Clif, I am just including what we have discussed on county board in Illinois and this might be of use to you regarding this question also. Remember I am neither supporting or against anything here just submitting information to the list so that people may make an educated decision regarding topic at hand. Carrol ***************************** An article about copyright laws, published in that same lovely magazine a few months back (Family Tree Magazine). It came as a bit of a surprise to me, thinking anything within 75 years was covered. Not so. ---------------- Works published before Jan. 1, 1923 are in the public domain - anyone can use, adapt or copy a published work freely. Works published between 1923 and 1963 were protected for 28 years - but the copyright could be renewed for 47 years, then extended for another 20. If the copyright wasn't renewed, the work is in the public domain. [The article notes that] about 85 percent of works published during this period aren't protected anymore. If a work was published between 1964 and 1977, the copyright lasts a total of 95 years. Any published or unpublished work created on or after Jan. 1, 1978 is protected for the life of the creator plus 70 years. A work created before Jan. 1, 1978 and published between that date and Dec. 31, 2002 is protected for the life of the creator plus 70 years or until Dec. 31, 2047, whichever is greater. It's easiest to assume that anything published within the past 75 years is protected. [End of article] --------- Easiest to assume, yes, but 85% is a pretty large amount to just say, "oh well.... it's protected" about. No, there isn't any way to check if it's been renewed. **(this is regarding Illinois material that we volunteers have transcribed)** The fact of the matter is that many of the types of books and newspapers we transcribe from are no longer protected. For history books published after 1928 for example - odds are that no one renewed the copyright past its original 28 years, and they often don't have an individual author - only a publishing company, many out of business now anyway. Also, any government-issued or government-sponsered work is free to use no matter when it was published - which is the case of the Illinois State Historical Society Journals I transcribed recently. They state right on the front page that they're printed by the authority of the State of Illinois. Those are mine and my ancestors' tax dollars being used to publish those puppies, so I'll be transcribing more of those when I get the time. And there's exceptions to the law that lets you directly copy small portions of a copyrighted material, as long as you cite your source when using items. If the individual who originally wrote it complains, take it down. So what to do? If it's from the 1930's-40's go ahead and use it. Odds are the copyright expired and was not renewed. If the individual who originally wrote it complains, take it down. From the 1950's and 60's, you probably shouldn't use it, (unless it's government-sponsored or published) Hope this helps .... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clif Hinds" <hindsclif@yahoo.com> To: <OHGALLIA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: [OHGALLIA-L] Copyright Law > > The list has received several messages that begins as follows: > > > > These pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or > > presentation by any other persons or organizations. > > They are for individual research ONLY. > > They will remain the property of the OHGALLIA list serve and may > > NOT be FORWARDED on to any second party or group. Persons > > or organizations desiring to forward or use this material must obtain > > written consent from me or my legal representative and contact the > > archivist of the OHGALLIA list serve with proof of consent. > > I have given permission for these files to be stored permanently > > for free access in the archives of the OHGALLIA list serve. > > > > [This article was transcribed without making changes to spelling > > or grammar.] > > > > Athens Messenger > > January 19, 1888 > > > > I have been reviewing Copyright Law and I am not sure how it applies to this statement and the material presented, specifically how it belongs to this list and this list alone. Mind you, I have not seen anything that I wanted to use, but I am curious about the application of law here. > > As I see it, this material is a derived work originally belonging to the Athens Messenger. It is obvious how they would have legal right to the material. Paragraph 103 (b) of current copyright law states "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." > > > > Basically, I am curious about these entries that have been extracted from the Athens Messenger. How does the copyright lay with the OHGALLIA list and not with the Athens Messenger? > > > > Please understand, I am interested in your application of law and not the material. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Clif Hinds > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > > ==== OHGALLIA Mailing List ==== > Check the address you are replying to before sending your message. > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 3/7/05 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 3/7/05

Thanks for your response. It was very useful. As I stated, I do not have any burning desire to use any of those articles, even if they are "public domain." I just couldn't piece together the part that dealt with being the property of a particular list. On the other hand, I strongly support the courtesy involved in giving credit for someone's work. I also support the idea of paying a researcher for their time and honoring their work. I personally think that was the point here. Give credit where it is due and I believe that it was due in this case. Thanks again for the response. Clif Hinds __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com