Bill quoted someone as saying: >> In your situation the person agreed to remove the data because >> you held copyright to it--not because the poster wasn't a >> descendant of the >> line, right? And then added. > Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The information/ > data is not copyrightable. > Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable. There indeed are some misunderstandings. 1. I have previously stated TWICE that this was a narrative article I had written on one of my ancestors and as such was quite copyrightable. 2. The person didn't agree to do anything except acknowledge my copyright and add it to my story on his web site. 3. Genealogy.com agreed to remove the material after acknowledging my copyright. By this time, however, I had agreed to let the guy use the stor if he properly acknowledged it was mine. 4. The guy eventually realized he wasn't related to the man in my article so he was no longer interested in what I wrote and simply took the article off his site. 5. The man's relatinship or lack thereof to the ancestor I wrote about had absolutely nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with the copyright issue. Richard

I believe the point being made was in reference to using the term "data" in the original quote. its the use of the term "data" the contains the misunderstanding I referred to, not your how you described the problem. On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Richard A. Pence wrote: > Bill quoted someone as saying: > >>> In your situation the person agreed to remove the data because >>> you held copyright to it--not because the poster wasn't a >>> descendant of the >>> line, right? > > And then added. > >> Again, that misunderstands the nature of a copyright. The >> information/ >> data is not copyrightable. >> Its the original creative work, the narrative that's copyrightable. > > There indeed are some misunderstandings. > > 1. I have previously stated TWICE that this was a narrative article > I had > written on one of my ancestors and as such was quite copyrightable. > > 2. The person didn't agree to do anything except acknowledge my > copyright > and add it to my story on his web site. > > 3. Genealogy.com agreed to remove the material after acknowledging my > copyright. By this time, however, I had agreed to let the guy use > the stor > if he properly acknowledged it was mine. > > 4. The guy eventually realized he wasn't related to the man in my > article so > he was no longer interested in what I wrote and simply took the > article off > his site. > > 5. The man's relatinship or lack thereof to the ancestor I wrote > about had > absolutely nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with the copyright > issue. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

"Bill" <wmwillis@earthlink.net> >I believe the point being made was in reference to using the term > "data" in the original quote. > its the use of the term "data" the contains the misunderstanding I > referred to, not your how you described the problem. Bill, I just went back over my original message. I know I don't see well anymore,but I couldn't remember using the term "data" at any time in what I wrote on this topic and I couldn't find it anywhere in my messages. Where it came from I don't know. Richard