"This is a moral issue...I'm a lawyer...<g>...I think what you're saying has some truth in it...but when GPC puts a copyright on material that is not copyrightable...that is not right either...and they've published a book done by someone else...and he's probably dead....that isn't right either...sorry, a lot of publishers are in it for the money...those of us searching are doing it out of shear love and being taken advantage of in most cases by genealogy publishers...." 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. Your speculation that GPC does not hold a valid copyright is only speculation and conjecture. GPC may very well have contacted the appropriate English government agency and the author/heirs and assigns, and made the proper arrangements. Would you go to court and make accusations based on mere suspicion? Those of us who are "searching out of shear (sic) love" need to find our own sources of records and develop our own databases, and honor the intellectual property rights of those who have researched and published. Genealogy publishers and authors aren't "taking advantage of us" - they are making records accessible. If you don't want to use their products and pay the price, then go and consult the original records for yourself. Charlotte, I think you are giving extremely bad advice and I hope Carol does not act on it. Kathleen.