tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post7696443349141929795..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: When copyright protection for genealogy becomes a really bad ideaJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-84500252129005172672014-04-08T15:45:19.956-07:002014-04-08T15:45:19.956-07:00What is copyrighted is the way the facts are prese...What is copyrighted is the way the facts are presented, not the facts themselves. Say I wanted to write a book about the same family group as your hypothetical author. I can find and use the same sources that the author uses, present them in the same order, and come to the same conclusions, and I would not be in violation of copyright. <br /><br />Hence James' point, the only real benefit of copyright in family history research is the monetary benefit someone could drive from publishing and selling the book. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04538800073613563970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-33244715721333639222014-04-08T11:50:25.109-07:002014-04-08T11:50:25.109-07:00Well, attorneys do think in a similar fashion. :-)...Well, attorneys do think in a similar fashion. :-)James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-41713871745676613742014-04-08T11:49:25.452-07:002014-04-08T11:49:25.452-07:00You can see from the list in the blog post that th...You can see from the list in the blog post that there are a very significant number of statutes that need to be addressed in making any definition of something such as the term "work." In addition, you would have to look at a few dozen to a few hundred court cases before you came to your conclusion about whether or not any particular documents qualified as a work. My point is that the whole thing is not simple, it is overwhelmingly complex.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-39541261819086767872014-04-08T09:14:11.067-07:002014-04-08T09:14:11.067-07:00The interesting thing is that Judy Russell, The Le...The interesting thing is that Judy Russell, The Legal Genealogist, had a post on 5 Sep 2012, "The courts and the orphan works" (see http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2012/09/05/the-courts-and-the-orphan-works/ ) where she discusses, among other things, the topic of orphan works still in copyright. So far as I understand her, her essential point is that if the holder of the copyright cannot be identified and / or frankly doesn't care, then there is a case that copyright gets in the way of distributing the information in question. <br /><br />Specifically, she says "But the Authors Guild minds. It doesn’t want Alfred’s play or cousin Elma’s book digitized and certainly doesn’t want them put on the internet simply because they’re copyrighted. The fact that there doesn’t seem to be a particular copyright holder who shares that concern is getting lost here."<br /><br />If I've got you both right - that's food for thought.<br /><br />Adrian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-15711189710871616992014-04-08T02:49:36.563-07:002014-04-08T02:49:36.563-07:00I'm not sure how the US definition of 'wor...I'm not sure how the US definition of 'work' tallies with international copyright law but, as I understand it, it protects "original works of authorship". Although the list you quoted earlier is all about artistic works, the US (as elsewhere) does accommodate certain "intellectual works", including architecture and computer software (see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html) so weren't they intended as mere examples rather than a prescription list?Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-65210130651741744482014-04-07T21:31:56.652-07:002014-04-07T21:31:56.652-07:00You might need to be aware that registration is no...You might need to be aware that registration is not necessary for copyright protection. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-74378128657725160322014-04-07T21:26:36.450-07:002014-04-07T21:26:36.450-07:00You are correct that copyright does not protect id...You are correct that copyright does not protect ideas. But the means of expression is somewhat irrelevant to copyright. The concept is that an "original work" is protected and the term "work" is legally defined. I am writing a post on this shortly.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-53757602135278913182014-04-07T21:23:14.171-07:002014-04-07T21:23:14.171-07:00Thanks, it looks like I need another post about th...Thanks, it looks like I need another post about the difference between the statutory based copyright and the non-legal concept of plagiarism. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-82097727235728296762014-04-07T13:32:34.672-07:002014-04-07T13:32:34.672-07:00If a genealogist writes a book about a specific fa...If a genealogist writes a book about a specific family group and publishes it, the law grants that author copyright protection once the author registers his work with the online Copyright entity. Any essay that the author writes that is derived from the aforementioned book is also copy righted. Genealogists often have a very bad habit of not citing the source of their data. Yes, it is bad form after one has spent years documenting the subjects written about in the author's book. Think about it and perhaps you will understand.ayesarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17417180905151137132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-44438983549235095192014-04-07T11:05:43.978-07:002014-04-07T11:05:43.978-07:00Maybe I'm not following your thinking James bu...Maybe I'm not following your thinking James but copyright protects the means-of-expression rather than the ideas themselves (Copyright Act 1976), and so what a genealogist writes (ignoring mere trees) can still be protected. It's true that avoiding plagiarism plays a large role in this, and that citation/attribution would be very welcome if universally honoured, but that protection is not necessarily for some immediate and quantifiable financial gain. It may contribute to the author's "intellectual wealth", or kudos, which could result in gains at a later stage.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-70710167338277868382014-04-07T09:04:21.060-07:002014-04-07T09:04:21.060-07:00If I understand correctly, copyright protects us a...If I understand correctly, copyright protects us against losing income based on our work product. Our real concern is plagiarism, theft of the intellectual content of our work product rather than its monetary value. We use the copyright law to shut down instances of plagiarism.<br /><br />The web link below states, in part, "There's an old joke that goes "Whenever anyone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle,' it's really the money." In the case of stealing another's creative work, it is the principle, though."<br /><br />http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?61315-Why-Plagiarism-is-WrongBarbara Jean Mathewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909329971189134434noreply@blogger.com