classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover their format is different and unique as well. David Peter Hirtle wrote: > > At 05:41 PM 11/21/00 -0700, W. David Samuelsen wrote: > >Having worked for AIS, the copyright applied to the entire books > >because of the format and markers used. This was upheld in 1993 as > >part of out of court settlement against the infringers. > > Can you provide a citation for this case? A relevant court decision would > seem to be the simplest way to settle the issue of whether census > transcriptions are a creative product, and hence copyrighted, or are > instead the product of hard work and deep skill, and hence not copyrighted. > > Peter Hirtle > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter B. Hirtle > Co-Director [email protected] > Cornell Institute for Digital Collections 607/255-4033 (ph) > 2B Kroch Library 607/255-9524 (fax) > Cornell University <http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/> > Ithaca, NY 14853 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/

"And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found elsewhere." The 1991 U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Feist vs. Rural says this: "Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, [499 U.S. 340, 346] assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable." So, with a compilation such as baptism or marriage records, the format choices are definitely limited. If a person went out of their way to develop some sort of difference, another person could imagine the same format. Then, identical formatting of identical records could apparently produce two valid copyrights. Did I err? Cliff "W. David Samuelsen" wrote: > classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers > are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original > censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out > of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the > party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. > > And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found > elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If > you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover > their format is different and unique as well. > > David >

David: If I can read between the lines in your message, there was no court decision in the case you mention; you imply that it was a settlement between the parties that is now sealed. Without a public record to judge, I don't think anyone can use it as precedent. I am particularly surprised that the use of markers was considered to be significant. In Feist, Rural Telephone had included four fictitious names and addresses in order to be able to determine if someone had copied their stuff. The court found that it didn't matter since there was no copyright violation (and the four fictitious addresses were not enough to make the whole text copyrighted). Anyone who reads Feist would have to conclude that much of what genealogists do is compile compilations of facts, and that the facts themselves do not warrant copyright protection. Genealogical work falls squarely into the realm of skilled effort which the Supreme Court found as valuable but not warranting copyright protection. We are comparable to cookbook authors. Recipes cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't prevent authors from compiling cookbooks - and it doesn't stop others from taking those recipes and using them in new cookbooks. The lack of protection for compilations of genealogical information is one reason why certain publishers are pushing for a new form of copyright protection for collections of facts. H.R.354, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, would allow people to extract facts from genealogical databases for non-profit religious purposes, but apparently extraction for non-profit, secular purposes would be forbidden. It might be a boon to the compilers of cemetery transcriptions and census indices, but I think it would be a disaster for genealogy in general. Peter Hirtle At 09:37 PM 11/22/00 -0700, W. David Samuelsen wrote: >classic copyright matter - in case you don't know what the markers >are. They're the altered entries different from what's in original >censuses, and since this case is under seal per settlement out >of court I can not disclose what they are since I am part of the >party winning the settlement and know exact what these markers are. > >And as for the format - they have to be in an arrangement not found >elsewhere. Only AIS used this particular format since 1970. If >you will look in Precision Indexing's (the rival) you will discover >their format is different and unique as well. > >David