TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2011-04 > 1302139148


From: Tom Kemp <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] FindAGrave: Am I Being Overly Sensitive?
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:19:08 -0400
References: <2a3b4.50e6845c.3ace302d@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <2a3b4.50e6845c.3ace302d@aol.com>


My comment was about the "digital image" of the newspapers not the data.
Tom

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM, <> wrote:
> Tom,
>   I basically agree with your comments. However, if the patient  has been
> re-applied for on copyrights before 1923 then there is still a  copyright
> that applies. Just not the original copyright. Also remember that  information
> in the public domain (dob, dod, spouses name, locations, name of  cemetery,
> and other public domain facts can not be copyrighted. The format that
> someone uses (in a book, web site, etc.) is copyrighted, but not the facts. So,
> if you look at my web site and extract the public domain information about
> my  Great Great Grandfather and enter it into your web site or into a book
> you  publish as long as you change the format that I have it in then you are
> legal.  But, if you copy and paste all of the information (public domain or
> not) onto  your web site, then that would violate the copyright law.
>
> Good luck,
> Dave Sloan
>
> In a message dated 4/6/2011 7:41:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,
> writes:
> Tom, if I understand your message  correctly, this means that people who
> pull
> an individual obit from  GenealogyBank.com (or another subscription site for
> old newspapers) should  NOT publish a copy of the image of the obit on their
> blogs, because  GenealogyBank.com owns the copyright of that image.  Is
> that
> correct?
>
> (I haven't actually done this on my own blog...but I've  seen it done quite
> a
> bit, so I think it's important to clarify whether that  is or is not okay.)
>
>
> --------------------------------
> Kerry  Scott
> Milwaukee,  WI
> www.cluewagon.com
>
> <http://twitter.com/cluewagon>;
>
>
> On  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Tom Kemp <>  wrote:
>
>> Copyright does apply to obituary notices.
>> Pre 1923 -  no copyright applies
>>
>> However - a digital copy of the obituary  created and put online
>> creates a new copyright set of protections for  the digital image.
>> Digital images of a newspaper obituary article - or  obituary for any
>> time period - that are created by one commercial firm  may never be
>> copied and place on another online site - commercial or  not. It has
>> been my experience that these companies give permission for  a digital
>> image to be reprinted in a book/hard copy genealogy but not  permission
>> to put it up in electronic form on any other  site.
>>
>> >From 1923 forward to the present copyright does  apply.
>>
>> Some newspapers consider the family-written obituaries as  a paid
>> advertisement and track it as a "classified ad" even though it  appears
>> in the obituary column.
>> Some newspapers treat it as  their editorial content in either case
>> (staff written or family written)  the text may not be quoted verbatim
>> in another online site. It can  appear in a published (book form - not
>> electronic) family genealogy. The  digital image may only be reproduced
>> with prior written permission from  the company.
>>
>> Contrary to the frequent disclaimer in this string  that companies will
>> not enforce their copyright infringement is not  correct.
>> These companies will enforce their copyright.
>>
>>  Best rule of thumb: When in doubt - ask permission and clearly state
>> the  place/purpose of your planned re-use of their  newspapers.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM,  Paula Haymon <>
>> wrote:
>> > I am  surprised, too. Copyright exists from the moment an idea is
> written
>>  or
>> > otherwise expressed.Unlike a patent, it does not need to be  registered
>> for the
>> > creator of the piece to enjoy that  protection. Copyright owners have
> the
>> > exclusive right to control  the copying of the work. Fair use is not
>> likely
>> > viable here  as the entire obituary is copied and published, verbatim,
> and
>>  not
>> > used as a citation in other research, even though the intent of  the
>> copier is
>> > likely for educational use and their is no  direct commercial benefit
> for
>> the
>> > copier. Should the copier  be a genealogist for hire, one could argue
> that
>> he or
>> > she  could gain some commercial benefit.
>> >
>> >
>>  >
>> > Connie Sheets wrote:
>> >
>> > I would be less  than honest, however, if I didn't say I'm surprised so
>> many
>> >  people seem to believe that obituaries are somehow exempt from
> copyright
>>  (in
>> > practice if not in fact) and it's okay to copy and paste them  elsewhere
>> if it's
>> > for a good cause.
>> >
>>  The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive
>>  environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition
> to
>> professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this  list.
>> -------------------------------
>> 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
>>
> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a  supportive
> environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they  transition to
> professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of  this list.
> -------------------------------
> 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: