I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications of my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to the highest court. I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! Bennie ---------------------------------------------------- Bennie White [email protected] Homepage: http://www.netpathway.com/~bennie/index.html ClarkeCoMS: http://www.egroups.com/group/ClarkeCoMS Thatcher family wrote: > > > I retrieved a segment of the 1880 Federal Census > > from a microfilm at a historical library and > > copied the section relating to an entire city. Is > > there a problem if I were to type that Census > > record into a database, using the same format as > > the original Census and post it to the internet or > > publish that data under my own copyright? > > > > Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be copyrighted, there's no problem. > > Census data fails at least three tests of copyright: it is too old, it is > public information that anyone can look up, and it is a Federal government > document and thus "property of the people." > > If you republish the information (in whatever format), you may be entitled > to copyright protection, but only towards whatever parts of the publication > contain your original, creative expression. > > Copyright protects the original creative expression of authors; it does not > protect the labor of the author or researcher. > > -- > Tom Thatcher > [email protected] > <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher/> > <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th> >

At 08:33 AM 11/21/00 -0600, Bennie White wrote: >I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative >expression......does not >protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I >not being >creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! Hi all, The following information on compilations is from my copyright website at http://www.cswnet.com/~sbooks/genealogy/copyright/copyright.htm Mike 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." (Feist) The Congressional goal was to " 'make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.'" (Feist) 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" (Feist) 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 independently, 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." (Feist) 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." (bellsouth) A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the "author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed." (Feist ) "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."

on 11/21/00 9:33 AM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > I have to speak my piece here! I have personally spent literally years > compiling census data from microfilm and compiling into my format (basically > the same structure as the original document, with some minor modifications of > my own). While I totally agree that the data itself is public domain and > cannot be copyrighted, my format most certainly is. Why to you see copyright > notices posted on most every census compilation published (including my own)? Wishful thinking? :) The only thing that would be protected might possibly be the "minor modifications" of your own, assuming they are sufficiently creative and really your own. (If the modifications were inspired by or copied from someone else, your out of luck.) > Now if someone takes my work, sets down, hand copies the data, and puts it > into a similar format, while not morally or ethically the thing to do, it > would probably be OK; however, it someone reproduces a copy mechanically of > each page, then puts into a book format with their name on it as the compiler, > then woe to them! If it's my work they have ripped off, I will take them to > the highest court. > I'm aware of the provision that "protects the creative expression......does > not protect the labor of the author....." but census data is handwritten; am I > not being creative by putting the data into printed form? Maybe not! > I don't think there is a difference between hand copying, mechanical copying, or digital copying. In terms of speed and accuracy, of course, but not legally. Take for example the USGenWeb Census archives...a literal transcription of the census page by page. The data is in the exact arrangement found on the canvas sheet. In my view, there is no real difference between that file and the microfilm page. Think of some of the different ways I could acquire your census data: I could go to the microfilm and transcribe it myself. I could make an electronic copy of your web page. I could print out your web page and give it to my secretary to type. Or I could read your web site out loud into a dictaphone, and have a stenographer transcribe the tape, a typist type it out from the steno pad, a clerk scan it using OCR software, and a web designer format it and post it on my web site. In each case the result is the same, and the final content of my site will not differ in any material way from either your site or the original census page. The method of copying has no relevance. (Note that I am a firm believer in proper standards of scholarship and crediting sources, but that's a different matter.) Disclaimer: I only know what I have read...I am not a lawyer. My opinion is based on a lay person's reading and understanding of the law, the supporting documents put out by the copyright office, and various commentaries I have read here and elsewhere.