>A compilation of facts is copyrightable. If people want to >publish these same facts it is incumbent on them to go to the >original records and make their own compilation and do their >own work. In the US, it would then be legal for them to publish >their work. But they had better be able to prove they did not >copy someone else's pre-existing work. Again not completely correct. The facts in a compilation may be presented without going to the original records so long as the only copyrightable elements of the copyrighted compilation (selection, layout, and any original authorship) are not infringed. To support this, I'm providing the following previously developed information: A common perception of the law of copyright is that it serves to protect the labors of the the author, especially in the area of factual compilations. Some court decisions, in fact, misapplied the copyright act of 1909, developing a new judicial theory to justify protection of factual compilations. This theory, known as �sweat of the brow� or �industrious collection,� in effect said that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts. The �sweat of the brow� doctrine was seriously flawed in many ways. The most obvious was the extension of copyright beyond selection and arrangement, which is the compiler�s original contribution, to the facts, themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement is totally independent creation where the the facts in any copyrighted work could not be used by others unless independently discovered or collected. � �Sweat of the brow� courts handed out proprietary interests in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by relying upon the facts contained in prior works. �In enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress dropped the reference to �all the writings of an author� and replaced it with the phrase �original works of authorship.��1 This made the originality requirement explicit, which Congress announced as �merely clarifying existing law.� The 1976 Act further identifies those specific elelments of a work not eligible for copyright protection: �In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.�1 This is �universally� understood to also prohibit any copyright in facts. This identification of specific elements not eligible for copyright protection was declared by Congress to be a clarification of prior law. �Just as the copyright law does not protect �industrious collection,� it affords no shelter to the resourceful, efficient, or creative collector.... The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts.� http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright8.htm According to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor1, �The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but �[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.�� Authors are assured, by copyright, to the right to use and copy their original expression. However, Copyright is also intended to encourage others to build freely upon the ideas and information found in other works. In most fields of research, whether it be academic, commercial, or hobby, the growth of knowledge is very dependant upon the efforts of other researchers. This very much includes genealogy. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright3.htm What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright? The law identifies three distinct elements, all of which must be met for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: 1.the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; 2.the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and 3.the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. Collection and assembling facts and information isn�t enough. Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted if the originality requirement, �an original work of authorship,� is met. �The point was emphasized with regard to compilations to ensure that courts would not repeat the mistake of the �sweat of the brow� courts by concluding that fact-based works are treated differently and measured by some other standard.�1 The Congressional goal was to � �make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.��1 The Supreme Court, in reviewing the law, has concluded �that the statute envisions that there will be some fact-based works in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection�1 in any way at all. The originality requirement is not very stringent. In fact, the selection or arrangement methods that others have used may unknowingly be used; �novelty is not required.� For the originality requirment, the author needs only to make the arrangement or selection independantly, without copying the selection or arrangement from another work, and it must display some minimal level of creativity. While most factual compilations will pass this test, there will be a small number of works �in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistant.�1 Originality may occur in the selection of the material to be included in a compilation. If it is truely original, the selection may be a part of the protected portion of a compilation. On the other hand, if the selection of the material is made through the use of formulas, procedures, or other non-original techniques, protection of the selection is not likely. Such acts of selection �are not acts of authorship, but techniques for the discovery of facts.�2 A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the �author�s original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed.�1 �One of the most important points here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright... has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material.�1 Note: The copyright law �states that the term �compilation� includes collective works.�3 http://www.rootsweb.com/~mikegoad/copyright12.htm (Factual material and U.S. Government developed information on this post is not copyrightable. The selection, layout and all original material is copyright 1999 Michael Goad) Mike