Joyce Cooper wrote: > ...copyright issues. ...(I do not count myself an authority on this > matter, of course.) After 10 years at major publishers, with daily responsibility for the interpretation and application of the copyright law, I DO consider myself an expert, and have to correct some misstatements by Joyce. (This does not, however, constitute legal advice; for a specific issue you may have, please consult a copyright attorney). > ...I think most will > agree that people are entitled to fair use of information in their research, > which simply means (in my opinion) that we don't rewrite whole chapters or > books and attach our own names to it. This statement confuses fair use with plagiarism. "Fair use" is not a matter of group agreement; it is an integral part of the US copyright law. It is a defense to a copyright infringement claim, and allows someone to use some part of a copyrighted work without penalty. However, the conditions under which the copyrighted work can be used vary greatly, and must be decided -- in court -- on a case-by-case basis. Fair use is one of the most complicated and contentious areas of copyright law; there is no set number or percentage of words/pages that qualifies. "Plagiarism," on the other hand, is taking someone else's work (or ideas) and claiming them as your own (with or with rewriting). Plagiarism is an ethical / academic issue, not a legal one; copyright infringement is the legal equivalent. (But you can plagiarize someone by stealing their idea -- a new interpretation of historical events, perhaps -- without infringing their copyright (because copyright does not protect ideas). > > The CSGA says that "only the original work or presentation that is included > is protected by copyright law. The reality is that you can copy or print the > physical image of the original image and share it with others, but you > cannot copy and share the microfilm or digital image if it is protected by > law. " I'm not sure exactly what this is saying (what "original work or presentation" are they talking about?), but it's wrong, or at least gives the wrong impression. If the underlying work (say, a book) is protected by copyright, you cannot image it and print and distribute it, in whole or in part. This is reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted work, and is an infringement of copyright, unless it comes under the fair use exception. If the underlying work is in the public domain (never protected by copyright or the copyright has expired), and you are looking at a facsimile reproduction (e.g., a reprint, CD-ROM, or online version) and that facsimile carries a copyright notice, the copyright is only on the new material added (e.g., an introduction, foreword, or index) or for the digital enhancements made (e.g., to improve legibility) (and the digital enhancement claim to copyright might be shaky -- to my knowledge, it hasn't yet been tested in court). If you print whatever the copyright claim is based on (e.g., the foreword or the enhanced image), you may be infringing the copyright in that element. (The underlying public domain work, e.g., the un-enhanced image and the information in it, remains in the public domain). US copyright law is extremely complicated (not to mention the difficulties that arise is the underlying work is not a US work, and so involves foreign copyright law issues) and I strongly urge anyone who is not an expert to seek expert advice before making judgments about what is permissible and what is not. > "CD Roms and online services containing images of government records > fallinto this category. You can print the image and share at will, but you > are not entitled to share the digital image. You may scan or take a digital > picture of the government record (for example) yourself and share that image > with anyone. You in fact hold the copyright to that image." US federal government records are in the public domain because the US government has specifically (in the US copyright law) given up any claim to copyright it may have. State and local governments in the US are not obliged to follow suit, so it is possible that US state and local government records might be protected by copyright; I have never seen the issue addressed. Lest you think this is unrealistic / unlikely, it is an issue in the UK -- the government claims copyright in court cases, laws, BMD/census records, etc.; the UK government has recently waived some of these rights, but only under very specific situations. (This same issue may arise in other countries, as well, esp. those that were previously colonies, territories, etc., of the UK). Technically, if a digital image is copyrighted (e.g., for the digital enhancements that improve readability), it would be an infringement to print and distribute a copy unless it falls under the fair use exception. However, the CD-ROM's license or site's terms of use agreement may allow for limited personal (or even commercial) use -- which is a contract issue, not a copyright one. You would need to read your license agreement / terms of use agreement to determine this, on a case-by-case basis. As for making your own copyrighted image of a public domain government document... If you scan an original public domain document (at an archive, perhaps), and the scanner hardware and software