GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-12 > 1038781052


From: "debh" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Unethical Distribution of DNA information
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:17:32 -0600
In-Reply-To: <IIECKLIINDMLKICCFOBJEEOOBCAB.jahansen@qwest.net>


From a practical standpoint, doubt that anyone is going to ever push a
copyright issue, it's more of an ethical or mannerly one. Also from a
practical standpoint, the fact that the data changes regularly due to
new results coming in, it only makes sense to link to the modified
source, rather than copy info elsewhere.

-----Original Message-----
From: John A Hansen [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 3:48 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [DNA] Unethical Distribution of DNA information



Dear Nel:

Actually the Supreme court was ruling on the entire issue
of the relationship of facts in any IPR. I've gone to greater depths in
another email to Gary Rea, where he questioned the issue of taking parts
out of the entire IPR could be done. The Court clearly ruled that merely
including the data in some other creative work did not extend the
copyright protection to that data.

There are many many sites on the Internet and Google
will turn up a couple dozen. The one that I use is
Westlaw and Bitlaw since they both give the
citations etc along with the material directly from the
various court decisions. The US Supreme court was
over turning numerous lower courts that had upheld the
rights to copyright and protect data. So you need to be careful, since
you will find lower court rulings that will agree with your point of
view. However the
Feist case did reach the US Supreme court and they
overruled and specifically noted that the lower courts
of appeals were mistaken in their approach.

The URL for the US Supreme court ruling:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html

This will be my last posting on this subject since we've
beaten it to death and I want to get back to my own
Scot-DNA project :-). My main point is to be careful
about making accusations of theft since the laws of Libel
are equally vague. I haven't see the specific sites
that Cal Boyd refers to. I did a Google Search and a Copernic search and
I couldn't find them yet. I've emailed him to clarify and identify.

I think Gary Rea is on point with his email...
Who would want to copy this stuff anyway???


Best Regards
John A Hansen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nel Hatcher [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 10:29 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Unethical Distribution of DNA information
>
> "The court held there was minimal originality in the text, graphics
> and positioning of the individual.........."
>
> I think this is the key to the telephone case - minimal originality.
> Telephone books are nothing more than an alphabetical listing of
> names, and courts have already held this to be "unoriginal." I have
> seen attempts by various people/societies to state copyright
> protection for cemetery listings whether listed alphabetically or by
> "rows.".
Even though these lists may not be in the "public domain"
(other than the internet), the lack of originality
> denies them copyright protection.
>
> Whether a chart of DNA results would be considered
> "unoriginal"........??
>
> Nel



==============================
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records, go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

This thread: