Regarding the thread on scanning a Genealogical Publishing Company's 1976 reprint of an out-of-print, out-of-copyright book: Mike Goad has asked: What was the decision of the court on the lawsuit? Mike, I'm sorry that I cannot report with certainty how the situation came out. I believe that the date book company that was being sued settled out of court for a low six-figure amount, thus no court decision would have had to be made in this particular case. Be that as it may, my major point was that the publisher of the 1976 reprint might sue on a similar basis, if their product is the one proposed to be copied/scanned. I don't think most of the "scan, scan, scan" advocates consider this aspect. And it is not clear to me that the initiator of this thread was asking if it was okay to reproduce the GPC product. She might have been asking if the original text was somehow re-copyrighted under GPC, which I think you answered cogently; and that she intended to scan the original, not GPC's volumes. Given the experience I have noted regarding the diary houses, I think the wisest move would be to scan the original. [email protected] has asked: What if the reprint is a facismile copy of the original reprinted by GPC? Does that change anything? Logically, I would guess that to reproduce a reproduction this way might be acceptible, but one has to wonder what changes may have been created by GPC in order to reduce the volumes from four to two. I think this tells us that GPC did, in fact, invest time and effort in creating this product for today's market. I have no idea how the lawyers would argue their respective sides on this, nor how the courts would ultimately decide. I do believe, however, that if I were on the jury and images of GPC's product were reproduced on a webpage without their permission, I would conclude that GPC was being denied their right to earn a profit from their investment. Richard