On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:32:51 -0800 Lynda Cook <mousecook@earthlink.net> wrote: > Having read the previous comments on > unauthorized use, I have a general > question that someone might be able to assist > with. When I find family > connections on the web, I usually contact the > author and try to set up a > dialog with them. If I am not able to reach > them, I usually just use the > data as a guide and try to find sources to back > up the information. > Recently I discovered a family connection (not > Williams line) that was > beautifully documented and took the family back > to the 11th century. I have > tried to contact the author, but his email > address is no longer correct. > From the amount of information presented, I > assume this was an older > person. Any suggestions on how to find the > source or possible heirs to this > research? I did download, but kept the gedcom > file separate from my family > file, so that I don't lay claim to something I > didn't do. I have been able > to verify some of the data from independent > sources, but don't andt to > "steal" his work. > Lynda Hi, Lynda: Your approach is commendable and should be imitated by others. However, there is no such thing as "heirs to research". One cannot inherit facts because one cannot own them. One can only own creative expressions of facts, that is, only the exact way that one uses words to describe those facts. There is also no such thing as "unauthorized use" of publicly available documents. One cannot, by finding even a whole passel of documents, require others to get your permission before using them to draw conclusions. Can you imagine what would happen to genealogy if every time you found a document, you had to cite the researchers that helped you find it, or prove that there weren't any? We'd all be collecting stamps instead of WILLIAMS relatives. The only way you can steal someone's research is to claim that person's creative expression as your own. *That* is wrong, no matter what term you use to describe it. Finding data on the Internet and using it does not remove it from the control that is rightfully the author's. The only thing that might be lost to the author is a pride of ownership, which is usually not real. One can never take from the author the pride in a job well done, or the joy of discovery. And if an author has published a discovery before anyone else, then that satisfaction also can never be taken away. You should cite this author as the source of your information, for facts where this author is your only evidence. Where you have found and verified primary sources, it is *not* necessary to note that the author of whom you speak got there first. My OWN choice in such a situation would be a general acknowledgement of the debt I owe to this person, and I WOULD cite his research, identifying him as best I could, for each fact that he stated. I would do this even if I had verified the primary sources. That is my CHOICE. It is not *necessary* if I have seen the primary sources myself. That is true even if the only reason I know the sources exist is the work of this unknown author. Darrell darrellm@sprynet.com