I am one of those who opposes posting data to the Internet. I have had this happen in both the Pyle and the Darby families that I represent. For information of all on PYLE-L, this is a copy of an e-mail I received tonight from one of my relatives: "(c) 1996 by John Robertson; all rights reserved. All material provided is copyrighted to the public domain for noncommercial, nonprofit use only. Commercial use of this information is strictly prohibited without prior permission of the/all author(s). If copied, this copyright notice must appear with the information." This is an example of the type of copyright notices that are attached to more and more genealogical data. Permission to use an individual's data must be in a letter and not via e-mail. E-mail permission is not worth the paper it is printed on. One relative was going to use my data whether I liked it or not since I had "given" him permission to use in an e-mail. His lawyer supported me. Information on copyrights on the Internet support me. >From http://mids.org/sinclair/archive/msg00813.html one can read what Amber Dalakas says:"Disguised as the nicest people on earth, many genealogists are nevertheless thieves, plagiarists, and copyright infringers. ...Some try to hide their crimes under mantles of excuses such as: "o I thought everything on the Internet was FREE. "o I'm just looking up information for FREE. I don't charge people anything. "o You can't copyright facts and that's what genealogy is. "o Genealogy was meant to be shared." "o This is information about my family and I'm entitled to it. "o Reproduction of copyrighted materials was intended to keep people from distributing information for profit. "o Authors are too greedy and should be grateful they are getting free advertising on the Web." Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html lists 10 big myths concerning copyrights. They are: "1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." I got into a big mess by using someone's data without permission, because I thought this to be true. FALSE! "2) If I don't charge for it, is not a violation. "3) If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain. "4) My posting was just fair use! "5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it. "6) If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me. "7) They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights. "8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything? "9) It doesn't hurt anybody---in fact it's free advertising. "10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it." I would recommend that every individual thinking of using anyone else's data, read this material. To use another individuals data does not mean you are automatically in trouble; especially if it is not registered. According to Templeton, unregistered material gets very little protection from the courts. But my reading has convinced me that unregistered data is still protected by copyright law. Thus, I believe one should never use another's data for commercial purposes unless you have a letter (received in the US Mail), dated and properly signed, that you have permission of the compiler of the data in your document. Also, I do not believe that an individual has the right to post anyone's data to a public forum without their written permission. I am not a lawyer, so take what I have said with caution. I have had contact with lawyers over this subject and have had legal problems. I believe what I have said from the cited sources validates the impropriety of posting the work of others to the Internet. I believe that submitting such data to a commercial company is also a violation of copyright law and could get you in serious trouble. Charles Darby