> This is not fair to the compiler who spent so much time ("sweat of the > brow") and invested money in the project. In a word, too bad. > Is there any legal protection for these compilers? Some genealogy web sites have a licensing agreement; basically, a contract between the site and the user in which the site agrees to provide certain information and the user agrees not to reproduce the information. If the user violates the agreement, his subscription can be canceled. > I had read once or > twice that people could copy part of a book and republish it as long as the > author/compiler's sales were not impacted negatively. This is a common misconception. Copyright is the right to control how, when, and in what manner your creative product is copied, performed, or displayed (subject to the Fair Use exceptions, which do not, as I recall, take economic value into account). The economic loss to the author may determine the amount of court-awarded damages, but does not affect the author's rights. > BUT, the compiler could get a valid > copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an > introduction. The copyright would only apply to the introduction. -- Tom Thatcher [email protected] <http://members.rpa.net/~thatcher> <http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=thatcher-th>

At 10:18 PM 11/2/00 -0800, Tom Thatcher wrote: >> BUT, the compiler could get a valid >> copyright for a book that was a compilation by simply writing an >> introduction. > >The copyright would only apply to the introduction. I wonder if it also applies to a mistake intoduced by the compiler. It certainly helps the compiler to recognize his work when it's propagated without giving him credit. I've heard that mapmakers have been known to introduce fictitious features, deliberately, for that very purpose, but I don't know if that's fact or fiction. Glenn