ALT-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ALT-GENEALOGY > 2001-10 > 1002252872


From: (Mike Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Genealogical data
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:34:32 GMT
References: <3BBBCA3F.DC9286A@naxs.com>, <th_u7.101375$hh.9021937@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, <3BBD109B.13E86700@naxs.com>


cbhoelzel <> writes:
>Mike Maxfield wrote:
>>
>> cbhoelzel <> writes:
> This information is in the public record - no copyright
>> >possible.
>
>Should have said "no copyright possible by us."

Thanks for that clarification.


>> Are you positive that those records are "Public Records?" Do you mean
>> "Public Records" or "Public Domain?" While those records may detail
>> events of factual records, they are copyrightable,
>
>I'll have to study the differences between Public Domain and Public
>Record. Yes, they are copyrightable, in this case, by the church, not
>the transcribers.

Public Domain means that the work (the original) can not be copyrighted.
It may have been at one time and fallen out of copyright, or it may have
been authored and placed into the public domain by the author, etc.

Public Record is more or less factual information which may be
copyrighted, but which can not or should not be withheld from the public.

Now, an example of the later, laws from the state on Minnesota, definately
something of public record which you want the public to know, but:

"Copyright 2000 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota"

An example page, one with definitions (although lacking the definition of
their copyright) is at:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/13/02.html

The copyright of their statutes is entirely intentional, as can be seen at
the following URL
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCH/BASIS/mnstat/public/www/DDW?W%3DTEXT+PH+IS+%27copyright%27+ORDER+BY+SORT_KEY/Ascend%26M%3D1%26K%3D3C.12%26R%3DY%26U%3D1

which in part reads: [fair use exerpt follows]

====================
Chapter Title: REVISOR OF STATUTES
Section: 3C.12

3C.12 Sale and distribution of statutes and laws.
[...]
Subd. 2. Free distribution. The revisor shall
distribute without charge copies of each edition of Minnesota
Statutes, supplements to Minnesota Statutes, and Laws of
Minnesota to the persons or bodies listed in this subdivision.
Before distributing the copies, the revisor shall inform these
persons or bodies of the cost of the publication and the
availability of statutes and session laws on the Internet, and
shall ask whether their work requires the full number of copies
authorized by this subdivision. Unless a smaller number is
needed, the revisor shall distribute:
[...]
(m) 50 copies to the revisor of statutes from which the
revisor shall send the appropriate number to the Library of
Congress for copyright and depository purposes;
[...]
====================================

A clear case of something intended for public record, but not put into the
public domain.



>If someone were to copy our "work" and publish it, that's infringement.
>On the other hand, if they were to go to the source, i.e., the original
>records and do essentially what we have done, that may not be
>infringement. Infringement or not, repeating the work would be a
>colossal waste of time and effort.

I'm just nitpicking your words. You used "essentially the same format"
which would not indicate an exact (or even similar) copy of your work.
It perhaps wasn't the phrase you wanted to use. As far as someone
repeating your work in a colossal waste of time, look at it this way, if
they duplicate your efforts, they own that copy and can do whatever they
want without your permission to use your work. Look at how many entities
has duplicated efforts in creating indexes for the various censuses, but
since Ancestry or one of the others can't resell the LDS version, they
create their own. (or will, when something freezes or something...
eventually, sometime, probably... possibly...bla bla bla)

Perhaps something similar to the Public Domain VS Public Record (but not
exactly) is something I've done on an index I compiled. I created a index
of the Illinois 1880 and 1900 soundex of select M-214 families. I have
placed that index on the web for all to use, and in most cases, copy for
their own use, however that is a LICENSE making my index public record,
but I still retain the copyrights to the index.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maxfield/maxfield/sndx1880IL.html

This page and the data compiled on it is copyright 2001 by Michael D.
Maxfield.and is offered for nonprofit and noncommercial use by those
involved in genealogical research. The compiled data on this page may not
be used for commercial gain. It is the intention of the copyright holder
that this information remain available free of charge to any person
involved in genealogical research. You are hereby granted a license to
use this information in your research, and are allowed to include
pertinent portions within your work under Fair Use rules. Be forewarned
though that such data used in your work is considered a tertiary source.
You would be better off using information directly off the census schedule
once you have found it through the use of such a Soundex transcription.

--


This thread: