On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, Bennie White <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "tran•scribe v. tr. tran•scribed tran•scrib•ing tran•scribes 1. To make a full written or typewritten copy of (dictated material, for example)." Note the operative word here is "copy". Remember, copyright law predates computers, microfilm, or even photographs. It comes from a time when the only way to copy text was by handwriting or setting type in a printing press. In both cases these are transcriptions, by hand. Copies. The medium and method are not relevant, only the format is, and then only if creative. > > 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. Sorry, I was jumping the gun a bit because it's where the argument often ends up in this case. I was talking about the idea that just because someone does some work ("sweat of the brow") they can claim copyright, which I agree wasn't directly relevant. (Let me reiterate that I personally feel it is important to acknowledge such efforts, using kudos instead of dollars in encouraging them.) S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]