Tim, You're right. I had not looked at it from her side of the camera. But obviously you are correct about all the equipment and expense. So if she chose not to share any of the pictures they are lost to the ages. And those who were not there and therefore didn't purchase a photo can never acquire one except by inheritance since she informed more than one person that she does not keep the negatives which seems a little odd. I realize the difference in quality but for genealogy and family purposes of sharing photos of ancestors, family gatherings, tombstones and/or similar events and items, I can see a place for both the professional photographer and the amateurs. I have several boxes of old family photos taken down through the years by any number of relatives and they are priceless to me. Whoever took the pictures obviously never gave copyright issues a second thought. I will, of course, respect the professional photographer's copyright and will no doubt continue to hire her to take the good shots for those who want them but for the sake of family down the line I'll also encourage others to take whatever pictures they want to. And this next year I will do the same. At least those pictures will be available for my kids and grandkids and great grandkids which to me is the real purpose of the photographs in the first place. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Tim Kemp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy By law, you hired her to do the picture, which she did. You paid her for the copies. However, unless you arrainged it beforehand, she owns the copyright and the negatives. Most photographers would never agree to do it any other way. Federal law recognizes the photos as a creative work and therefore copyrighted to the photographer. I can assure you, after many years of shooting weddings and model portfolios, that their is MUCH more to it than being there and pressing a button. If that was all there was to it then why even pay someone to do it? Why not just let someone in the group who doesn't want to be in the picture take them. Of course you must remember.... They won't be using $1000-$5000 worth of state of the art camera that will do things your family camera could not think of doing. They won't have at least one more just like it in their camera bag for backup. They will not have several thousand more dollars tied up in lenses, flashes, umbrella reflectors to fill in shadows on peoples faces, and a multitude of other expensive equipment. They will not have years of training and experience. They'll probably off-center most pictures with heads cut off in many. The composition will be terrible with a tree growing out of one person's head and a telephone pole growing out of another. You'll have half the people's faces washed out with overpowering sunlight while the other half are invisible in deep shadow. I could go on for another page or two, but I think you see the message. They are not simply showing up and pressing a button. Bottom line, unless you pay them quite a bit extra for it the photographer owns all copyrights on the photos, and has earned them. That being said, I normally gave my subjects the negatives and a signed copyright release, but ONLY after they had purchased a large amount of prints through me. Don't expect, though, to find many photographers who are willing to do this. Rex Kirby wrote: >I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures >for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my >intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the >reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. > >Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group >shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make >a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more >confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of >photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of >the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their >camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. > >Rex > ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&ta rgetid=5429

But a person cant use a photo of you for financial gain without written consent can they even if they took it and it is copywrited. And if a person states on their website you may use their clipart for personal or educational use but not commercial gain, istnt that okay too? cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the > revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is > immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No > copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor > is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered > by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you > additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted > immediately without it. > > You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible > fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy > dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 > copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. > > This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet > "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This > also aplies to written works. > > Tim > > [email protected] wrote: > >>It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >>copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >>photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are >>copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, >>Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several >>places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents >>because they are copyrighted to those photographers. >> >>Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? >> >>Bev >> > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

By law, you hired her to do the picture, which she did. You paid her for the copies. However, unless you arrainged it beforehand, she owns the copyright and the negatives. Most photographers would never agree to do it any other way. Federal law recognizes the photos as a creative work and therefore copyrighted to the photographer. I can assure you, after many years of shooting weddings and model portfolios, that their is MUCH more to it than being there and pressing a button. If that was all there was to it then why even pay someone to do it? Why not just let someone in the group who doesn't want to be in the picture take them. Of course you must remember.... They won't be using $1000-$5000 worth of state of the art camera that will do things your family camera could not think of doing. They won't have at least one more just like it in their camera bag for backup. They will not have several thousand more dollars tied up in lenses, flashes, umbrella reflectors to fill in shadows on peoples faces, and a multitude of other expensive equipment. They will not have years of training and experience. They'll probably off-center most pictures with heads cut off in many. The composition will be terrible with a tree growing out of one person's head and a telephone pole growing out of another. You'll have half the people's faces washed out with overpowering sunlight while the other half are invisible in deep shadow. I could go on for another page or two, but I think you see the message. They are not simply showing up and pressing a button. Bottom line, unless you pay them quite a bit extra for it the photographer owns all copyrights on the photos, and has earned them. That being said, I normally gave my subjects the negatives and a signed copyright release, but ONLY after they had purchased a large amount of prints through me. Don't expect, though, to find many photographers who are willing to do this. Rex Kirby wrote: >I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures >for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my >intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the >reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. > >Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group >shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make >a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more >confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of >photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of >the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their >camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. > >Rex >

In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? She does. You paid her to get one copy or multiple copies from her only. You did not buy the right to copy her 'artistic' works. I have an even sillier example - I have in my possession a picture of an overturned logging train in Cass, WVa. taken in the very early 1900s. I took it to a professional photographer to have copies made for the rest of the family. I asked for the resulting negative and he claimed the negative was copyrighted as his work. Be careful when hiring anyone for this kind of thing - you may not be buying what you think you are. Bev

I sure would like to read that Code section if you have it at hand, Tim. Thanks. I think we are a long way from VA genealogy, though who owns our photos and writings surely is important. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kemp To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You may give away, display, loan or sell the originals you purchased, but you may not legally make any copies of them of any type. While I have never heard of it being enforced, even scanning them and putting them in a screensaver on your computer is not legal in the eyes of the law. With that in mind I'd be in big trouble, as my screensaver is full of portraits of my family. Paul Drake wrote: >Tim, Bev, whoever: I think the question that needs an answer is, "Under the 1988 Act, as revised, if I pay to have a photo taken by a professional, while he/she may own the negative, have I the right to make copies from, display, sell, loan or give away the finished photos that were done for me?" > >(PS: Notice that this discussion of ownership of the negative has almost no bearing on what may be "Fair Use" under the US Code.") > > Paul Drake JD > Genealogist & Author ><www.DrakesBooks.com> > 931-484-9129 > ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

Thanks Erin, So if I write something and just type it online, I should email it to myself as a copywrite protection. cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erin T. Crowe" <[email protected]> To: "cristy" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Cristy, > > That is true, the same thing holds true for e-mail. As soon as it is > mailed, it is protected by copywrite laws. > > Sincerely, > Erin T. Crowe, IBSSG > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cristy" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > > >>I always heard as a former songwriter want a bee, that if I wrote a song >>and then mailed it to myself and kept it sealed, that would be proof of my >>copywrite? >> >> cia, >> cristy >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy >> >> >>> Paul - >>> >>> It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for >>> a >>> copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of >>> the >>> photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are >>> copyrighted to >>> the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills >>> pictures >>> are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make >>> copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are >>> copyrighted to >>> those photographers. >>> >>> Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? >>> >>> Bev >>> >>> >>> ============================== >>> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >>> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: >>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >> > >

While the self-mail does not create, prove or affect ownership, it does provide evidence for future use of a date certain prior to which that material/photo/document was in existence, no matter from where/who it came. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129

Web site for all information on copyright can be found at: http://www.copyright.gov/

You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted immediately without it. You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This also aplies to written works. Tim [email protected] wrote: >It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to >the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures >are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make >copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to >those photographers. > >Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > >Bev >

I always heard as a former songwriter want a bee, that if I wrote a song and then mailed it to myself and kept it sealed, that would be proof of my copywrite? cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Paul - > > It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a > copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the > photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are > copyrighted to > the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills > pictures > are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make > copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted > to > those photographers. > > Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > > Bev > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

