In addition to those two rules of thumb (a) the copyright covers the way the obituary was written, but not facts themselves; and (b) material from 1963 and earlier had to have its copyright renewed to still be covered - only 15% of all copyrights from this time period were renewed - only 7% of books from this time period were. How likely is it that the owners of papers such as the McArthur Democrat-Enquirer renewed copyrights in the 1950s? (i.e., 1923 law allowed for renewal + initial 28 year copyright). Without even getting into the fair use limitation on copyrights, the difficulty proving actual damages, or the inapplicability of statutory damages when the item is not currently published; it does not seem too risky to share obituaries through 1963.

All good points, Brian. I should have been more clear that the rules of thumb were intended for all published materials, not just obituaries that people may post. The stellar-one site referred to yesterday is the best site I've seen to help genealogists make their way through this tricky subject. ( I should add that I'm not an attorney, this is not intended as legal advice, and your mileage may vary.... <g>) Amy Brian J. Smith wrote: > In addition to those two rules of thumb (a) the copyright covers the > way the obituary was written, but not facts themselves; and (b) > material from 1963 and earlier had to have its copyright renewed to > still be covered - only 15% of all copyrights from this time period > were renewed - only 7% of books from this time period were. > How likely is it that the owners of papers such as the McArthur > Democrat-Enquirer renewed copyrights in the 1950s? (i.e., 1923 law > allowed for renewal + initial 28 year copyright). Without even > getting into the fair use limitation on copyrights, the difficulty > proving actual damages, or the inapplicability of statutory damages > when the item is not currently published; it does not seem too risky > to share obituaries through 1963. > >