You've asked for specific legal advice.  I'm not a lawyer.  If you want more
information or advice, I recommend that you go to one or more of the web sites I
pointed out.  Or, ask a lawyer.

Most of the information that I posted was extracted directly from the US
Copyright Office web site at the Library of Congress.  I don't see how posting
large parts of the text from the actual source can be considered "beating around
the bush."  Much of it, except for the Bono Act material, seemed reasonably
coherent and understandable to me.  But, only a judge and jury can tell you for
certain what it really means.  Everyone else is just stating opinions.  And, as
in most cases, many opinions are wrong. 

In response to your questions, my opinions (not legal advice), which may be
incorrect since I'm not a lawyer or judge, are generally shown below.  I've
included more quoting from your prior message than I probably should, but I
thought it necessary in this case for the responses to be understood.  Since
this copyright issue often comes up regarding use of the Forum, I think it is
appropriate to have these limited discussions on the subject once in a blue moon
or two.


ccmiller wrote:
> 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.

RESPONSE: Public domain material is just that, public domain.  BUT, I think the
law allows a copyrighted work to be created using public domain materials if the
arrangement, annotations, editing, compilation, etc., give the material
sufficient originality that it constitutes a work unto itself.  For example,
suppose someone extracted selected materials from public domain census records,
compiled and arranged the material in a new and creative manner, wrote new
annotations for the material, edited the material to correct known errors,
reorganized the presentation to make it more useful, etc.  I think that such a
work might be protected under copyright.  But, I think the copyright would be
limited to the new work and would not apply to the original public domain census
records.  I think it might be a violation of copyright to reproduce the new
annotations, or the edited material in the new arrangement.  However, I think
anyone could still reproduce the original public domain census data without
restriction provided that they did not include the new materials, editing, etc.,
as presented in the new work.


 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??

RESPONSE: In my opinion, if someone produces an "original work of authorship",
then they own a copyright in that material.  This copyright exists whether the
material is published or unpublished.  If anyone then copies their material and
resells it without their permission, then the copier has probably violated the
copyright of the author.  However, I think the responsibility for enforcing the
copyright rest with the owner of the copyright.  Unless they complain and take
appropriate action to defend their copyright, they will effectively lose it. 
Also, proving copyright of unpublished works may be difficult or impossible.


 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.

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that the copyright laws include protection for
collective, compiled, and derivative works.  I think that means that a CD
collection or compilation of numerous separate works is protected as a
collection or compilation.  But, I think that such protection applies to the
collected or compiled edition, not to each separate part.  The separate parts
each would stand separately under their own copyright status.  


 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?

RESPONSE: Because the law says so.  Or rather it does if the work meets the
requirements given to constitute an "original work of authorship" or it
constitutes a collective, compiled, or derived work.  For example, maybe they
did not copy the wills but rather translated them from Middle English into
Modern English.  A translation can be protected.  Or, they may have published an
edited and annotated edition of the wills.  Their editing and annotations may
make their version copyrighted.  But, if they merely copied, verbatim, the
original wills, then I think the most they can claim is that the work is
protected as a collected or compiled work.  Again, each separate will shown in
the book should be public domain as a separate work.  But the collected or
compiled work may be protected as such.


 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.

RESPONSE:  Each separate old tombstone may be public domain.  But, I suspect
that if someone transcribes, organizes, annotates, edits, and compiles, numerous
separate tombstones that this might constitute a collected or compiled work and
thus be protected as such.  


 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.

RESPONSE:  The definitions I've posted came straight from the US Copyright
Office.  They aren't my ideas, they are the law.  Like it or change it, but
unless it is changed it is the law.  Again, I think collected works are
protected as a collection.  I think each separable part stands by itself under
whatever copyright status it holds independent of the collected work.


 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.

RESPONSE:  These aren't "rules" these are laws.  If you don't like the laws,
tell your elected representatives to change them.


 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.


RESPONSE:  If Sally knowingly sends you a copy of a copyrighted book and you
knowingly accept and use it, then, in my layman's opinion, both you and Sally
probably have violated the copyright laws.  Furthermore, in my opinion, both you
and Sally may have also committed an act of conspiracy which is a violation of
law in itself.


Hope that answers your questions,

Steven J. Coker

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====