Good point on the English records and way out of my area...but it seems to me then that GPC would be in violation of English Copyright...unless they had some type of consent...or the original author had some type of consent... Plagiarism - I'm not sure of the definition on this...but this seems to be more of taking someone else's idea and copying it...in the US public documents or copying from them would not be plagiarism because it's not someone's idea...just government records...facts if you will.... Charlotte >From: matt emerson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Copyright Confusion - >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:16:36 -0600 > >The English gov't has changed their copyright rules effective March 26, >1999 >for their government records. These are not in the public domain in the >same >way that U. S. government records are and have been under government >copyright for 100 to 200 years. The English gov't is not releasing most of >these >records but there are some exceptions. Records that have already been >*published* are not being released from copyright. It looks to me like >this would >apply to the material Carol would like to put on the WWW. My guess is >that >McWethey made proper arrangements with the PRO in 1933 to get his >copyright...and Genealogical Publishing has been in business a long time. >I would also guess that they probably did whatever was needed to protect >their investment in this printed mater. > >A detailed explanation of the new guidelines is available at >http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/copyright/default.htm >and a long leaflet explaining copyright as it applied to >English Government Records is at >http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/copyright/copyright.pdf > >One person told me that because we live in the US, we are not bound by the >copyright >laws of other countries...this doesn't strike me as good advice and I >personally would >be very careful about violating these laws. It is very commendable to want >to help >other genealogists by putting material on the WWW but it is not worth >exposing yourself >and your family to a lawsuit. If I understand copyright laws correctly, >the loser in any >copyright lawsuit is required to pay all expenses including all attorney's >fees. Perhaps >Charlotte would comment on that, as she is an attorney. > >The LDS church has something like 10 million microfilms, which are >available for a >modest rental through their local FHC's. A huge number of these are >government >records which have not been indexed, transcribed, extracted, or published >and are >available for any volunteer who wishes to compile them and make them >available to the public. > >Aside from the practical issues and with apologies to Carol, because I see >her as a very >nice person who wishes to help with the genealogical volunteer movement, >isn't there >an issue of plagiarism here? > >Kathleen. > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com