Copyright - where are we?

[GrahamH]

May we have a look at this little gem, found all over this site and others ...

"Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk"

... which, of course, is both true and false, depending upon how you interpret it. If we are to be completely pedantic, this means that I cannot pass on to anyone details of where I lived in 2001, or 1991, or 1981, because that information is held as Census information subject to Crown Copyright. And that situation is patently a load of rubbish. It would mean I could never apply for a job, would be legally obliged to withhold information from the police should they decide to arrest me, could never ever buy anything mail order, couldn't ask anyone here to write to me .... the silly list goes on.

The Crown copyright covers the totality of the census data (or any substantial part of it) and the work undertaken to put the data into electronically readable form, and is there to prevent anyone else just taking it and passing it off as their own data. That's fair enough. I wouldn't wish to steal anyone's labour. But I refuse to accept that a loosely-worded legal convention could prevent me from using my name and address - or anyone else's for that matter.

Are we really allowing ourselves to be put into the insane situation of attempting to deny access to information which belongs to us? I think not. Bob's right - we're undergoing a massive rethink because of electronic access, but that rethink is to make sure that we do NOT get into the ridiculous situation rather than an attempt to ensure ongoing profits for data suppliers.

I'd like to pick up on this, especially the last paragraph.

If I understand the post correctly, "information which belongs to us" appears to refer to census information. In the generality of this thread we are not just talking about census data but everything from that, through other public & church records to commercially produced directories and the like. The latter includes facsimiles of original works, issued in the form of books, fiche, CDs etc.

In regard to "ongoing profits for data suppliers", doesn't anyone who makes a product have an ongoing right to sell it for as long as someone is willing to buy it?

When we purchase a book to scan and issue as CD facsimiles we hope to make more in sales than the total cost (including labour, material & plant) - what is wrong with that?

As posted previously, all CDs which we sell include terms which prohibit non-personal use. We have never forced anyone to buy one of our CDs and anyone who doesn't like the terms is free not to purchase. They have the alternatives of competing with us to purchase the original work, tracking down another copy to purchase or going in person to consult a copy in a library.

What purchasers do not have the right to do (unless with our permission) is to make non-personal use of our CDs (e.g. by offering lookups on this forum) which damage potential further sales of our products.

Graham

[MKG]

Hi Graham

Perhaps I don't express myself very well. I actually agree with you most of the way, to the extent that I'm hoping to do the same kind of thing myself and charge for my labours. What I'm trying to get at is the nature of the information I'll be processing. I have a copy of a book published in 1860 which is very important to the history of my home village. There are no copies available on the market any longer, it cost me an arm and a leg to get hold of, it's long ago out of copyright, there were no copyright extensions etc. etc. - this thing is now free for all to use but, as I say, not freely available. Like you, I will be putting in a lot of work scanning, cleaning up, clarifying printer errors etc., and I would be annoyed in the extreme if anyone just upped and copied my scans and notes (or even the entire CD) willy-nilly and passed them around the world. Of course you justifiably wish to be recompensed for your work.

However, the words on my CD will mainly be those of another person who died a long time ago. I cannot and would not wish to prevent anyone else from quoting them - in fact the whole idea of publishing a CD version is to enable exactly that. I want this book to be where it should be, which is easily and openly available to anyone interested in local history.

And that, I believe, is exactly the same situation as the genealogical one. The raw data is for anyone and everyone. The work performed to put that data into an accessible form is not. Payment should, correctly, be expected for the work done, but it would be anathema to me to see any individual or organisation attempting to establish unjustifiable copyrights.

There - I hope that's made my position clearer .

Mike

[GrahamH]

Thanks for the clarification Mike. I don't think our views are far apart - if apart at all.

I would not suggest for one moment that the words/illustrations in the scanned images on one of our CDs are our copyright. It is the image files and the code which enables their display which we create - and are, thus, our copyright.

We would not wish - and we have no right - to stop anyone else from obtaining their own copy of the original, out of copyright, book and creating their own CD version. We would not wish - and we have no right - to stop anyone else from obtaining their own copy of the original, out of copyright, book and publishing the whole or extracts in any way, shape or form.

However, that is not the same as giving our blessing to anyone publishing the same information taken from the scans on our CDs. That is why (as mentioned in an earlier post) our CDs are protected by terms & conditions of use as well as copyright. The Ts&Cs restrict usage to personal purposes and prohibit further publication, unless we give our permission for other usage.

Perhaps a couple of examples would be useful to illustrate how different types of publication can adversely affect a business such as ours and how look-ups can be worse than outright copying:
1) A couple of years ago we learned that a purchaser of one of our CDs was selling copies on eBay. Luckily we found out early and were able to stop his activities (he was banned by eBay and warned by Trading Standards) when he had only cost us about £60 in lost profits.
2) Earlier this year we learned that a purchaser of one of our CDs was offering free lookups on an on-line forum. That activity cost us well over £200 in potential lost profits before we were able to stop it.

As mentioned earlier, anyone who doesn't like our terms is free not to purchase but if they do then we believe we are justified in expecting the terms to be adhered to.

Graham

[Jean McGurn]

was offering free lookups on an on-line forum.

I can understand this bit. You buying Joe Blogg's CD and making an offer is a no go.

However what if you already have the Cd and you spot a query online and know you can help them with an answer.

Do you check your CD and find it - is that breaking copyright or would you have to put down you found it on Joe Blogg's CD of ....

From my own point of view, if I know there is going to be a lot of pertinant info in a book or on a CD then I will either try and obtain my own copy or borrow from the library. However there are times when either availability or costs can be a drawback. 

From all previous posts all I can say is that the rules of copyright are a minefield for some of us, it's not surprising that they get breached at times.

 Jean

[GrahamH]

was offering free lookups on an on-line forum.

I can understand this bit. You buying Joe Blogg's CD and making an offer is a no go.

However what if you already have the Cd and you spot a query online and know you can help them with an answer.

Do you check your CD and find it - is that breaking copyright or would you have to put down you found it on Joe Blogg's CD of ....

From my own point of view, if I know there is going to be a lot of pertinant info in a book or on a CD then I will either try and obtain my own copy or borrow from the library. However there are times when either availability or costs can be a drawback. 

From all previous posts all I can say is that the rules of copyright are a minefield for some of us, it's not surprising that they get breached at times.

 Jean

Sensible question Jean.

In the case of our CDs, strictly speaking passing on such information is further publication - so is prohibited by the terms under which it was purchased. However, as I have said previously (link to elsewhere quoted in an earlier post on this thread) in reality it simply wouldn't be worth us trying to identify and take action against private individuals doing the odd look-up.

Having said that, the purchaser of the CD knows that passing on the information is breaching the terms.

In addition, passing on the information is still possibly costing "Joe Bloggs"a sale. That means that "Joe Bloggs" has less money to invest in more books for scanning which, in turn, means that people in general will have less opportunity to obtain copies of scarce publications - which exacerbates the point about availability and costs being a drawback.

So it also becomes a question of personal morality - and that's something only each of us individually can reconcile with our consciences.

Graham

[JAP]

Hi Jean McGurn and GrahamH,

Many others are very puzzled also.

Including those of us RootsChatters who post in an attempt to try to contribute to a reasoned and constructive and helpful dialogue about the whole matter (especially about the application of RootsChat policy - which is the precise issue which started this thread and which is of interest to all of us including, surely, GrahamH).

There's no doubt but that copyright is a minefield.  And that RC is between a rock and a hard place.  As I indicated in my now-deleted posts.

However my posts (and those of certain other thoughtful RootsChatters) are regularly and puzzlingly deleted.  I won't be surprised if this post too is deleted - but I keep trying.

The puzzlement (puzzlement not criticism - these are two very different matters) arises because lookup offers, and 'cut and paste' answers, occur - and have done so for years - on RC without any action having been taken.

Try checking out all the 'cut and paste' posts from the IGI.  Or from FreeCEN.  Or from FreeBMD.  Or from the ScotlandsPeople Index.  Check out offers and 'cut and paste' responses on (say) some Fife lookup threads e.g. Auchterderran School Records, and Fife pre-1855 Deaths CD, and FIfe MIs.  Etc ..

Of course I haven't reported such instances (why not let RootsChatters get the benefit while they can courtesy of RC) though I'm told that others have done so.  But, in the light of recent correspondence, the time seems to have come for these issues to be addressed as there really do seem to be major anomalies in how RootsChatters are treated. 

Well, I hope that this post won't be deleted.
And I hope that a matter which puzzles so many RootsChatters will be addressed as seriously as it deserves and will be resolved.  

JAP

[GrahamH]

Rootschat is a privately owned organisation and is free to impose the terms on which it wishes to do business, just like any other privately owned organisation. Anyone who doesn't like those terms is perfectly entitled not to enter into business with Rootschat.  Just as with any other contract with a private organisation, when we use Rootschat we all undertake to comply with its terms.

The fact that

'cut and paste' answers, occur - and have done so for years - on RC without any action having been taken.

is merely an indication that they have not been dealt with properly (perhaps not detected) rather than any indication that they are acceptable.

As regards 'cut and paste' posts from the IGI, FreeCEN, FreeBMD or other freely available resource, they are different from commercial publications because those web sites have been set up specifically to be free to anyone. It does beg the question though as to why anyone should be so bone idle to ask for look-ups on Rootschat rather than to look on the free sites themselves.

I would suggest that the best way to avoid anomalies in treatment is to refrain from posting unless one knows that one has the right to post the information concerned.

Graham

[Guy Etchells]

As regards 'cut and paste' posts from the IGI, FreeCEN, FreeBMD or other freely available resource, they are different from commercial publications because those web sites have been set up specifically to be free to anyone. It does beg the question though as to why anyone should be so bone idle to ask for look-ups on Rootschat rather than to look on the free sites themselves.

I would suggest that the best way to avoid anomalies in treatment is to refrain from posting unless one knows that one has the right to post the information concerned.

Graham

Sorry Graham but you are wrong.
The LDS website contains the following-

"LICENSES AND RESTRICTIONS

This site is owned and operated by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use or, if you are a professional genealogist, for use by a current client. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to others. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submitted information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose. If you have questions or desire permission to post information, send e-mail to: fhd-copyright { -- at -- } ldschurch.org"

It is therefore against the LDS licence to cut & paste material from their site onto this or any other forum.
Cheers
Guy


Moderator Comment: e-mail edited, to avoid spamming and other abuses.
Please replace {--at--} with @

[Dancing Master]

The National Burial Index is also copyrighted and it is not allowed to be used for "lookups" and / or cut and paste,  in fact they did take it up with the FFHS about groups within the Family History Societies  doing lookups and posting.

We were all told quite clearly and categorically that we were not allowed to this by the FFHS and we have complied with that ruling.