I for one second your thoughts and ideas.  I would also like to see some
'plain language' about this subject.
Thanks
Margaret
-----Original Message-----
From: ccmiller 
To: [email protected] 
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright issues-Please read this one [Coker]


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 ====