has to say on the subject the terms primary and secondary are, I'm sure, firmly entrenched in the rest of the world concerned with data. But we'll look into it. And I thank you for the feedback. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Richard A. Pence wrote: >> last time I looked at the BCG standards they were still using primary >> and secondary. I'll recheck > > I just did. And it must have been a while since you checked! I've > been > reading about "original" and "derivative" sources for what must be > a couple > of years. > > The judges will surely dump applicants who seek certification and > talk about > "primary" and "secondary" sources <g>. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message