automatically scans and even auto-fixes the image, you have no copyright. (Copyright only applies to the work of humans). If you manually adjust resolution, brightness, hue, etc., you may have some claim to copyright, but it's a pretty thin claim. (The copyright claim may not hold up in court at all). However, if the above paragraph is saying you can print out a copyrighted image of, say, a census form, and then take a digital photo or scan the copyrighted image, and then freely distribute the image, and even claim copyright on it, it is wrong. You may be able to do this if your terms of use allow it (again, this is a contract issue, not a copyright one), or you might be able to do it if the original image's claim to copyright is weak or unenforceable -- but then, so would your claim to copyright in the second-generation picture be weak or unenforceable. If the copyright in the original image is valid and enforceable, however, printing it and copying it digitally would be an infringement of copyright. > > My interpretation, though I am not a lawyer, of course, is that as long as I > share information in a manner which is not identical to the original, and is > limited in quantity and credited to the original source, that I am not doing > anything unethical. Whether it is unethical depends on your own moral code, or the ethical standards common in your professional world. (Academics, for instance, are held to a fairly high ethical standard). When dealing with copyrighted material, making minor changes, limiting copies, and crediting the source are NOT enough to protect you from a copyright infringement judgment. In fact, if that's all you do (esp. the minor changes part) with copyrighted material, then what you are proposing is definitely illegal (and probably also unethical). > Most of these records should be public domain which > means they could be found in courthouses etc. by anyone. I think this applys > to most of the CDs as well. It does have a saying on some CDs which do not > allow sharing on lists etc. However, I do see even limited amounts (perhaps > reworded, or compiled in other ways) on lists. While it is true that many (not all) courthouse/archive documents are in the public domain and are accessible to the public at the archive/courthouse, the company that prepares the CD-ROM or online database containing information from these public domain documents (or images of the public domain documents) has the right to limit the way in which their product is used. (Publishers of books do not have this right; the difference is something called the "first sale doctrine" which would apply to the book (which is sold), but not to the CD-ROM/database (which is licensed). The publisher of a book of compiled public domain material might have the right to prevent someone from copying the entire book -- i.e., infringing their copyright in the compilation -- but could not prevent someone from doing lookups or posting the information from an individual public domain document). The license agreement that comes with the CD-ROM or the terms of use agreement that comes with the subscription to an online database service may legitimately restrict the ways in which the information from their CD-ROM / database may be used. Posting the information in violation of the license / terms of use would be a breach of contract, and would allow you to be sued by the CD-ROM / database publisher. This is the issue which the original poster (below) was raising -- not a copyright issue, but the contract one. You are always free, of course, to go back to the original source at the archives/courthouse and create your own compilation. *If* your compilation meets the originality requirements under US copyright law, you could even get a copyright in your new compilation. Hope that helps. Claire K. > -------Original Message------- > > From: Abby Bowman > Date: 11/02/04 15:38:46 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Question Re: Franklin Co. Book > > Joyce, > > I must have deleted your original email regarding the book you got. I > am just curious.....is this on a CD? If so, I was wondering if there is > any kind of licensing agreement....i.e. you agree not to copy the > information or distribute it or anything like that? The reason I am > asking is because I have thought about purchasing some of the older > books on CD, but did not know if there was any kind of copyright issues > with regard to the CD itself, even though the book may be old and not > under copyright any more. > > Thanks, > > Abby > Ellicott City, MD > > . > >

