Hi Guys, (long letter coming) I'm from Down Under, Interesting to read your comments re the above. My wife and I have written two books on our family history (wife's side).350pp and 500pp. 15 yrs of research. Every sentences in the books are annotated. Cost a small fortune in Certs etc. Initially we had our data on the web inviting others to contact and contribute. Alas! Information was taken and put on various sites as that persons work. Alas! some of the info was wrong as we were still researching. Alas! data had to be taken off and put into minimum format. We had no objection initially to place data on net to ensource (new Word) information. If people (researchers) acknowledge where they obtain their information, then I have no qualms. I periodically troll the net with key words and find who has copied, (believe it or not from a photocopy of our books). I send these people a polite (stern disapproval) to remove the data when I ascertain that it is a direct infringement of MY copyright. The real problem is how to install ETHICS into these people. This is a topic which would raise a huge debate. Do we send these people rude emails (possibly breaking some law) or do we live with it. I say send emails without the rude bits. Copying of reels depends on the final use of the information gained. Again it is the Ethics of the copier which is in essence. I have copied a full diary of a convict ship to Oz. The transcription has taken two years..I contacted the Archives to publish a book and have the O'K which then becomes my copyright. (very difficult to read film, only available to read, book is not for public viewing). In all we are really talking about ETHICS and unfortunately many people have none. The copying of 10% as O'k is C ontrary R ecording A pproach to P ussyfooting copyright, this ideal is instilled as a right. Again it is the ETHICS of the copier which is paramount. Publish and be damned, don't publish and be lost, our choice. Regard Wal

I have had the same thing happen when I was first starting my research and learning about genealogy. I uploaded my family tree, mistakes and all, to rootsweb where it morphed into someone else's 'work'!. I wouldn't have minded so much if the guy would have asked my permission - or acknowledged that it wasn't his work, research or even his family! So now, if I feel like it, I'll add a post-it to a bit of incorrect info with the corrected info - and I've never uploaded my work again. You are right, Wal, it is a matter of ETHICS. Elaine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annie & Wal" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites and reels > Hi Guys, (long letter coming) > I'm from Down Under, > Interesting to read your comments re the above. > My wife and I have written two books on our family history (wife's > side).350pp and 500pp. 15 yrs of research. > Every sentences in the books are annotated. Cost a small fortune in > Certs etc. > Initially we had our data on the web inviting others to contact and > contribute. > Alas! Information was taken and put on various sites as that persons > work. Alas! some of the info was wrong as we were still researching. > Alas! data had to be taken off and put into minimum format. > We had no objection initially to place data on net to ensource (new > Word) information. > If people (researchers) acknowledge where they obtain their information, > then I have no qualms. > I periodically troll the net with key words and find who has copied, > (believe it or not from a photocopy of our books). I send these people a > polite (stern disapproval) to remove the data when I ascertain that it > is a direct infringement of MY copyright. > The real problem is how to install ETHICS into these people. > This is a topic which would raise a huge debate. Do we send these people > rude emails (possibly breaking some law) or do we live with it. I say > send emails without the rude bits. > Copying of reels depends on the final use of the information gained. > Again it is the Ethics of the copier which is in essence. > I have copied a full diary of a convict ship to Oz. The transcription > has taken two years..I contacted the Archives to publish a book and have > the O'K which then becomes my copyright. (very difficult to read film, > only available to read, book is not for public viewing). > In all we are really talking about ETHICS and unfortunately many people > have none. > The copying of 10% as O'k is C ontrary R ecording A pproach to P > ussyfooting copyright, this ideal is instilled as a right. Again it is > the ETHICS of the copier which is paramount. > > Publish and be damned, don't publish and be lost, our choice. > > Regard Wal > > > >

One other thing to consider, of course, is that *facts* cannot be copyrighted. The format, the layout, and accompanying text can be copyrighted. So the facts that I have gathered and included in either a book or a website, are free to all (at our/their own risk, of course -- we all know we need to check it out for ourselves.) So if we post (or print) data, we really have no right to claim it as belonging only to us. That's what I've had to tell myself when I see my ancestors included in the databases of others on-line. Mona -- Mona Houser [email protected] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monajo/