Hi Debra As a researcher, nurse, paralegal [certificate], and publisher with 5 copyrighted books; the point you raise is valid. Facts taken from an 'original document' no matter the source cannot be copyrighted by anyone other than the original author. However, abstracts with their own interpretation words beyond the facts apparently can be. It is a question of form and if you want to go to court to protect your copyrighted version if someone uses them. Another important fact, that occurs more to the legal profession than genealogical researchers is when the 'copyright law' is written and whether previous works are grandfathered. Two years ago, a table of contents was copyrightable and now it isn't, according to a recent conversation with the LOC. I frequently use verbatim statutory items in the newsletter I edit. I would never use an abstract of another person, not only for copyright reasons, but for ethical ones as well. In the genealogical community many people feel that family information 'belongs' to them. Thoughts on this: Tell people you share information with not to put it on the web, if you have strong feelings about it. #2 If it is on the web as 'facts' no one 'owns' it. Trudie -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rowden [mailto:mrowden@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:01 AM To: VANORTHU-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [VANORTHU-L] N'umberld Order Bks. 1 & 2 ? Please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be rude here. It just sparked by curiosity because I'm a trademark attorney and I've never heard of that before -- and I've never really thought about it. My profession and my hobbies have intersected. Do you know where you got this from? It seems to me that it is not be a copyright violation to ask for all of a surname. The asker is not violated anything here because the request can never expose copyrighted materials. However, if the replier just subscribed the entire section -- word for word, page for page -- that might be a copyright violation. But, the author cannot have copyright protection on facts, especially public and historical ones. So, if the replier just related the facts (as I did previously) that does not violate the copyright laws. Public, historical facts can be disseminated freely. I believe one example in law school (I also teach - but not copyright, I teach contracts) is that you can take a recipe out of a recipe book and forward it along. You can't, however, copy the form of the book, ie. several pages of recipes. I would think that this is the same thing. Also, a friend of mine was an attorney on a recent case where a city in Texas got third party association to write a model code (or a section of it). The city then enacted the model code, word for word. The author declared that the code was protected under copyright laws. Defendant in that case had a website with public information. He took the code and published it on his website - word for word, page by page. Author sued. The appellate court said that it was not a violation of copyright to put the code on the website since the words were public facts when enacted by the city's lawmakers. The US Supreme Court denied to hear the case so the website owner won. Again, I see copying public records as the same thing. If the author took the records, word for word, from the public records -- they can not have copyright protection on those words, and -- it they copy the entire public record, they cannot claim a copyright protection on the order. However, if they take the public record and reword it, they now can claim copyright protection on those words -- but not the facts. So, do you know where you got this from? I'd like to investigate it further - to satisfy my own curiosity. Thanks, Debra S. Hill Jacksonville, FL -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Ferguson [mailto:ferg@ntelos.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:48 PM To: VANORTHU-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VANORTHU-L] N'umberld Order Bks. 1 & 2 ? Actually, asking people to give ALL of any specific surname is an infringement of the copyright laws...this is called a blanket lookup and doesn't fall under fair usage . What is permitted is to ask if 2 or 3 specific people are included in the index ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Sulzer" <psulzer47@yahoo.com> To: <VANORTHU-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:26 PM Subject: [VANORTHU-L] N'umberld Order Bks. 1 & 2 ? > Would someone mind doing a lookup for me please if they have copies of "Northumberland Co., VA Court Order Book 1699-1713" Part 1 and/or Part 2 ? Part 1 was published in 1999 and Part 2 was published in 2001. > I am looking for several members of the TURNER family and would appreciate very much knowing which ones are listed in the index of each book. > > Thanks for any help, > Pam in Baton Rouge > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > ______________________________ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237