The ruling actually concerned means of distribution -- a writer who writes for hard-copy publication was upset that his article then appeared in that publication's on-line version without his consent and without additional compensation. Such as: if you write a column for your local historical society's snail-mailed newsletter, and they give you in exchange a year's free membership, THEY CANNOT then put your electronicly-submitted column on their web-site. To put it on their website, they need your specific, explicit and written consent for which you may charge an additional fee. The devil's in the details, folks. At 07:57 AM 06/26/2001 -0400, Sandra Redmond wrote: >Jim - >I don't see Rootsweb mentioned at all in this article. I admit I didn't read the whole thing - but this is something >different. >Sandy > >Jim Rader wrote: > >> it is a violation of today's US Supreme court ruling to move material >> submitted to Rootsweb boards to another venue with specific >> authorization of the copyright owner. The court said today that one who >> creates it owns it ! >> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.htmlhttp: *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Cheryl Singhal (Singhals@erols.com) http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cpafug/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvhampsh/ http://www.capaccess.org/com/troop763/ http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/blyton/772/ (Bottony Cross DAR) http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/ http://members.fortunecity.com/csinghal1/ (Joanna Waddill UDC)