Dear Claire: What's Your point ? Birth , Marriage and Deaths are public domain or it would not be allowed to appear in a newspaper ! Using a persons photograph is limited , I can tate a photo of any public figure "President Bush" and sell as many copies as I care to , but taking a photo of You and saying photo thaken by Me ! of Claire and using it as an advertisment of My work without Your permission would show You endorse My photography work !That is illeagle ! You must wait for 50 years after the death of a person taking a photograph to copy it legaly into a book with out that persons permission , For instance My father took a photo of His Grand-mother or My Great Grand-mother , I can not publish that photo until the 21 Aug. 2049. I feel when it comes to Family information !Family would succed the copyright of a person being mentioned in a book! Glenn E. Yeager Genealogist >From: Claire K <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: Joyce Cooper <[email protected]> >CC: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PAFRANKL] Question Re: Franklin Co. Book >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:30:24 -0400 > >Joyce Cooper wrote: > > > ...copyright issues. ...(I do not count myself an authority on this > > matter, of course.) > >After 10 years at major publishers, with daily responsibility for the >interpretation and application of the copyright law, I DO consider >myself an expert, and have to correct some misstatements by Joyce. >(This does not, however, constitute legal advice; for a specific issue >you may have, please consult a copyright attorney). > > > > ...I think most will > > agree that people are entitled to fair use of information in their >research, > > which simply means (in my opinion) that we don't rewrite whole chapters >or > > books and attach our own names to it. > >This statement confuses fair use with plagiarism. "Fair use" is not a >matter of group agreement; it is an integral part of the US copyright >law. It is a defense to a copyright infringement claim, and allows >someone to use some part of a copyrighted work without penalty. >However, the conditions under which the copyrighted work can be used >vary greatly, and must be decided -- in court -- on a case-by-case >basis. Fair use is one of the most complicated and contentious areas of >copyright law; there is no set number or percentage of words/pages that >qualifies. "Plagiarism," on the other hand, is taking someone else's >work (or ideas) and claiming them as your own (with or with rewriting). > Plagiarism is an ethical / academic issue, not a legal one; copyright >infringement is the legal equivalent. (But you can plagiarize someone >by stealing their idea -- a new interpretation of historical events, >perhaps -- without infringing their copyright (because copyright does >not protect ideas). > > > > > The CSGA says that "only the original work or presentation that is >included > > is protected by copyright law. The reality is that you can copy or print >the > > physical image of the original image and share it with others, but you > > cannot copy and share the microfilm or digital image if it is protected >by > > law. " > >I'm not sure exactly what this is saying (what "original work or >presentation" are they talking about?), but it's wrong, or at least >gives the wrong impression. If the underlying work (say, a book) is >protected by copyright, you cannot image it and print and distribute it, >in whole or in part. This is reproduction and distribution of a >copyrighted work, and is an infringement of copyright, unless it comes >under the fair use exception. If the underlying work is in the public >domain (never protected by copyright or the copyright has expired), and >you are looking at a facsimile reproduction (e.g., a reprint, CD-ROM, or >online version) and that facsimile carries a copyright notice, the >copyright is only on the new material added (e.g., an introduction, >foreword, or index) or for the digital enhancements made (e.g., to >improve legibility) (and the digital enhancement claim to copyright >might be shaky -- to my knowledge, it hasn't yet been tested in court). > If you print whatever the copyright claim is based on (e.g., the >foreword or the enhanced image), you may be infringing the copyright in >that element. (The underlying public domain work, e.g., the un-enhanced >image and the information in it, remains in the public domain). US >copyright law is extremely complicated (not to mention the difficulties >that arise is the underlying work is not a US work, and so involves >foreign copyright law issues) and I strongly urge anyone who is not an >expert to seek expert advice before making judgments about what is >permissible and what is not. > > > > "CD Roms and online services containing images of government records > > fallinto this category. You can print the image and share at will, but >you > > are not entitled to share the digital image. You may scan or take a >digital > > picture of the government record (for example) yourself and share that >image > > with anyone. You in fact hold the copyright to that image." > >US federal government records are in the public domain because the US >government has specifically (in the US copyright law) given up any claim >to copyright it may have. State and local governments in the US are not >obliged to follow suit, so it is possible that US state and local >government records might be protected by copyright; I have never seen >the issue addressed. Lest you think this is unrealistic / unlikely, it >is an issue in the UK -- the government claims copyright in court cases, >laws, BMD/census records, etc.; the UK government has recently waived >some of these rights, but only under very specific situations. (This >same issue may arise in other countries, as well, esp. those that were >previously colonies, territories, etc., of the UK). > >Technically, if a digital image is copyrighted (e.g., for the digital >enhancements that improve readability), it would be an infringement to >print and distribute a copy unless it