[email protected] wrote:
> The document you stole and republished from Cindy did contain results of her
> original research in that it incorporated additional information not found on
> the microfilm.  In your haste to claim the work as your own, you stripped her
> copyright notice and failed to check the film (which I'm sure you have access
> to) to ascertain if it was within the copyright law....

RESPONSE: Apparently you haven't read the posting.  I never claimed the work as
my own.  I gave attribution of the source
(http://www.rootsweb.org/~scsumter/26threg.html) at the top of the posting.  

I have again reviewed the material that I posted on 4/25/99.  I do not find
anything in the copy I posted of the roster which could reasonably be concluded
was an original intellectual work of authorship.  I did not copy any of the
narrative discussion found on her web page.  I only copied the roster which was
represented as being from an 1898 document.

There was no need to check further because the narrative given on the web page
clearly explained the source.  It states the following.

  "The roster below, except where indicated by a * comes from J.H. Hudson's
letter."  

The Hudson letter is quoted on the web page and is shown with a date of July 2,
1898.  By the fact that it is dated 1898, there can be no question but that it
is public domain.  The text of the Hudson letter indicates that the roster is a
copy of earlier circa 1862 rosters.  
The citation on the web page does not state that notes or other information have
been added by the web author.  It simply states that the roster comes from the
1898 letter.  Every date shown in the roster is earlier than the date of the
1898 letter.  Thus, a reasonable person can conclude that the roster was written
circa 1898 and is public domain.  

Only 5 names on the roster are marked with asterisks.  The notes on the web page
indicated that the information regarding these 5 names was taken from public
records. 

So, what we have is a 100+ year old roster of Civil War soldiers taken from
public domain materials.  In particular, an 1898 letter written by Hudson. 
There is no original intellectual work of authorship in this material.


 You have stated several times lately that you're ready to shut down this list
> if people don't stop picking on you.  Perhaps it is time to turn the reigns
> over to someone else who will handle things in a more amiccable manner....

RESPONSE: I'm not aware of having made any such statements lately.  That would
have been a neat trick if I did because my computer was offline from about
4/25/99 until 5/10/99 during my recent move.  So, I wasn't stating anything
lately until I came back online this week and began plowing through the backlog
of messages.


 On another matter, your posting of the info. on The Medical School of South
> Carolina is quite lengthy and has no attribution as to its source.  Is this
> your original writing or did you lift it from someone else's work also?  

RESPONSE: You either didn't look closely or perhaps you chose to ignore it, but
the source was clearly attributed at the top of the message.  It read as
follows:

The Medical University of South Carolina
http://www.musc.edu/history.html

A simple click on the cited URL and it is abundantly obvious from where the
limited extracts came.

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====