WIKI-GENPAGES-L Archives

Archiver > WIKI-GENPAGES > 2009-04 > 1239906160


From: "GeneJ" <>
Subject: Re: [WIKI-GENPAGES] Participation and opinions about thefuture of Wiki genealogy sites
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:22:40 -0700
References: <49E54505.3020607@integrity.com> <ddeffd3f0904150852o446bacb3r1380bd92126c9728@mail.gmail.com> <B79874E0-DB8E-40D7-862D-863F7F778B2C@earthlink.net> <ddeffd3f0904151307y687ab1c1jc97bc231c9bc8e47@mail.gmail.com> <1EF7F56F-87B8-4241-9960-F405192338FD@earthlink.net> <ddeffd3f0904152139t1e25af33gbe7fde41082e90e1@mail.gmail.com> <687F150C-7E26-4DF9-AB3E-41E1065FB648@earthlink.net> <004401c9beb3$e1377020$a3a65060$@net><41EA05CE-A9A0-4275-B750-BFCCE6412853@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <41EA05CE-A9A0-4275-B750-BFCCE6412853@earthlink.net>


Bill:
Ahh.... but the burden of proof applied in copyright "law" is somewhat
unique, isn't it.

You wrote, "... One can always sue. Whether its worth it or not, depends on
the case."
I don't want to twist your words,--might you clarify the side to which you
referred when you said, "...can always sue?"

You wrote, "... Sweat of Brow does not translate to copy-right."
I'm suggesting the premise of the argument might be invalid. In other words,
what makes you the judge of "why" someone else's material is NOT subject to
copyright in fact? Doesn't a good attorney look at a the broader set of
facts to identify those that he/she believes are necessary for a case to
meet the burden of the "law." Just because "sweat of the brow" isn't
necessary for that burden, I'm rather of the opinion that once the burden is
met, juries are quite interested in "the rest of the story."

Moreover, I'd go so far as to say that since there is some basis of "art" in
the theory of copyright law, the entire issue of "what is data" could be
argued as to what you might consider "facts"!

As you've gathered, I don't subscribe to the notion that it's cool for one
lay person to advise another that they don't need to follow otherwise
learned ways or practices when dealing with items of genealogical value.

Hope you'll clarify on that the item about "which side." --GJ


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [WIKI-GENPAGES] Participation and opinions about the future of
Wiki genealogy sites

One can always sue. Whether its worth it or not, depends on the case.
The point was that Sweat of Brow does not translate to copy-right.
What translates to copy-right is the creative aspects.

If you could find a creative way to present a phone book, something
other than an alphabetical listing, then you could I presume
copyright it.
Since the data itself is not copyrightable, that wouldn't stop anyone
from reproducing the phone book in alphabetical format.


On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:53 PM, GeneJ wrote:

> Hi Bill, others:
>
> If the law was really so black and white, we'd not have so many
> attorneys.
> Most of the lawyers and orators I know find _great_ arguments from
> within
> simple sets of issues.
>
> You wrote of someone else's take, "Copyright-ability hinges on whether
> there's a unique intellectual contribution. ... Supreme Court
> ruling ....
> how much work ("Sweat of Brow") you put into something has nothing
> to do
> with its copyright status...."
>
> Humm...As I recall from the Wikipedia entry about the phone book
> case ...
> suggests it doesn't take much to meet the burden of "unique ....
> contribution" (seem to recall the word(s) "spark" or "no matter how
> small").
> I also wonder about "sweat of brow." Do I recall correctly that the
> original
> book was not the result of a voluntary or creative scheme? Wasn't that
> "phone book" actually a *requirement* of a larger contract .. so
> that the
> "effort" wasn't even independent to the cost of some other, larger
> effort?--
>
> It was a phone book case! ...Even if parts of the judges' opinions
> would
> apply, the more scholarly or courteous approach still seems "best
> practice."
> What makes anyone else the expert about my "sparks."
>
> When it comes to genealogy publishing (including publishing to the
> internet), I'm of the opinion that the broad spectrum of "use"
> issues have
> been badly abused. I recently suggested the "click-copy-paste"
> features of
> some internet browsers were created just for us.
>
> Copyright is, by its nature, a _very_ limited right. Rather than
> argue about
> the virtual "line in the sand" should be drawn, I think we would be
> so much
> better off if we argued the various points as part of a "best
> practices"
> dialog.
>
> Thank you for considering my points.--GJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Bill
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:49 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [WIKI-GENPAGES] Participation and opinions about the
> future of
> Wiki genealogy sites
>
> Twigs wrote"
>
>> If this guy is right, and I am not convinced he is, then I am
>> wasting my
>> time. I am a genweb coordinator. When I took over my county site
>> it had
>> less than 100 pages. I have worked hard and spent money I could
>> have used
>> in my own research to make it a site that my users could find help
>> on.
>
> Yes, that's the problem for many folks.
>
> There are a number of issues with copyright that have not be tested
> in courts of law. The "Sweat of Brow" argument that you raise,
> however, is not, one of them. Without commenting on the moral merits
> of the following, here's a paraphrase of what many people
> knowledgeable about this have to say:
>
> "Copyright-ability hinges on whether there's a unique intellectual
> contribution. There's a Supreme Court ruling to the effect that how
> much work ("Sweat of Brow") you put into something has nothing to do
> with its copyright status. Details slip my mind but as I recall,
> someone decided they wanted to publish their own telephone book for a
> community, and the local telephone company sued over copyright
> infringement---the court ruling was that "sorry, these are public
> records, and there's nothing unique in your display of information
> (alphabetical order), so your telephone book gets no protection".
> That's why we have "Yellow Book" ads and competing telephone
> directories. To get copyright protection there has to be a unique
> intellectual component to the the work---and simply copying something
> and putting it up on the web (no matter how laborious or meritorious
> the effort or intent), gets no copyright protection."
>
> Or so the reasoning goes. I've not heard a good counter refutation.
> Sort of hard to argue with the US Supreme Court.
>
> There are, however, ways that folk attempt to get around this, such
> as using restrictive licenses. Ancestry does this. (So does Google
> for some of its map works.) Those are the "terms of Use" you have to
> agree to if you make use of the materials on their sites. I don't
> believe those have been tested as yet in a court of law. It will be
> interesting to see how that turns out if and when a case makes it to
> the Supreme Court.
>
> People have commented for years about some GenWeb practices
> concerning copyright. Many of the county sites take information from
> copyrighted works and publishing them on their webpages, often
> without even acknowledging their sources. Then slap a copyright
> notification on the materials saying in effect, you can't use this
> for anything but your own personal uses, and you must retain this
> notice with any materials you copied. Sort of hypocritical when they
> fail to note that they took the material from a another source
> themselves, something someone else worked hard to collect, and
> publish. (Lists of names and the like might be one thing, but whole
> pages of text? Without any acknowledgment of source ---at a minimum
> that's plagerism, and if its still under copyright, its copyright
> infringement.)
>
> Fortunately, in the last couple of years GenWeb has come to recognize
> this issue, and are working to clarify their position. You might
> speak with your GenWeb contacts on this. I know there's a draft
> policy in the works, but haven't followed it closely enough to
> describe it.
>
>
>> I have put a lot of my own research aside to work on this site.
>> It's long,
>> hard work reading a cemetery. It is hard work transcribing. I
>> don't do it
>> so someone can come along and just take my work and put it anywhere
>> else. I
>> do it because I want to help those that come to my site, it is for
>> my county
>> which I love. I could never understand why a coordinator would
>> take all
>> the data from their site when they retired/left. I think I do now.
>> Why should I spend any time or money, neither of which I can
>> afford, to do
>> this when all I have to do is scour the internet and take it from
>> other
>> sites? I see no purpose in my work if this is the case.
>
> That is, of course, a personal decision, and one you have every right
> to make. However, it makes me wonder why you are working in an Wiki
> Environment since the object of a wiki is to eliminate restrictions
> on the use of materials being presented there. Everything you put up
> on a wiki is pretty much available for anyone else to use as they see
> fit, unless there are specific limitations which you place on your
> work.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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 WIKI-GENPAGES-
> 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: