Scott Anderson wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[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. > > If all you made are minor modifications to the table format, especially if they are "obvious" or a simple rearrangement, I sincerely doubt if it qualifies as copyrightable. Remember, as Tom Thatcher pointed out, the purpose of copyright is to protect creativity. I disagree on that point, I'm sorry. > > > Why to you see copyright notices posted on most every census compilation > > published (including my own)? > > FUD = Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Make them think it is copyrighted, even if it isn't. You have nothing to lose by doing so. Not true! It's put there to keep someone from reproducing it and selling it for profit. If the original compiler is selling these publications, it would affect his financial status. That's the only reason I ever show a copyright on my works. Making a copy of a page for personal research is OK, but not the whole book. > > > 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. > > And you would probably lose. It doesn't matter if it is hand copied or machine >copied. I seriously doubt I would lose if I pressed it. It matters a great deal! Hand copying is the author's work; machine copying is someone else's work. > > Now, if your table was full of notes such as corrections, alternate spellings, >references to other data, etc. a mechanical reproduction would be unlikely to separate >those out, and you would probably have a case. I have numerous annotations on my census transcriptions made from personal observations. In fact, for my 1840 census, I devised a completely different method of showing the various age groupings. I used letters of the alphabet. > > > 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! > > No, you are not. It is a (mostly) straightforward copy, and even if it involves some >judgement on your part (e.g. as to the spelling), you are still trying to make an >accurate reproduction. I believe I am and nothing will change that. I fail to see how one can say it's a reproduction--that's completely inaccurate. A reproduction is a copy of the actual census record--for example, making a copy of a census page from a microfilm reader/printer. But a transcription is not a reproduction. > > Think of it this way: compare how much work went into creating that table in the first place, and compare it to the work you put into copying it. Generally there is no comparison. Can't disagree with that, if you are referring to when the census taker originally wrote the data in. Can't see any relevance here though. > > Scott > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Check out the new communities at RootsWeb > http://www.communities.rootsweb.com/ > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

on 11/21/00 12:44 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > I seriously doubt I would lose if I pressed it. It matters a great deal! Hand > copying is the author's work; machine copying is someone else's work. There is a difference between work and creation. Between copying and origination. No matter how many times I hand-copy the Declaration of Independence, I will never gain a special right to it. And, I am sorry to say, not matter how long it takes you to copy a census, it still belongs to the people. One thing which hasn't been discussed is that copyright, as a form of ownership, is not only the right to receive credit (and compensation), it is the right to withhold publication if you desire. If you truly had a copyright over the census, you could prevent anyone else from using it except through your transcriptions. That, as we all will realize, is ridiculous. Without the right to withhold, copyright is meaningless.