Tim, Bev, whoever: I think the question that needs an answer is, "Under the 1988 Act, as revised, if I pay to have a photo taken by a professional, while he/she may own the negative, have I the right to make copies from, display, sell, loan or give away the finished photos that were done for me?" (PS: Notice that this discussion of ownership of the negative has almost no bearing on what may be "Fair Use" under the US Code.") Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? She does. You paid her to get one copy or multiple copies from her only. You did not buy the right to copy her 'artistic' works. I have an even sillier example - I have in my possession a picture of an overturned logging train in Cass, WVa. taken in the very early 1900s. I took it to a professional photographer to have copies made for the rest of the family. I asked for the resulting negative and he claimed the negative was copyrighted as his work. Be careful when hiring anyone for this kind of thing - you may not be buying what you think you are. Bev ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

Paul, Bev and others with similar problem... For several years I have hired a photographer to take pictures at a family reunion. I have also purchased from this photographer one or more of each of the photographs. Others who attend may and do purchase whatever pictures they want. None of the photographs have the photographer's name or any notation front or back that they were copyrighted until this year. In 2004 I had an 85 year old lady ask me - not at the reunion - for a copy of the group shot. I made her a copy and sent it to her. Somehow the photographer found out about it and raised all kinds of heck.... It never occurred to me that she would claim a copyright on the pictures that I hired her to take and on those I bought and paid for. I talked to several other photographers and opinions varied but a couple of them said they felt like since I hired her to take the photographs she should not claim a copyright on the pictures. For 2005 I was going to use a different photographer but a few days before the reunion she called to tell me she would not be able to do so. So I called the one we have used for several years. She took the pictures but I noticed she bought a rubber stamp and stamped copyright and her name on the back of every picture. I certainly had no intention of stealing her work as she put it. But I did pay her $150 for being there about two hours and spending about 30 minutes taking a few pictures. She does not have a business name or location but she does have a card with her home address and phone number and takes wedding and other pictures for anyone who hires her. I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. Rex -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy Paul - It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to those photographers. Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? Bev ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

Paul - It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to those photographers. Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? Bev

thanks Bev. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Parrott To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You are absolutely correct, Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Paul - > > It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a > copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the > photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are > copyrighted to > the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills > pictures > are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make > copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted > to > those photographers. > > Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > > Bev > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

Thanks, Tim. 1988 was the revision? Have you a citation ? Thanks. Paul Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kemp To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted immediately without it. You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This also aplies to written works. Tim [email protected] wrote: >It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to >the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures >are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make >copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to >those photographers. > >Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > >Bev > ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

I would bet a lot (were I a gambler) that Olin Mills has not copyrighted any portrait of their customers for MANY years, if ever. When we did that article, I checked the case reports and records of the copyright office rather widely and found not a single such copyright of other than their own people. The copyright law does NOT provide a blanket protection for such as future photos or even future writings. They have protection for their logo and nothing more; we can not gain protection for books we may one day write. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenny Hedgpeth To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy I have always wondered about those Olin Mills photos that numerious people put on their personal web sites :) obviously IF I was to post one of those, [which I haven't yet] but I sure as heck would crop the picture so as to not show the companies name ... which does indicate their copyright ... Ken -

Hi Pat M.... I would be very interested in these comments as we have had a major disagreement on this issue on a private website I have. My understanding of the law is that if credit is given to the person who copyrighted the information and 10 or less copies are posted, the information may be used. **** I have seen NO such rule, and if you have a citation of authority, I would appreciate it. As a matter of discussion, "10 copies posted or presented where" would be the first question posed by any court? **** Truly, I do not believe this is or could be the state of the law. To illustrate, suppose I posted one copy on my website, gave one of the 10 to the newspaper, another to be read at a seminar or family reunion, another to a stranger for 50 cents, another to the library, another to a local genealogical society, and still another to a teacher for his classes ??????? By any of those actions of mine, though less than 10 copies were distributed, it is obvious, it would seem, that I have violated virtually every right held by the author of those works. The restriction being that you can not include in published material without express written permission from the author of the work or the one who copyrighted it. *****That is surely the law, and such permission surely should be in writing and witnessed in order that the person using that material may be completely safe; verbal permission sure would not suffice. One of my nephews pointed out another provision to the copyright law that I did not know, that if it is for teaching or instruction purposes, copyrighted material may be used. **** In my article you will find the rules as to teaching, explanation and critique, as set out by the U.S. Code. In those instances if no remuneration is gained or intended, and the use truly is for education only, then such usage likely is permitted. For a public website, I believe the parameters are different. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because of this disagreement, we have taken off a ll pictures and other things that are not owned by the family or that we have copies of. Thank you. Pat M.... **** This is a very difficult area of the law; how did you gain the photos? were such knowingly given or sold to you such that you now are the owner and not merely a custodian? did the actual ex-owner copyright the materials of which you speak? Did you gain those from a library, museum, or archives that is open to the public? Then too, notice that the mere fact that you are a descendant or relative of the person portrayed does not give you any rights as against the owner of that memento or photo (we can copyright such materials no matter the degree of kinship if any. Hope this might contribute to your concern. Again, I do not know how any court will act in future matters of intellectual property placed on the net, and I welcome the comments of those who work with the current copyright law. Cordially Paul

