The records that are in question are dated 1709, nearing 300 years. Perhaps these laws would not apply to them. Carol <[email protected]> <[email protected]> - -------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEPAGE http://www.boxes-in-the-attic.com -----Original Message----- From: matt emerson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:21 PM Subject: Copyright Confusion - >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. >