Just as an FYI to others on the List who might get concerned about putting up information on 'your' websites: The easiest way to avoid problems, to the best of anyone's ability, is to know what "fair use" means... such as when we had to do a "research paper" in school and had to "document sources" and learn the difference between plagiarism and "fair use". Fair use means limiting the amount of the "original" to the barest possible words AND putting it in quotes AND putting the source citation. Copying even a whole paragraph may violate "fair use". Second, pay attention to copyright dates. If in doubt, don't re-type the item onto your website. Third, for current works or company-controlled material such as newspapers, contact them and get permissions. In the publishing field, "permissions" means a formal request to re-publish previously published material--- NOTE: usually "in part", NOT the whole thing. A newspaper company might give permission for years that they have not imaged. BUT... make sure ON your site to state you got permission AND request the "grantor" to put it in writing to you...a letter, an email. That way, you covered your bases. I'm unsure why a simple question about "a website" being down has spiraled into such a huge debate, but WE on the list can't do a thing. It's between Rootsweb and that web-maker/owner. If I remember right, this or another List had a similar debate several years ago, for the same reasons that people don't really understand copyright issues, what is considered fair use, or infringement. Like I said early on, only the web-maker/owner can contact RW about their site's problem and work it out. If it is "a" (just one) page, should be really easy to correct it. Judy On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > The last part of your reply Pat is not entirely > legitimate. > > The law requires take down of infringing material > If as you claim Rootsweb has *chosen* to > not edit your site to remove *a* page, that is > their particular policy. It is not any part > of what the law requires. > > As a policy, they could certainly at any time > choose to change that policy to one more > friendly to site owners, and the world at large. > >

How can I get on a "digest" version of this list? Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 2:07 PM, JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> wrote: > A list of "Staff" was posted to the ListOwners List... two different > things. Just like if I posted the list of Staff to a county list... see? > > Judy > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > >> Uh... a list OWNER is now "Staff"? >> Sorry Pat that's not quite what anyone >> else in the world would consider "Staff" > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OK, I'm just a bystander here, but what is it that Joan will have lost? I'm sure that you will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you asked for help in finding out why a website might have been taken down. Several list members have offered info trying to help. You don't seem to like the info you've been given & so you have been referred to Rootsweb's Helpdesk as the only place where you may receive a definitive answer. What is it that is in danger of being lost? Sharon In a message dated 5/27/2013 10:48:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: or admit you've lost.

At 01:39 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >It means, reading it more plainly, that >a person to make a claim has to include >substantiation in their claim. Merriam-Webster: substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence : verify <substantiate a charge> And staff has to evaluate the offered proof to determine if it is valid. I remember quite clearly the lady who firmly believed her discovery of her ancestor's marriage certificate gave her ownership rights to the fact of the marriage. She demanded that everyone else who had published that fact remove it because it infringed her copyright. She submitted as proof a xerox copy of the marriage certificate return as filed by the county registrar. Her claim of infringement was denied. She owned the xerox copy. She did not own the fact(s) it contained. Pat A. BTW, here's a list of RootsWeb staff as of Jan 2000. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/listowners/2000-01/0947197619

That isn't what I wrote...do you need new glasses? I said that they will check out the evidence submitted by the person claiming to hold copyright to verify whether or not infringement can be proven --- if the person reporting infringement doesn't even claim to BE the copyright holder it won't be checked out. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:49:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: Sorry that makes no sense. A person presents evidence that they are the copyright holder. In order to *prove* that that evidence is *true*, staff would have to research it. If they take the evidence presented and use that to *determine* that the presenter is the copyright holder they are not *researching* anything. You can't have it both ways.

Sorry that makes no sense. A person presents evidence that they are the copyright holder. In order to *prove* that that evidence is *true*, staff would have to research it. If they take the evidence presented and use that to *determine* that the presenter is the copyright holder they are not *researching* anything. You can't have it both ways. -----Original Message----- From: JYoung6180 <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:45 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site Of course the person claiming infringement has to provide evidence...that is precisely what we've both been saying...but I can also tell you that staff then checks out the evidence that is provided by the alleged copyright holder. They won't bother checking it out if the person making the claim is not the copyright holder. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:42:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: That doesn't mean that the staff does the research to substantiate the claim. It means, reading it more plainly, that a person to make a claim has to include substantiation in their claim. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The cited page says nothing at all about taking down an entire site over an issue with *a* page. -----Original Message----- From: JYoung6180 <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site Pat already saved me to trouble of giving you the citation. Now what is it they say about leading a horse to water but not being able to make him drink? Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:14:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: False authority and I dispute that you have any authority to claim to know the law or policy. And I dispute your mis characterization of what the DCMA actually states you must do in a case where a claim is made. And I dispute that you KNOW what rootsweb policy even is. All these unsubstantiated claims you make are all utterly and completely false. Now back it up or admit you've lost. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Of course the person claiming infringement has to provide evidence...that is precisely what we've both been saying...but I can also tell you that staff then checks out the evidence that is provided by the alleged copyright holder. They won't bother checking it out if the person making the claim is not the copyright holder. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:42:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: That doesn't mean that the staff does the research to substantiate the claim. It means, reading it more plainly, that a person to make a claim has to include substantiation in their claim.