Paul, and all, I'm not clear on who the parties were to this conversation (below), but I am concerned that this could be abused. > One of my nephews pointed out another provision to the copyright law that I did not know, that if it is for teaching or instruction purposes, copyrighted material may be used. **** In my article you will find the rules as to teaching, explanation and critique, as set out by the U.S. Code. In those instances if no remuneration is gained or intended, and the use truly is for education only, then such usage likely is permitted.< Quoting FindLaw for the "fair use provision" as of 01/06/03: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." I spent a number of years managing training and education programs for a government agency. I frequently had instructors, and/or developers of lesson plans, who had a belief that they could copy virtually *anything* for educational use -- including booklets, games, workbooks, etc. It took many "how to" classes, and much doing to stop that practice, there, but this helped: From HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_107_notes.html "reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;" There is a world of difference between making copies of sentence examples from Patricia Law Hatcher's *Producing a Quality Family History*, and making ten copies (or any number) of the entire book, rather than purchasing it for your class on "So, you want to publish. . . " It is not likely in the first instance that there is much copyright concern. Copying the entire book, though, even for a "non-profit", "educational endeavor", "one time use" certainly could cause copyright concerns. It would if I were the author. Oh, by the way, the use of the quotations here from FindLaw, is an illustration of "fair use" -- I think. Pat (in Tucson) ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

I have always wondered about those Olin Mills photos that numerious people put on their personal web sites :) obviously IF I was to post one of those, [which I haven't yet] but I sure as heck would crop the picture so as to not show the companies name ... which does indicate their copyright ... Ken - > **** This is a very difficult area of the law; how did you gain the photos? > were such knowingly given or sold to you such that you now are the owner and > not merely a custodian? did the actual ex-owner copyright the materials of > which you speak? Did you gain those from a library, museum, or archives > that is open to the public? Then too, notice that the mere fact that you > are a descendant or relative of the person portrayed does not give you any > rights as against the owner of that memento or photo (we can copyright such > materials no matter the degree of kinship if any.

hummm ... not sure what caused this to be dragged out ? I don't appear to be receiving all my mail, and didn't see what Pat's comments were :( but at any rate, thanks Paul, I will print this out and add to my pile of yet to read, reading material ... but to cut to the chase, here is basically what I tell others when this subject raises it's ugly head :/ Facts, names, dates and locations are NOT copyrighted . <- that's a period it's highly unlikely that an amature genealogist is going to make a pile of money while copying "snippids" of someone else' works ... do not copy lengthy section "verbatum" [i.e. word for word exactly] ... copyright covers the writers style, format and layout ... use your own creativity :) and out of kindness one SHOULD mention "give credit" where it is due, as to where the info was found and or had helped to support your research findings :) I can only guess that this is another case where someone has gotten bent out of shape ... because someone else TRYED to claim the same ancestor again or some such thing :/ Ken - > [Original Message] > From: Paul Drake <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 12/10/2005 2:48:14 PM > Subject: [VAROOTS] copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > > I again have been asked for my article or comments concerning genealogy and > the copyright provisions in the U.S. Code known as "Fair Use" (of the words > and works of others). << snip >>