Copyright - where are we?

[MKG]

And I completely agree with you, Suttontrust.

No amount of shuffling of legalese can alter the fact that the copyright claimed by commercial sites applies only to the FORM in which they hold the data rather than the data itself. Released census and BMD data is, and will remain, in the public domain (otherwise FreeCen and FreeBMD would be illegal projects).

If you pay for access to a commercial site, download census information and then pass it on in the precise form in which you received it, then you may be breaching copyright (although it's a very fine hair to split). On the other hand, if the public domain information is retyped or resorted, then the site's copyright has NOT been breached.

An example ... I have written a local history book which contains transcripts of some very old documents (WAY out of copyright). I have set the text, choosing my own typeface, spacing and even colour. In that form, I hold the copyright - it's MY page. But I hold no rights whatsoever over the CONTENT of that page. If that were true, I could just retype the Bible and be in for a fortune.

[LizzieW]

you don't have to be a subscriber to access the FreeBMD records on Ancestry, just registered. You do have to be a subscriber to access the full GRO index though

If someone requests a look up of FreeBMD records via Ancestry, why not just tell them they can do a search themselves on www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl without needing any subscription to Ancestry or any other site.

Lizzie

[CaroleW]

I think the copyright issue centres around those areas of Ancestry and other websites where info is only obtainable by subscription.

The full GRO index and 1841-1901 census records are the most obvious and are not available without payment.

MKG has, in my opinion, provided the best answer

If you pay for access to a commercial site, download census information and then pass it on in the precise form in which you received it, then you may be breaching copyright (although it's a very fine hair to split). On the other hand, if the public domain information is retyped or resorted, then the site's copyright has NOT been breached.

This is why the moderators remove replies that have clearly been "cut and pasted" from Ancestry transcriptions of census data

[Comosus]

With regards to Ancestry, they only have the rights to the images that they have scanned in, not the actual data in the census.

As for the directories, I wouldn't have thought there would be anything wrong there either as you are not profiting from it. Is it any different to buying a book and reading it to someone?

[andycand]

As I see it there are (at least) two distinct areas of concern for websites such as Rootschat, the first is reasonably straightforward and is the direct copying in the exact form by either "cut and paste" or scanning of information from other websites, cd's or publications that are subject to copyright. Also, and perhaps someone can clarify this, certain images such as census images are Crown Copyright irrespective of the source.

The second issue is a bit more complicated. I have a subscription to Ancestry and also a number of cd's, in both cases there are terms and conditions regarding my use of the the subscription and cd's. If I was to offer to do lookups then potentially I am in breach of those terms & conditions and if I made that offer on Rootschat then Rootschat could be seen as facilitating that offer and potentially the subject of legal recourse.

As for the directories, I wouldn't have thought there would be anything wrong there either as you are not profiting from it. Is it any different to buying a book and reading it to someone?

It may well depend upon your exact source, many directories have been reproduced on cd's and its the use of these cd's that are the potential problem as there are conditions relating to their use by the purchaser.

Andy

 

[CaroleW]

Hi Comosus

With regards to Ancestry, they only have the rights to the images that they have scanned in, not the actual data in the census.

Ancestry provide indexed transcriptions of those images which are the way in which we are able to trace people on the censuses.  Without those transcriptions - it would be a very difficult job to find your ancestors.

It is those transcriptions that are the subject of Ancestry's copyright and which are prone to "cut and paste" replies

Using the index to trace somebody is fine and does not (I think) breach any copyright as long as any reply on Rootschat is taken from the image and not "cut and paste" from the Ancestry transcription

It is, as MKG points out, a very fine hair to split.  If they really wanted to make a point, Ancestry could, in my personal opinion, reasonably argue that without their indexing of the data, nobody would be able to find anybody on the images anyway.

[GrahamH]

As I see it there are (at least) two distinct areas of concern for websites such as Rootschat, the first is reasonably straightforward and is the direct copying in the exact form by either "cut and paste" or scanning of information from other websites, cd's or publications that are subject to copyright. Also, and perhaps someone can clarify this, certain images such as census images are Crown Copyright irrespective of the source.

The second issue is a bit more complicated. I have a subscription to Ancestry and also a number of cd's, in both cases there are terms and conditions regarding my use of the the subscription and cd's. If I was to offer to do lookups then potentially I am in breach of those terms & conditions and if I made that offer on Rootschat then Rootschat could be seen as facilitating that offer and potentially the subject of legal recourse.

As for the directories, I wouldn't have thought there would be anything wrong there either as you are not profiting from it. Is it any different to buying a book and reading it to someone?

It may well depend upon your exact source, many directories have been reproduced on cd's and its the use of these cd's that are the potential problem as there are conditions relating to their use by the purchaser.
Andy

Andy has highlighted the point that there are terms & conditions aligned with copyright in CD publications. Perhaps - and maybe I am as guilty as anyone here - there is an element of confusion between copyright itself and the Ts&Cs.

On all our case wraps we include the statement:

The contents of this CD are Copyright © JiGraH Resources year; all rights reserved. You may not make copies of, publish or sell any of the contents of this CD without the prior written consent of JiGraH Resources. You may print or extract portions for the purposes of your private research and study only.

A similar statement is on our main CD order page.

As mentioned, it is the scanned images, the code which enables their display and other files on the CD which are our copyright. However, the allied Ts&Cs mean that purchasers are informed, before they buy, that they may not use the contents other than for their own private use.

Graham

[suttontrust]

I know we've done this subject to death, but I've been trying to get some facts straight in my own head. 
First, one cannot assert any intellectual property rights over facts - items of information.  Once you have published such facts they are in the public domain.  Rights only come into it when you do something original with those facts. 
Copyright can only be claimed over original text or images, in hard copy or digital form.  The information we use for family history - BMDs, census data, parish register entries, MIs - is, once published, in the public domain.  We are breaching copyright only if we reproduce the publication or portion of it.  Organisations or individuals may acquire data from the original source and publish it, possibly in a searchable form, for payment.  Once someone has paid to access that information, it is out of the control of the publisher.  I would be interested to know of any legal action which contradicts this.
Terms and Conditions are another matter.  Generally they assert, quite reasonably, that you must not use the information for commercial purposes, and if you've agreed to those T&Cs, you would probably lose the case if anybody took it to court.
Where does that leave the problem I started with - the decision that I can't offer to look in the booklets of early directories that I have purchased and pass on any relevant information?  I know the answer to that question.

[Jean McGurn]

Like most other people I get confused with what's right or wrong with quoting from other sources. I know you cannot, if say writing a book. write down word for word what someone else has already had printed. 

Am I right in assuming that if you quote in your own words (that is not verbatim)   from what you have written in your book or on your CD it is ok to give out info to someone who is looking for the required info you have?

Jean

modified.

written in your book or on your CD

this should read in the book or CD you have bought.