Oops I mean to say Zero "CASE" law of course not statute law. -----Original Message----- From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:39 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site That doesn't mean that the staff does the research to substantiate the claim. It means, reading it more plainly, that a person to make a claim has to include substantiation in their claim. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:20 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site At 12:51 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >then I suppose you would have >no trouble pointing to this very policy on >their site. Ancestry.com Internet Services Copyright Policy http://corporate.ancestry.com/about-ancestry/legal/ Please note paragraph 3 which states: "x x x we will respond to SUBSTANTIATED claims of violation." [emphasis added] Pat A. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Your below claim is a false characterization of what the term "derivative" means under the copyright law, and also what the term "create" (make) means as well There is absolutely zero statute law in which the below comprehension has ever been applied in any US case. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:24 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site At 01:12 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >Not the biographies of all 100 people, just one >page. It is NOT the law that all 100 biographies >Must be suppressed because you are claiming >copyright over ONE. No, it is the law that RootsWeb can not prepare a derivative work based on your site by editing or removing parts of it. Pat A. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Pat already saved me to trouble of giving you the citation. Now what is it they say about leading a horse to water but not being able to make him drink? Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:14:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: False authority and I dispute that you have any authority to claim to know the law or policy. And I dispute your mis characterization of what the DCMA actually states you must do in a case where a claim is made. And I dispute that you KNOW what rootsweb policy even is. All these unsubstantiated claims you make are all utterly and completely false. Now back it up or admit you've lost.

That doesn't mean that the staff does the research to substantiate the claim. It means, reading it more plainly, that a person to make a claim has to include substantiation in their claim. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:20 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site At 12:51 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >then I suppose you would have >no trouble pointing to this very policy on >their site. Ancestry.com Internet Services Copyright Policy http://corporate.ancestry.com/about-ancestry/legal/ Please note paragraph 3 which states: "x x x we will respond to SUBSTANTIATED claims of violation." [emphasis added] Pat A. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 01:12 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >Not the biographies of all 100 people, just one >page. It is NOT the law that all 100 biographies >Must be suppressed because you are claiming >copyright over ONE. No, it is the law that RootsWeb can not prepare a derivative work based on your site by editing or removing parts of it. Pat A.

At 12:51 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >then I suppose you would have >no trouble pointing to this very policy on >their site. Ancestry.com Internet Services Copyright Policy http://corporate.ancestry.com/about-ancestry/legal/ Please note paragraph 3 which states: "x x x we will respond to SUBSTANTIATED claims of violation." [emphasis added] Pat A.

Newsgroup Etiquette - Don't feed the Trolls! Nothing good can come of it. Jim Rickenbacker

False authority and I dispute that you have any authority to claim to know the law or policy. And I dispute your mis characterization of what the DCMA actually states you must do in a case where a claim is made. And I dispute that you KNOW what rootsweb policy even is. All these unsubstantiated claims you make are all utterly and completely false. Now back it up or admit you've lost. -----Original Message----- From: JYoung6180 <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:06 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site So if you are so SURE about this, why don't you ASK them if they have changed "policy" but I can tell you why they haven't...except that Pat has already answered that question---it is based upon LAW and the law hasn't changed. She and I BOTH have reason to know what we are talking about. I don't need to verify anything for your benefit...either accept it or not...as you choose...you can choose to be wrong. Nothing I can do about that. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 12:52:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: This is a public forum and anyone can reply to anything posted. So get off your high horse. As an alleged person who used to work for Rootsweb, then I suppose you would have no trouble pointing to this very policy on their site. Otherwise I call your bluff. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Not relevant. The site has biographies of 100 different people not taken from A Source Pat Now someone claims that the biography of Ryan O'Neal is their own copyright. Not the biographies of all 100 people, just one page. It is NOT the law that all 100 biographies Must be suppressed because you are claiming copyright over ONE. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Cc: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 9:57 am Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site At 12:48 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >If as you claim Rootsweb has *chosen* to >not edit your site to remove *a* page, that is >their particular policy. It is not any part >of what the law requires. Incorrect. It is not policy -- it is the law. One of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder is the right to "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" An edited version of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and may only be "prepared" by the copyright holder or with his permission. Pat A. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

So if you are so SURE about this, why don't you ASK them if they have changed "policy" but I can tell you why they haven't...except that Pat has already answered that question---it is based upon LAW and the law hasn't changed. She and I BOTH have reason to know what we are talking about. I don't need to verify anything for your benefit...either accept it or not...as you choose...you can choose to be wrong. Nothing I can do about that. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 12:52:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: This is a public forum and anyone can reply to anything posted. So get off your high horse. As an alleged person who used to work for Rootsweb, then I suppose you would have no trouble pointing to this very policy on their site. Otherwise I call your bluff.

Doesn't someone have the authority to stop this right now??! I want these emails to learn something not to listen to people bicker. Patti Vance Hays ~ you live as long as you are remembered ~ http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pattisgenealogypages/ -----Original Message----- From: JYoung6180@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:51 PM To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Cannot Access Site That isn't what I wrote...do you need new glasses? I said that they will check out the evidence submitted by the person claiming to hold copyright to verify whether or not infringement can be proven --- if the person reporting infringement doesn't even claim to BE the copyright holder it won't be checked out. Joan In a message dated 5/27/2013 1:49:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wjhonson@aol.com writes: Sorry that makes no sense. A person presents evidence that they are the copyright holder. In order to *prove* that that evidence is *true*, staff would have to research it. If they take the evidence presented and use that to *determine* that the presenter is the copyright holder they are not *researching* anything. You can't have it both ways. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 12:48 PM 5/27/2013, Wjhonson wrote: >If as you claim Rootsweb has *chosen* to >not edit your site to remove *a* page, that is >their particular policy. It is not any part >of what the law requires. Incorrect. It is not policy -- it is the law. One of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder is the right to "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" An edited version of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and may only be "prepared" by the copyright holder or with his permission. Pat A.