Jim, since I have earned an excellent living throuh the practice of law for many years, I was giving you some free legal advice in my first post. If you chose to ignore it that is entirely up to you. I have read other of your posts and realize you are a man with many opinions. I always try to make utterances in a language understood by the person to whom I speak, thus my choice of words. All law, copyright or otherwise, should be taken very seriously. The laws were made for a reason. Laws are not made because legislators need something to do. Most printed and electronic materials contain the warning that we may NOT reproduce the work in any form without the explicit written permission of the author. Choosing to ignore this warning is asking for trouble. And a good attorney could go to the archives of this list and use your posts as evidence and his/her case against you would be won. I retire once again now to the recesses of this list. Since I get paid handsomely for arguing, I do not do it pro-bono. Y2K to you, also. DC >From: Jim Hawes <JimHawes@ix.netcom.com> >Reply-To: KYJOHNSO-L@rootsweb.com >To: KYJOHNSO-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: Copyright "NOT" >Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:17:04 -0800 > >Douglas your thoughts are abstract at best and speak poorly of your ability >to understand and intrepid >the law. If you take exception to what I have written then I suggest you >take it up with the Superior >Court in the Fifth District. I further state rather that suggest that there >is case law to support what >I have written. There are always jack authors who would like to elevate >their line for line copying of >public documents as protected material. If you care to continue this >exchange for the sake of argument >rather than enlightenment, I am not interested. To frequently persons will >attempt to invoke an >emotional response with catch words or phrases i.e. "desperately" or "find >yourself in a mess" or an >accusatory "you cannot". Nothing you wrote suggested any first hand >knowledge of copyright law or how >case law has further defined copyright laws. Most honest genealogical >publications contain the >following statement or something very similar: Kentucky Bluegrass Roots, >aka' Kentucky Genealogical >Society; "The purpose of Bluegrass ROOTS is to provide help for all >genealogists, Therefore, other >not-for-profit organizations with the same purpose are hereby authorized to >reprint any material >published in Bluegrass ROOTS, If appropriate, credit will be appreciated, >but it is not required." This >statement is more common than not and I challenge you to produce one >instance where a suit has been >filed against any person sharing genealogical related information from a >printed or electronic >publication. > >Happy New Year, >Jim Hawes > >Douglas Cartier wrote: > > > Jim you desperately need to consult with a copyright attorney before you >get > > yourself into a mess. You cannot interpret the laws to suit yourself. >They > > say what they say. Material from public records that are a part of a > > genealogical work are indeed part of the copyright. And if you think >that > > any coyrighted material published in a publication then becomes the >property > > of the purchasers of the publication, you are way off. Way, way off. >If > > this were the case, there would be no need for copyrights to start with. > > Some people are a law unto themselves; I certainly hope that everyone on > > this list will be careful rather than sorry. > > DC > > > > >From: Jim Hawes <JimHawes@ix.netcom.com> > > >Reply-To: KYJOHNSO-L@rootsweb.com > > >To: KYJOHNSO-L@rootsweb.com > > >Subject: Copyright "NOT" > > >Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:32:27 -0800 > > > > > > > > >There is some question as to rather an electronic reproduction and > > >written/printed document are the same. > > > > > >There is no law wherein you cannot share with others of common interest > > >material wherein: a: The amount of material shared does not degrade the > > >marketability of the copyrighted text in its entirety. b: The material > > >is not generally available to the public. c: The material shared is not > > >for profit. d: A copyright is for original material and not that which > > >is copied from public records! > > > > > >(Conclusion) > > >This has been challenged many times in the courts where the court has > > >found that a book/text can be broken down into sections. The original > > >conclusions or comments of the author are protected by copyright but >not > > >the public records contained within the same book/text. These remain > > >public documents and can be shared, posted reprinted to your hearts > > >content. A good example is the New England Dictionary published in > > >1829. A person whom I will not name found the book, typed the > > >information for electronic publication and called it copyrighted! This > > >is just not how the copyright laws work nor is it how they were >intended > > >to work. A genealogical study is a research project not an attempt to > > >plagiarize original works. When information is taken from more than >two > > >sources, IT'S RESEARCH. Articles written and published monthly, > > >quarterly etc. in genealogical publications is copyrighted. You may > > >extract portions, insert your own comment and it is not copyrighted. > > >Again, an article that quotes original material is only protected for > > >that portion of original content. The preoccupation with copyright law > > >by persons who operate these mail list's is totally beyond me. I > > >question rather any genealogical publication produced for the > > >distribution of it's members is copyrighted at all! I arrive at this > > >for the following reason. Members pay a monthly or annual membership > > >fee. The material is produced for its members as a result of their > > >membership. This means that any member can then copy and freely > > >distribute information generated as a result of their membership. It > > >short, the material belongs as much to any member as the group as a > > >whole. If a member sells an original publication, then he has sold the > > >rights to this material to the person that takes possession. > > > > > >Regards, > > >Jim Hawes > > > > > > > > > > > >==== KYJOHNSO Mailing List ==== > > >Comments or suggestions pertaining to this list may be sent to the > > >listowner, Ann Lemaster-Applegate > > >annapplegate@maysvilleky.net > > >Visit the Johnson County Historical Society homepage: > > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyjchs/johnson.html > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > ==== KYJOHNSO Mailing List ==== > > Comments or suggestions pertaining to this list may be sent to the >listowner, Ann Lemaster-Applegate > > annapplegate@maysvilleky.net > > Visit the Johnson County Historical Society homepage: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyjchs/johnson.html > > Visit the Johnson County Historical Society homepage: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyjchs/johnson.html > > >==== KYJOHNSO Mailing List ==== >Comments or suggestions pertaining to this list may be sent to: >annapplegate@maysvilleky.net >Visit the Johnson County Historical Society homepage: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyjchs/johnson.html > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com