falls under the fair use >exception. However, the CD-ROM's license or site's terms of use >agreement may allow for limited personal (or even commercial) use -- >which is a contract issue, not a copyright one. You would need to read >your license agreement / terms of use agreement to determine this, on a >case-by-case basis. > >As for making your own copyrighted image of a public domain government >document... If you scan an original public domain document (at an >archive, perhaps), and the scanner hardware and software automatically >scans and even auto-fixes the image, you have no copyright. (Copyright >only applies to the work of humans). If you manually adjust resolution, >brightness, hue, etc., you may have some claim to copyright, but it's a >pretty thin claim. (The copyright claim may not hold up in court at >all). However, if the above paragraph is saying you can print out a >copyrighted image of, say, a census form, and then take a digital photo >or scan the copyrighted image, and then freely distribute the image, and >even claim copyright on it, it is wrong. You may be able to do this if >your terms of use allow it (again, this is a contract issue, not a >copyright one), or you might be able to do it if the original image's >claim to copyright is weak or unenforceable -- but then, so would your >claim to copyright in the second-generation picture be weak or >unenforceable. If the copyright in the original image is valid and >enforceable, however, printing it and copying it digitally would be an >infringement of copyright. > > > > > My interpretation, though I am not a lawyer, of course, is that as long >as I > > share information in a manner which is not identical to the original, >and is > > limited in quantity and credited to the original source, that I am not >doing > > anything unethical. > >Whether it is unethical depends on your own moral code, or the ethical >standards common in your professional world. (Academics, for instance, >are held to a fairly high ethical standard). When dealing with >copyrighted material, making minor changes, limiting copies, and >crediting the source are NOT enough to protect you from a copyright >infringement judgment. In fact, if that's all you do (esp. the minor >changes part) with copyrighted material, then what you are proposing is >definitely illegal (and probably also unethical). > > > > Most of these records should be public domain which > > means they could be found in courthouses etc. by anyone. I think this >applys > > to most of the CDs as well. It does have a saying on some CDs which do >not > > allow sharing on lists etc. However, I do see even limited amounts >(perhaps > > reworded, or compiled in other ways) on lists. > >While it is true that many (not all) courthouse/archive documents are in >the public domain and are accessible to the public at the >archive/courthouse, the company that prepares the CD-ROM or online >database containing information from these public domain documents (or >images of the public domain documents) has the right to limit the way in >which their product is used. (Publishers of books do not have this >right; the difference is something called the "first sale doctrine" >which would apply to the book (which is sold), but not to the >CD-ROM/database (which is licensed). The publisher of a book of >compiled public domain material might have the right to prevent someone >from copying the entire book -- i.e., infringing their copyright in the >compilation -- but could not prevent someone from doing lookups or >posting the information from an individual public domain document). > >The license agreement that comes with the CD-ROM or the terms of use >agreement that comes with the subscription to an online database service >may legitimately restrict the ways in which the information from their >CD-ROM / database may be used. Posting the information in violation of >the license / terms of use would be a breach of contract, and would >allow you to be sued by the CD-ROM / database publisher. This is the >issue which the original poster (below) was raising -- not a copyright >issue, but the contract one. > >You are always free, of course, to go back to the original source at the >archives/courthouse and create your own compilation. *If* your >compilation meets the originality requirements under US copyright law, >you could even get a copyright in your new compilation. > >Hope that helps. >Claire K. > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > From: Abby Bowman > > Date: 11/02/04 15:38:46 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Question Re: Franklin Co. Book > > > > Joyce, > > > > I must have deleted your original email regarding the book you got. I > > am just curious.....is this on a CD? If so, I was wondering if there is > > any kind of licensing agreement....i.e. you agree not to copy the > > information or distribute it or anything like that? The reason I am > > asking is because I have thought about purchasing some of the older > > books on CD, but did not know if there was any kind of copyright issues > > with regard to the CD itself, even though the book may be old and not > > under copyright any more. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Abby > > Ellicott City, MD > > > > . > > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG