MDCHARLE-L Archives

Archiver > MDCHARLE > 2012-02 > 1329857156


From: Kathi Jones-Hudson <>
Subject: Re: [MDCHARLE] Genealogists must take care not to become pirates
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:45:56 -0800 (PST)
References: <010701cceffd$88793170$996b9450$@twcny.rr.com><CAK0DnTXw53UvS8n0aeFgYRoFyR93UXwYmGkz2QUGmhZVq+kCxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK0DnTXw53UvS8n0aeFgYRoFyR93UXwYmGkz2QUGmhZVq+kCxA@mail.gmail.com>


Actually Lisa you aren't the copyright holder of a photo taken by a professional unless you have a contract with the photographer that he/she is doing a "work for hire" and will not have any copyright interests in the photograph. This is also true if you have a very old photo and take it to a professional to fix it up, restore it, they then own the copyright to the new and creative image - again unless you have a contract in writing in advance. Copyright currently is life of the author plus 70 yrs.


Kathi Jones-Hudson
MD Tombstone Transcription Project Manager
http://www.usgwtombstones.org/maryland/maryland.html


________________________________
From: Lisa Keuhlen <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [MDCHARLE] Genealogists must take care not to become pirates

This really rubs me the wrong way! I do believe in protecting creativity,
but when I pay a photographer to take my portrait---that image is mine and
I have the right to share it with anyone I want. To say my great great
grandchildren [okay, just up to the first great due to copyrights expiring
at 75 years] have no right to it is ludicrous. They have the natural right
to images of their family members. It's just plain greed that will effect
the free flow of information----AND the joy of sharing family!

~Lisa


On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM, John S Wilkinson <>wrote:

