Show Posts
19
Canada / Re: Copyright at Automated Genealogy
« on: Friday 10 February 06 15:24 GMT (UK) »
Hi Denise,
I fully agree with you, we are in someone else's home and we must abide by their rules.
Using the copyright laws of either country or the US or anyother country may not be well defind enough as a set of rules. If our hosts could sit down and give it a little thought and come up with a set of guide lines to help us I think this site would go through the roof as a real source of info.
You mentioned you don't fully understand this © stuff. OK lets see if I can explain it a little clearer. First, my backround for knowing some of this comes from having to submit my own original writtings to the Canadian Forces Distance Learning Centre on military history and their copyright cops are far worse. Lets say you and I have the same thought and we write it down in different ways but the thought is still there. Both writtings are © but the thought it self is not. Now if I use your writtings on this thought and use the exact wording, I have not created anything original, that word is key in the law and I have violated the law. Now if take your writtings and re-arranged, and changed some wording but haven't changed the thought because that is what I wish to convey, then it is a translation and now my writtings are ©.
Now, when it comes to what we are involved in, is a little different. Both governments have allowed coping verbatim for people that are critics, reviewers and researchers. We, who study genealogy are all self proclaimed researcher for what ever reason. This is where it can get a little troublesome at times. When you come across some writtings that you believe maybe wrong or require additional input and/or clarification, the law provides a means to publish just enough for you to convey your intend of research without breaking the law as long as, and I can't stress this enough you state the source you can quote their work. If you don't, then you have implied, it is your work.
Next is our bread and butter, the facts and problem I have with Automated Genealogy.
Factual information can not be ©. This is very plane and simple "Glenn Baird b. 5 Sep 1960, M, blah blah", is factual information. I can copy every last bit of info from the Can. census and it would appear exactly the same as Automated Genealogy's tables with possably, the links, but then again, I can create links as well to allow for verification. The pages that surround the tables are ©, it is their original thoughts and ideas, but, the info in the tables are not because, 1. It is not their original thoughts. 2. Facts are not one's thoughts. There's the difference.
The law says you can adapt and translate to create your own work. You can adapt an expression and keep the same thought. You can not adapt a fact and keep the same thought. Automated Genealogy's claims to have adapted the information yet in the same breath they use transcribe. The definitions are very different.
I hope I have helped a little.
Glenn
I fully agree with you, we are in someone else's home and we must abide by their rules.
Using the copyright laws of either country or the US or anyother country may not be well defind enough as a set of rules. If our hosts could sit down and give it a little thought and come up with a set of guide lines to help us I think this site would go through the roof as a real source of info.
You mentioned you don't fully understand this © stuff. OK lets see if I can explain it a little clearer. First, my backround for knowing some of this comes from having to submit my own original writtings to the Canadian Forces Distance Learning Centre on military history and their copyright cops are far worse. Lets say you and I have the same thought and we write it down in different ways but the thought is still there. Both writtings are © but the thought it self is not. Now if I use your writtings on this thought and use the exact wording, I have not created anything original, that word is key in the law and I have violated the law. Now if take your writtings and re-arranged, and changed some wording but haven't changed the thought because that is what I wish to convey, then it is a translation and now my writtings are ©.
Now, when it comes to what we are involved in, is a little different. Both governments have allowed coping verbatim for people that are critics, reviewers and researchers. We, who study genealogy are all self proclaimed researcher for what ever reason. This is where it can get a little troublesome at times. When you come across some writtings that you believe maybe wrong or require additional input and/or clarification, the law provides a means to publish just enough for you to convey your intend of research without breaking the law as long as, and I can't stress this enough you state the source you can quote their work. If you don't, then you have implied, it is your work.
Next is our bread and butter, the facts and problem I have with Automated Genealogy.
Factual information can not be ©. This is very plane and simple "Glenn Baird b. 5 Sep 1960, M, blah blah", is factual information. I can copy every last bit of info from the Can. census and it would appear exactly the same as Automated Genealogy's tables with possably, the links, but then again, I can create links as well to allow for verification. The pages that surround the tables are ©, it is their original thoughts and ideas, but, the info in the tables are not because, 1. It is not their original thoughts. 2. Facts are not one's thoughts. There's the difference.
The law says you can adapt and translate to create your own work. You can adapt an expression and keep the same thought. You can not adapt a fact and keep the same thought. Automated Genealogy's claims to have adapted the information yet in the same breath they use transcribe. The definitions are very different.
I hope I have helped a little.
Glenn
