RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Brickwall Demolisher on Saturday 06 January 18 10:03 GMT (UK)
-
Would like to be informed fully on what is classed as copyright breaching. Regarding of what is allowed before a breach has been made. As in my case I am at present in a partially handicapped state. Are we / Am I committing breach of copyright by what we ask one another / what we find and pass on verbally, by e-mails or post.
Instance - same mid 1850's photograph - two different sites - one has copyright protected over it, the other with no markings at all. Am I breaching by scanning & freely supplying copies to people who have an interest on either.
Should I just inform them of what site it's on?
Is it only an offence when money is asked for your findings, supplying of?
Does this ever come into effect on and what info. we pass on to each one of us of census / bmd regs / newspaper articles / electoral etc.
Thanking you all in advance for reading, much appreciated.
Regards Just J
-
If you scroll down to the bottom of any RootsChat page, there is a link ;D
It sends you to:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/copyright.php
Just remember that, if you do breach copyright, and legal processes get involved, it would most likely be RootsChat (i.e. Trystan & Sarah) who get into trouble rather than yourself :(
-
..and for general UK Copyright info, see the various sections here:
https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/copyright
Gadget
-
Generally speaking, it's the images (of censuses, BMD's, Parish Registers, etc) that are copyright.
If you transcribe the information yourself (i.e. type it out), then the information itself isn't copyright ;D
1911 census is the tricky one, because it's copyright of FindMyPast. You can only pass on informatioj found on a free index/site. Such as FamilySearch.
Photographs do tend to be copyrighted; so best to just pass on a link, unless you are sure the photo is out of copyright. Just to play safe ;D
Asking for money is almost certainly against Terms and Conditions of the various websites, and is not to be encouraged.
-
If information from literary and artistic works is photocopied (in libraries, for e.g), there is a system whereby the author/owner gets paid a certain amount in royalities for each time it's copied . I had nearly £1000 in one quarter last year.
Gadget
added - this is the organisation https://www.alcs.co.uk
-
Would like to be informed fully on what is classed as copyright breaching. Regarding of what is allowed before a breach has been made. As in my case I am at present in a partially handicapped state. Are we / Am I committing breach of copyright by what we ask one another / what we find and pass on verbally, by e-mails or post.
Instance - same mid 1850's photograph - two different sites - one has copyright protected over it, the other with no markings at all. Am I breaching by scanning & freely supplying copies to people who have an interest on either.
Should I just inform them of what site it's on?
Is it only an offence when money is asked for your findings, supplying of?
Does this ever come into effect on and what info. we pass on to each one of us of census / bmd regs / newspaper articles / electoral etc.
Thanking you all in advance for reading, much appreciated.
Regards Just J
What you are asking is actually impossible to give.
Copyright protection is very precise and it depends on what you want to copy, when it was produced, whether it has been previously published what form it takes picture, photograph text etc., etc.
Some people also claim that facts cannot be copyright, that claim is based on the copyright laws of the USA not of the UK or Europe where facts can and are copyright and case law has upheld this with fines for those who transgress.
Note even a few words or a sentence from a book can in certain circumstances make the copyist liable under the copyright Act there is no minimum amount which is allowed before the law kicks in.
This came under UK law with Database Right in 1997 which is part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended.
The relevant law is available here
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l9t/
Hope this helps
Cheers
Guy
PS I should add copyright here in the UK is automatic it does not have to be registered as soon as something is put down in a tangible form it is copyright.
-
1911 census is the tricky one, because it's copyright of FindMyPast. You can only pass on informatioj found on a free index/site. Such as FamilySearch.
The census page images are (probably Crown) copyright - but the main issue with the FindMyPast implementation of the 1911 census is the enforcement of the T's & C's stipulated by FindMyPast ... ie as a paying member you cannot share any information from the site ... they want every access to be under a paid subscription ....
Copyright on Books and Photos used to have a limited time frame before expiration - not sure now ....
-
I have found that so often, those of a bureaucratic mindset use claims of copyright to stop you from doing anything. Fight them.
I was in Fife Scotland a few years ago in a municipal museum looking at some Pictish stones from around 700AD. A petty functionary approached me and told me that I could not take photographs of them because they were covered by copyright.
BS. Copyright did not exist at the time of their creation and in any case would have expired in the interim. Acquiring an item which has copyright associated with it does not start the clock running again. I told the functionary to go away in fairly rude terms and proceeded to shoot.
Anyone can copy Shakespeare's works but no-one can claim any copyright associated with them.
Copyright only applies to the law current at the time of creation of the work. Only in one peculiar case in the 1970s is there ever any backdating. It extends over the time current at the time of creation.
