In a message dated 1/15/2006 9:13:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bcinders686@aol.com writes: This is a sort of 3-fold (photos, obituaries, biographies) inquiry, I guess, being I don't know who else to ask and am older enough as not familiar with some areas of genealogy <snip> Bruce- Biographies and obits and other genealogical info which is in the public domain, and that you transcribed can't be copyrighted by you or anyone -- anyone can use them. If you added anything that was original or creative in the formatting then possibly you could claim copyright to the format--but merely posting these items over time doesn't normally meet any test of originality. If the bios and obits are copyrighted (and some are--depending on various factors such as when and where they were first published, etc.) then didn't have the right to recopy them either and the original copyright holder would need to complain if they have any issues with the usage of their original text. Now, as to the photos you took yourself---they are copyrighted to you and as long as you can prove you took them others would be violating your copyright if they used your photos and republished them in the manner you indicate they plan on doing. Unless, of course, you give them permission to use the photos...and assuming that the photos are not old enough to be in the public domain. See: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Aside from copyright (the legal issue) there is also the issue of scholarship. In the case or your transcriptions...if others plan on lifting it -- copying and pasting your work -- into another document they should be giving you credit for having done the work of the transcription. However, plagiarism is an issue of ethics, not a legal issue. Hope this helps. Joan

At 11:21 AM 1/15/2006, you wrote: >Aside from copyright (the legal issue) there is also the issue of >scholarship. In the case or your transcriptions...if others plan >on lifting it -- >copying and pasting your work -- into another document they should be >giving you >credit for having done the work of the transcription. However, >plagiarism is >an issue of ethics, not a legal issue. To add just a bit to Joan's answer, plagiarism *is* a legal issue, but like copyright infringement, plagiarism involves claiming the ideas or words of another as your own. Straightforward transcriptions are simply "copies". The transcriber can not copyright a copy of someone else's work, and it is not illegal or unethical for someone else to copy your copy of public domain material. However, a serious researcher will always acknowledge the original transcriber. First, it is courteous to acknowledge the time, money, and/or effort expended. But for purposes of scholarship, a competent researcher recognizes that most transcriptions contain errors. Old handwriting may be difficult to read. Newspaper type setting may result in a lower case RN (rn) looking like M (m). Typos are more frequent than we would like to admint. [ed. note: I didn't mistype "admit" on purpose, but since I did, I left it as a perfect example of how errors can creep in <g>). Sometimes, our brains or fingers simply short-circuit and type 1981 instead of 1781. Assert your copyright for the photographs you took, but I'm afraid expecting credit for the rest will be largely wishful thinking. Pat