>
> http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2012/feb/12/banewso6-genealogists-must-t
> ake-care-not-to-become-ar-357522/
>
> Genealogists must take care not to become pirates
>
> By SHARON TATE MOODY | Special correspondent
> Published: February 12, 2012
>
> The Internet went a little wacky a couple of weeks ago, when Congress
> seemed
> on the road to considering the Stop Online Piracy Act proposed by Rep.
> Lamar
> S. Smith.
>
> Those backing the bill said it was intended to protect intellectual
> property
> online. The other side felt the proposal threatened free speech and gave
> law
> enforcement too much power in shutting down domains. Wikipedia basically
> shut its sight down for a period of time in protest. Smith has backed up
> and
> is reconsidering his proposal.
>
> But what does this have to do with genealogy? Few made the connection
> between the controversial bill and what they post on Ancestry and various
> other genealogical venues that promote sharing family history research.
>
> Truly I doubt that Smith and others had family researchers in mind when
> they
> proposed SOPA, but it gives us cause to pause and consider the underlying
> "theft" issues at work here.
>
> Many people violate American copyright law with their genealogical
> postings,
> but few think of themselves as pirates (hence the title "Piracy" in Smith's
> bill).
>
> Most dictionaries' first definition of piracy is that of robbery or illegal
> violence at sea. Some of us indeed may have ancestors who were pirates on
> the high seas.
>
> The second definition usually refers to unauthorized use of a copyrighted
> work - which could mean a written family story, a picture, a recorded
> lecture, etc. For some of you the light bulb just came on: Your descendants
> also could have an ancestor who pirated (genealogical) material - and that
> ancestor could be YOU.
>
> When researching on Ancestry.com, have you ever noticed that several
> individuals have posted the same photograph? And do you ever wonder who has
> the original? You should!
>
> When you discover a new cousin who graciously shares with you a picture of
> your mutual third great-grandfather, one of the first things you should do
> is to determine how she got the photograph. Don't be surprised at how many
> times you'll hear "I don't remember."
>
> That should be a warning that the person with whom you are dealing does NOT
> have the original photograph and does have the right to be sharing it with
> you. You should NOT post that photograph to your Ancestry account or any
> websites you create, because the photo rights do not belong to you.
>
> But suppose this new cousin tells you she does not own the original and
> that
> what she has is a copy she got from another cousin. You should then contact
> that other cousin to see if he has the original. Perhaps you'll be able to
> track the photograph to the owner of the original. Only that person can
> give
> you permission to post it to your website or publish it in a family
> history.
>
> Of course, copyright applies not just to photographs but also to stories we
> have written and shared with other family members. I once found some of my
> written research submitted to Ancestry as a "member story." I contacted the
> person, explained how she was in violation of the copyright I held on the
> material and asked her to remove it. She did so promptly, explaining she
> had
> been ignorant of the law.
>
> I appreciate that she responded, but none of us should be using the
> "ignorance excuse." When we visit various websites we should stop to read
> the fine print. For example, clearly posted on every page in which a
> photograph is submitted is Ancestry's announcement that "The content of
> this
> page should adhere to our community guidelines. Please report inappropriate
> content or possible copyright violations."
>
> I wonder how many Ancestry users ever click on the hyperlinked "community
> guidelines?" One of the warnings on that guidelines page says "Don't post
> anything you didn't personally create. That includes copyrighted material
> you're not authorized to distribute, email messages, notes in GEDCOMs, etc.
> Read our copyright policy if you have questions."
>
> A hyperlink makes it easy to check the company's copyright policy. The
> policy clearly explains that materials submitted to the site's public area
> remains the property of the submitter or original creator. The company then
> pledges to respond to any claims of copyright violations and gives the name
> and address of the person to whom claims should be directed.
>
> Genealogy is fun and exciting and a big part of it is sharing stories,
> memories and photographs. But please do so responsibly. If we don't, the
> next legal proposal could be directed at us!
>
> Sharon Tate Moody is a board-certified genealogist. Send your genealogy
> questions and event announcements to her in care of Baylife, The Tampa
> Tribune, 200 S. Parker St., Tampa, FL 33606 or . She
> regrets that she is unable to assist with personal research and cannot
> respond to requests for locating or researching specific individuals.
>
>  By SHARON TATE MOODY | Special correspondent
> Published: February 12, 2012
>
>
> <
> http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2012/feb/12/banewso6-genealogists-must-
> take-care-not-to-become-ar-357522/#fbcomments> > 3 Comments |
> <
> http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2012/feb/12/banewso6-genealogists-must-
> take-care-not-to-become-ar-357522/#fbcomments> Post a Comment
>
> The Internet went a little wacky a couple of weeks ago, when Congress
> seemed
> on the road to considering the Stop Online Piracy Act proposed by Rep.
> Lamar
> S. Smith.
>
> Those backing the bill said it was intended to protect intellectual
> property
> online. The other side felt the proposal threatened free speech and gave
> law
> enforcement too much power in shutting down domains. Wikipedia basically
> shut its sight down for a period of time in protest. Smith has backed up
> and
> is reconsidering his proposal.
>
> But what does this have to do with genealogy? Few made the connection
> between the controversial bill and what they post on Ancestry and various
> other genealogical venues that promote sharing family history research.
>
> Truly I doubt that Smith and others had family researchers in mind when
> they
> proposed SOPA, but it gives us cause to pause and consider the underlying
> "theft" issues at work here.
>
> Many people violate American copyright law with their genealogical
> postings,
> but few think of themselves as pirates (hence the title "Piracy" in Smith's
> bill).
>
> Most dictionaries' first definition of piracy is that of robbery or illegal
> violence at sea. Some of us indeed may have ancestors who were pirates on
> the high seas.
>
> The second definition usually refers to unauthorized use of a copyrighted
> work - which could mean a written family story, a picture, a recorded
> lecture, etc. For some of you the light bulb just came on: Your descendants
> also could have an ancestor who pirated (genealogical) material - and that
> ancestor could be YOU.
>
> When researching on Ancestry.com, have you ever noticed that several
> individuals have posted the same photograph? And do you ever wonder who has
> the original? You should!
>
> When you discover a new cousin who graciously shares with you a picture of
> your mutual third great-grandfather, one of the first things you should do
> is to determine how she got the photograph. Don't be surprised at how many
> times you'll hear "I don't remember."
>
> That should be a warning that the person with whom you are dealing does NOT
> have the original photograph and does have the right to be sharing it with
> you. You should NOT post that photograph to your Ancestry account or any
> websites you create, because the photo rights do not belong to you.
>
> But suppose this new cousin tells you she does not own the original and
> that
> what she has is a copy she got from another cousin. You should then contact
> that other cousin to see if he has the original. Perhaps you'll be able to
> track the photograph to the owner of the original. Only that person can
> give
> you permission to post it to your website or publish it in a family
> history.
>
> Of course, copyright applies not just to photographs but also to stories we
> have written and shared with other family members. I once found some of my
> written research submitted to Ancestry as a "member story." I contacted the
> person, explained how she was in violation of the copyright I held on the
> material and asked her to remove it. She did so promptly, explaining she
> had
> been ignorant of the law.
>
> I appreciate that she responded, but none of us should be using the
> "ignorance excuse." When we visit various websites we should stop to read
> the fine print. For example, clearly posted on every page in which a
> photograph is submitted is Ancestry's announcement that "The content of
> this
> page should adhere to our community guidelines. Please report inappropriate
> content or possible copyright violations."
>
> I wonder how many Ancestry users ever click on the hyperlinked "community
> guidelines?" One of the warnings on that guidelines page says "Don't post
> anything you didn't personally create. That includes copyrighted material
> you're not authorized to distribute, email messages, notes in GEDCOMs, etc.
> Read our copyright policy if you have questions."
>
> A hyperlink makes it easy to check the company's copyright policy. The
> policy clearly explains that materials submitted to the site's public area
> remains the property of the submitter or original creator. The company then
> pledges to respond to any claims of copyright violations and gives the name
> and address of the person to whom claims should be directed.
>
> Genealogy is fun and exciting and a big part of it is sharing stories,
> memories and photographs. But please do so responsibly. If we don't, the
> next legal proposal could be directed at us!
>
> Sharon Tate Moody is a board-certified genealogist. Send your genealogy
> questions and event announcements to her in care of Baylife, The Tampa
> Tribune, 200 S. Parker St., Tampa, FL 33606 or . She
> regrets that she is unable to assist with personal research and cannot
> respond to requests for locating or researching specific individuals.
>
>
>
>
>
> John S Wilkinson
>
> Rome, NY
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: