ALT-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ALT-GENEALOGY > 2001-10 > 1002254684


From: (Manus)
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Genealogical data
Date: 05 Oct 2001 04:04:44 GMT
References: <20011003004944.07558.00000573@mb-de.aol.com>


To put it back into the setting I speak from, this is the United States that
the law is being interpreted in. I have two requests from the Library of
Congress to modify my application for copyright, which included an electronic
database.

I am being challenged with individual and specifics. This demands a specific
review of those circumstances.

The courts usually make a determination on the specifics of the case and not
another country's laws or an interpretation given by a resident or company
within that country.

Let make my views a little clearer.

1) A Gedcom is an electronic file, either made by hand, by one's own program,
or by a program designed by a second- or third party. This files purpose is to
transmit data between programs. Regardless of whether you can open up the file
and read it with a text reader or feed it into another program, this file is
not a copyrightable item by itself unless there happens to be more defining
items.

These items have to be (under the new law):
1) A readily identifiable note of authorship and copyright. To be able to file
for a certificate, this has to be in a distinct format and be prominent
(although this can be achieved, most gedcoms I have seen do not contain the
copyright statement, and a number, although smaller, don't even have the
author's name).
2) The file/data has to contain something that is identifiable as the creation
of the author. This usually is satisfied by notes and stories entered into the
gedcom files by the genealogist. But if there are only facts, it would be
extremely difficult to determine authorship if two people, compiling from the
same sources, come up with two files that have the same facts. Sometimes
interpretation of how families fit together and in what order might satisfy,
but if I stole a gedcom, modified it slightly, does it make it copyrightable to
me? That would have to be hammered out in court. Compilation from different
sources has to be identified. If you have ever filed for a copyright on from
TX, then you would encounter the question on what is it that you are claiming
as your creation?

Now let's say that you have done this. You put in the file a (c) Aug 2000 by
you and you know that you entered a bunch of notes, interpretations, and
stories in your own words. Now to win in a copyright suit, this is a civil and
not criminal case, you need to establish damages. Is this simple theft of
copyrighted material, or will this reduce the marketability of your own
creation? This is where gedcom files are very tricky? If you are freely
sharing them and someone else copies and starts to sell your file, then you
have really lost nothing. You may be able to recover those monies received by
that other person. But be prepared to put out some money, an amount I heard
lately was about $10,000 to go through with a copyright violation suit. But
the winner is, if you had filed for and received a certificate from the Library
of Congress, then you may be able to receive up to $100,000 for each violation
that person committed.

A question was asked about my last paragraph in my prior posting. The
copyright law is not to protect from theft, but rather gives an author to
determine how copies of their work is made (if any) and how those are
distributed. In winning a suit, the obvious intent of the author is often
taken into consideration when determining a case. The intent of gedcom files
is to distribute information between computer programs. While this is true
about books, the format is not the creation of the author. The format is a
standard code/field format so that computers can communicate. This is not the
same as fonts, writing styles, or other points and does not eliminate the fact
that they are usually made in the spirit of sharing. The method by which is
created is not what we are copyrighting, but rather the creative expression of
the author is.

We can go round and round on the issue and specific circumstances. But the
main issue is, if something is marked copyright, you must, if only morally,
respect the author's work. If you want to copy something from a website and
publish it again yourself, ask the author first. Maybe they can give you
something even better that will fit your needs and then you won't be
duplicating data, but adding more substance and value to the internet.

Enough of that... sorry for the long posting.

Phil
Slan Leat!

Phil McManus

This thread: