This was sent to me by Adam Salisbury, a friend of mine who is also an attorney. He asked that I forward it to you... Hello List, I just wanted to spend a few moments and try to clear up this copyright question before it gets too out of hand. First, copyright law in the United States gives the author of a work certain protections for a limited time. In general, the "author" of a "work" is the only person or entity who can: 1.. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords 2.. prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work 3.. distribute copies or phonorecords 4.. to perform the copyrighted work publicly 5. to display the copyrighted work publicly 6. to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio Now then, it seems that some of you might be confusing the nature of the "work" that is at issue here. What we are discussing is the compilation of certain newspaper articles into a specific form, at a specific time and place. In general, copyright lasts only for a specified period of time. Newspaper articles from the 1800's are now beyond this statutory period, meaning that the author no longer has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, etc... BUT, when a genealogist prepares a book of data that is taken from another source the genealogist is creating a derivative work which gains its own copyright. Because of the work that the genealogist (or any other compiler) does, that NEW work gains its own copyright. In "legal-speak" the genealogist or compiler is now the holder of the copyright if her work amounts to a compilation: For purposes of copyright law a compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. Because Connie, and the other hardworking people at the historical society, is the author who decides which articles to publish, how the articles are arranged, and how their distribution is coordinated, her "work" with these articles constitutes a new copyright. Her authorship is the source of the copyright and she now holds all the rights associated with copyright law with one possible exception. Because these transcriptions come over the listserve, the right to distribute may be in doubt (as one previous email noted). But, you should all note, that these transcriptions may NOT be reproduced or copied without the consent of the author (in this case the transcriber) for publication or sale in any form. I don't see a problem distributing the transcriptions to others on a different listserve. BUT, any activity that results in a "commercial advantage" (i.e. for profit) is still the sole right of the author. One important exception to note to copyright law is the doctrine of "fair use". Fair use allows someone who is not the author to use a work in a limited way. One example of fair use is the use of a work for educational purposes. One may use a work protected by copyright for educational purposes (such as using part of a transcription in a personal family history for LIMITED publication and distribution , and giving credit to the transcriber) without infringing upon the rights of the copyright holder. In closing, I would caution all of you that copyright infringement is a very serious FEDERAL crime, punishable by incarceration and restoration of lost profits to the author. If you can't do the transcription yourself, please respect the work of others by asking their permission before you choose to plagiarize. Further questions on this topic are welcome, as I would hate to see those of you who contribute so much become discouraged because of certain worthless individuals. -Adam Salisbury- For answers to specific questions: To Debbie - No, MyFamily.com could not profit from anything you send over the listserve. You'll note that even on the most outrageous pay-to-view websites (like ancestry.com) the portions of the website like the user-submitted family trees and the message boards are usually free to browse by non-subscribers. One way ancestry has started to get around these pesky copyright laws is with their new "world-family tree" service. What it does is to make a new compilation (described above) out of the family trees that users submit. Then they charge you to view it. Very tricky. To Martin - You are right that the "list" does not own any of the material that we read on the listserve. The author of the messages has the copyright on the content of their messages IF that content is protectable. The law draws a distinction between the simple everyday communications that we submit to this public forum, and the material that a transcriber works to prepare and submits for us with the intention that we use it in a limited way only. So, yes, myfamily.com could distribute anything on the list to another part of their website (so long as they don't make a profit on it). To Clif - Just because a transcriber posts the information to the listserve, it does not mean he or she has relinquished any of their rights as the holder of the copyright. --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

Cheryl, Can you are Adam Salisbury comment on the copyright laws when it pertains to obituaries? I was under the assumption that if you abstract an obituary, it is not violating the copyright law? In Christ, Melissa Barker ----- Original Message ----- From: "cheryl enyart" <trayne1837inc@yahoo.com> To: <OHGALLIA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 4:36 PM Subject: [OHGALLIA-L] Copyright laws > This was sent to me by Adam Salisbury, a friend of mine who is also an > attorney. He asked that I forward it to you... > > > Hello List, > > I just wanted to spend a few moments and try to clear up this copyright > question before it gets too out of hand. > > First, copyright law in the United States gives the author of a work > certain > protections for a limited time. In general, the "author" of a "work" is > the > only person or entity who can: > > 1.. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords > > 2.. prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work > > 3.. distribute copies or phonorecords > > 4.. to perform the copyrighted work publicly > > 5. to display the copyrighted work publicly > > 6. to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio > > > > Now then, it seems that some of you might be confusing the nature of the > "work" that is at issue here. What we are discussing is the compilation > of > certain newspaper articles into a specific form, at a specific time and > place. In general, copyright lasts only for a specified period of time. > Newspaper articles from the 1800's are now beyond this statutory period, > meaning that the author no longer has the exclusive right to reproduce, > distribute, etc... > > BUT, when a genealogist prepares a book of data that is taken from another > source the genealogist is creating a derivative work which gains its own > copyright. Because of the work that the genealogist (or any other > compiler) > does, that NEW work gains its own copyright. In "legal-speak" the > genealogist or compiler is now the holder of the copyright if her work > amounts to a compilation: For purposes of copyright law a compilation is a > work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or > of > data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the > resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. > > Because Connie, and the other hardworking people at the historical > society, > is the author who decides which articles to publish, how the articles are > arranged, and how their distribution is coordinated, her "work" with these > articles constitutes a new copyright. Her authorship is the source of the > copyright and she now holds all the rights associated with copyright law > with one possible exception. Because these transcriptions come over the > listserve, the right to distribute may be in doubt (as one previous email > noted). But, you should all note, that these transcriptions may NOT be > reproduced or copied without the consent of the author (in this case the > transcriber) for publication or sale in any form. I don't see a problem > distributing the transcriptions to others on a different listserve. BUT, > any activity that results in a "commercial advantage" (i.e. for profit) is > still the sole right of the author. > > One important exception to note to copyright law is the doctrine of "fair > use". Fair use allows someone who is not the author to use a work in a > limited way. One example of fair use is the use of a work for educational > purposes. One may use a work protected by copyright for educational > purposes (such as using part of a transcription in a personal family > history > for LIMITED publication and distribution , and giving credit to the > transcriber) without infringing upon the rights of the copyright holder. > > In closing, I would caution all of you that copyright infringement is a > very > serious FEDERAL crime, punishable by incarceration and restoration of lost > profits to the author. If you can't do the transcription yourself, please > respect the work of others by asking their permission before you choose to > plagiarize. > > Further questions on this topic are welcome, as I would hate to see those > of > you who contribute so much become discouraged because of certain worthless > individuals. > > -Adam Salisbury- > > > > For answers to specific questions: > > To Debbie - > > No, MyFamily.com could not profit from anything you send over the > listserve. > You'll note that even on the most outrageous pay-to-view websites (like > ancestry.com) the portions of the website like the user-submitted family > trees and the message boards are usually free to browse by > non-subscribers. > One way ancestry has started to get around these pesky copyright laws is > with their new "world-family tree" service. What it does is to make a new > compilation (described above) out of the family trees that users submit. > Then they charge you to view it. Very tricky. > > > > To Martin - > > You are right that the "list" does not own any of the material that we > read > on the listserve. The author of the messages has the copyright on the > content of their messages IF that content is protectable. The law draws a > distinction between the simple everyday communications that we submit to > this public forum, and the material that a transcriber works to prepare > and > submits for us with the intention that we use it in a limited way only. > So, > yes, myfamily.com could distribute anything on the list to another part of > their website (so long as they don't make a profit on it). > > > > To Clif - > > Just because a transcriber posts the information to the listserve, it does > not mean he or she has relinquished any of their rights as the holder of > the > copyright. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > > ==== OHGALLIA Mailing List ==== > Please keep your topic related to genealogical research > in Gallia County, Ohio. > > >

It is nice to know about the Federal Laws and what it means for the authors of the books that they work so hard to publish. Marian ----- Original Message ----- From: "cheryl enyart" <trayne1837inc@yahoo.com> To: <OHGALLIA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:36 PM Subject: [OHGALLIA-L] Copyright laws > This was sent to me by Adam Salisbury, a friend of mine who is also an attorney. He asked that I forward it to you... > > > Hello List, > > I just wanted to spend a few moments and try to clear up this copyright > question before it gets too out of hand. > > First, copyright law in the United States gives the author of a work certain > protections for a limited time. In general, the "author" of a "work" is the > only person or entity who can: > > 1.. reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords > > 2.. prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work > > 3.. distribute copies or phonorecords > > 4.. to perform the copyrighted work publicly > > 5. to display the copyrighted work publicly > > 6. to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio > > > > Now then, it seems that some of you might be confusing the nature of the > "work" that is at issue here. What we are discussing is the compilation of > certain newspaper articles into a specific form, at a specific time and > place. In general, copyright lasts only for a specified period of time. > Newspaper articles from the 1800's are now beyond this statutory period, > meaning that the author no longer has the exclusive right to reproduce, > distribute, etc... > > BUT, when a genealogist prepares a book of data that is taken from another > source the genealogist is creating a derivative work which gains its own > copyright. Because of the work that the genealogist (or any other compiler) > does, that NEW work gains its own copyright. In "legal-speak" the > genealogist or compiler is now the holder of the copyright if her work > amounts to a compilation: For purposes of copyright law a compilation is a > work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of > data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the > resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. > > Because Connie, and the other hardworking people at the historical society, > is the author who decides which articles to publish, how the articles are > arranged, and how their distribution is coordinated, her "work" with these > articles constitutes a new copyright. Her authorship is the source of the > copyright and she now holds all the rights associated with copyright law > with one possible exception. Because these transcriptions come over the > listserve, the right to distribute may be in doubt (as one previous email > noted). But, you should all note, that these transcriptions may NOT be > reproduced or copied without the consent of the author (in this case the > transcriber) for publication or sale in any form. I don't see a problem > distributing the transcriptions to others on a different listserve. BUT, > any activity that results in a "commercial advantage" (i.e. for profit) is > still the sole right of the author. > > One important exception to note to copyright law is the doctrine of "fair > use". Fair use allows someone who is not the author to use a work in a > limited way. One example of fair use is the use of a work for educational > purposes. One may use a work protected by copyright for educational > purposes (such as using part of a transcription in a personal family history > for LIMITED publication and distribution , and giving credit to the > transcriber) without infringing upon the rights of the copyright holder. > > In closing, I would caution all of you that copyright infringement is a very > serious FEDERAL crime, punishable by incarceration and restoration of lost > profits to the author. If you can't do the transcription yourself, please > respect the work of others by asking their permission before you choose to > plagiarize. > > Further questions on this topic are welcome, as I would hate to see those of > you who contribute so much become discouraged because of certain worthless > individuals. > > -Adam Salisbury- > > > > For answers to specific questions: > > To Debbie - > > No, MyFamily.com could not profit from anything you send over the listserve. > You'll note that even on the most outrageous pay-to-view websites (like > ancestry.com) the portions of the website like the user-submitted family > trees and the message boards are usually free to browse by non-subscribers. > One way ancestry has started to get around these pesky copyright laws is > with their new "world-family tree" service. What it does is to make a new > compilation (described above) out of the family trees that users submit. > Then they charge you to view it. Very tricky. > > > > To Martin - > > You are right that the "list" does not own any of the material that we read > on the listserve. The author of the messages has the copyright on the > content of their messages IF that content is protectable. The law draws a > distinction between the simple everyday communications that we submit to > this public forum, and the material that a transcriber works to prepare and > submits for us with the intention that we use it in a limited way only. So, > yes, myfamily.com could distribute anything on the list to another part of > their website (so long as they don't make a profit on it). > > > > To Clif - > > Just because a transcriber posts the information to the listserve, it does > not mean he or she has relinquished any of their rights as the holder of the > copyright. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > > ==== OHGALLIA Mailing List ==== > Please keep your topic related to genealogical research > in Gallia County, Ohio. > >