This is for everybody that has been telling us what we can and cannot
do; it is also a challenge for Steve Coker, who seems to be the legal
coach and mentor of us all:
    You are all beating around the bush and telling us non legal types
nothing new it is all gobbledegoop. Why don't you get into the "real
questions" and pub some answers on the list. For ex:
1] If you cannot copywright what is already in the public domain,
why then can we not do what we wish with census records,
they are already in the public domain. i.e. even if someone put
them in a book and is selling it for profit, why cannot I copy it or
specific parts of it and send it to my friends.
2] If some publisher collects family group sheets voluntarily sent
to them by various private individuals and then wants to sell the same
to you and I how can that be legally copywrighted? The
original person who sent them the info in the first place did the
research and when he/she sent it to the publisher he gave up
his/her right to the material so how then does that allow this
publisher to obtain a copyright. Why cannot I use this stuff??
3] Broderbund has bought out almost all the little guys in the
genealogical research field that sold FGS to the public then they
put them all on their CDROMS and get a copywright. How is that
protecting anybody, FTM did nothing but put other folks work on
their CDROM; that should not allow a copywright, at least in my
humble opinion. AS long as I don't profit from it I should have use
of it at my will. Family Tree maker did nothing original to the
original work, their only work was the media which carries it to us.
4] Some of these famous people who write genealogy source
books e.g. "Wills of Spartanburg Co. S.C." or any such title.
There is nothing unique nor original in that book, all that info is in
the public domain already. So why do we need somebody's
permission to copy and use that info?
5] Cemetery records, what could possibly be more in ready access to
the public, i.e. in the public domain? So why would these be
copywrighted.
6] I can see that if the writer of the above examples writes a
narrative preface to their book, or puts in explanatory notes of
their special knowledge then those "parts" of the book could meet the
definition you folks are givcing as copywright mat'l.
If that is the case then we should not quote those "parts" of the book
without permission or without stating the source etc.
7] The way I see it, and this is pure logic from my polluted brain,
most of the stuff we see in libraries that is copywrighted in the
genealogical section should not be copywrighted at all. Thus
if I break the rules and use somethoing that was already in the public
domain, so what, I did not break any rules anyway. What appears
to me that has gone wrong is that the Government Copyright guys are
making mistakes left and right and up and down and nobody cares. They
aeem to be copyrighting anything that comes into their office. Like
all bureaucrats they are afraid to
not copyuright something because it would put them out of business if
they judiciously made REAL DECISIONS about what
gets copyrighted and what does not. So they proliferate their
own existence as a bureaucrats always do by copywriting things
that should have never been copywrighted. Am I right, wrong, or
biased??? Will the courts hold that the copywright was violated
or will it rule that the copyright was invalid in the first place???
Somebody help us little guys!! Not that I'm that little 6'4" and 250
pounds but in the world of genealogy I feel intimidated by these
stupid RULES.
8] I know that my perspective is maybe distorted and leaning
toward and in favor of the genealogist but 9/10ths of us are
working on a shoestring in the first place and cannot afford to
purchase all these little books of 100 pages that people want $45 or
$50 for and when you get it it just doesn't happen to contain your
family anyway. So most times you wasted your
hard earned $. So, if Sally, my friend on-line sends me a copy
of the book she scanned in to her puter, then sends it to me, I don't
believe that either Sally nor I did anything wrong.
SO TELL ME SOMETHING DOES THIS MAKE SENSE??
I mean legal sense. Somebody tell us something worthwhile to
place safely away in our heads for the future.
COKER  seems to be the legal advisor to us all. You take this on and
give us a 2 page or less Legal Bible for Genealogists and
make it something we can continue our hobby with not the
obverse which restreicts our hobby. And we shall forever be in
your debt. Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Roberts 
To: [email protected] 
Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 9:58 PM
Subject: Copyright issues


For a good review of the subject, try the September 1998 Atlantic
article
>by Charles C Mann called "Who will own your next idea?"
>
>Atlantic says this is on-line at
>
>http://www.atlantic.com
>
>Martin

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====