Given the OP’s question relating to a photograph created in the 1850s, any copyright expired many years ago and just because someone has collected the photo and subsequently republished it does not create any copyright protection all over again.
-
Would like to be informed fully on what is classed as copyright breaching. Regarding of what is allowed before a breach has been made. As in my case I am at present in a partially handicapped state. Are we / Am I committing breach of copyright by what we ask one another / what we find and pass on verbally, by e-mails or post.
Instance - same mid 1850's photograph - two different sites - one has copyright protected over it, the other with no markings at all. Am I breaching by scanning & freely supplying copies to people who have an interest on either.
Should I just inform them of what site it's on?
Is it only an offence when money is asked for your findings, supplying of?
Does this ever come into effect on and what info. we pass on to each one of us of census / bmd regs / newspaper articles / electoral etc.
Thanking you all in advance for reading, much appreciated.
Regards Just J
I am in Australia and I share the wiki article re Copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Australia
See also
https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/Documents/ShortGuidetoCopyright-October2012.pdf
There is a definition at page 2 of that pdf that may be useful:
What is copyright?
Copyright is a type of property that is founded on a person's creative skill and labour. Copyright protects the form or way an idea or information is expressed, not the idea or information itself.
Copyright is not a tangible thing. It is made up of a bundle of exclusive economic rights to do certain acts with an original work or other copyright subject-matter. These rights include the right to copy, publish, communicate (eg broadcast, make available online) and publicly perform the copyright material.
Copyright creators also have a number of non-economic rights. These are known as moral rights. This term derives from the French droit moral. Moral rights recognised in Australia are the right of integrity of authorship, the right of attribution of authorship and the right against false attribution of authorship.
In Australia, whether the infringer is acting on a pro bono basis or for commercial gain, an infringement is an infringement and the copyright holder is entitled to seek redress.
JM
-
Hi there Just J,
I can see that you have been online and posted on other threads, including starting a new thread. May I please ask you if the information posted in the replies on this thread has been useful to you.
I ask because sometimes some people have been known to confuse plagiarism with copyright infringements.
JM
-
Hi there Just J,
I can see that you have been online and posted on other threads, including starting a new thread. May I please ask you if the information posted in the replies on this thread has been useful to you.
I ask because sometimes some people have been known to confuse plagiarism with copyright infringements.
JM
Good Morning JM,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my enquiry. My interest was to find out if by what I would be doing, I would not later find that I had infringed copyright regulations. Firstly take into account the photograph scenario, the first one I found, smaller in size than the second, has copyright markings all over it also there was not much clarity with the picture. My thinking / mulling over with myself was, I'd like to have that picture framed if the copyright wording was not on it, but then my thoughts were perhaps not ... i.e the markings. Sometime later I came across of a better picture altogether, focusing much better, larger, clearer and no copyright markings. This picture by the way was a mid 1860's riverside view. The picture has a family name interest only, any connection with my name and the picture content has yet to be discovered.
If i had gone straight in and tried to remove the copyright markings, for only my personnel use. I then found another person be wanting a copy.What if, I had supplied. I did not I actually just gave him the details of the second site finding' s. Wondered ever since would / are / we be copyright infringing? ..... hence my enquiry?
I've only been on Roots. for just under a month now, results from the interest of my query will certainly help somebody / me, I find it beneficial. Information freely given like this will probably make them think and look more into what they want to do before any infringement has been made. Surely the subject of copyright has been as a subject before, the knowledge people have on Roots willing to share, and on everything else is just amazing. Thanks everyone.
Regards to all, JUST J
-
I ask because sometimes some people have been known to confuse plagiarism with copyright infringements.
JM
Not just that JM but there is also the problem with licences and other forms of control.
Ian999 mentioned-
I have found that so often, those of a bureaucratic mindset use claims of copyright to stop you from doing anything. Fight them.
I was in Fife Scotland a few years ago in a municipal museum looking at some Pictish stones from around 700AD. A petty functionary approached me and told me that I could not take photographs of them because they were covered by copyright.
In this instance the regulations he was possibly infringing was very likely to be the terms of access and use of cameras in the museum rather than copyright restrictions, but the staff member used the term copyright rather than condition of entry in their reproach.
Many websites have terms of use attached to their access and rely on the moral compass of the user to comply rather than litigation.
I would suggest the best course of action wherever possible is to ask if it is okay to take a copy or a photo before you do it.
Many websites have a contacts address to contact somewhere on the site.
Cheers
Guy
-
As I am not UK based my practical experiences with UK copyright is ziltch. BUT art gallerys and museum curators etc in NSW Australia can and have mentioned copyright issues over their curated displays particularly when the installations focus on arranging a contemporary display of artefacts from tens of thousands of years. I know this from my professional life which has no connection to my involvement in family history studies.
JM