Copyright - where are we?

[Erato]

I think you have taken a phrase out of context and misrepresented the intent of the original post.  It goes on to say:

...  I offered look-ups on the East Yorkshire board.  Now I've been told that, for copyright reasons, this offer has been taken off.  On the same board are other offers of look-ups of records and I can't immediately see how they differ from my offer.  ...   I'm just confused.  What is the experience and opinion of other Rootschatters? 

If RC does not wish to further clarify it's copyright policy then that's that.  But why should it be banned as a subject of discussion?

[suttontrust]

Just to say that my offer has now been restored, and I'm pleased about that.
This has been a fascinating discussion, and I think it's shown how uncertain the situation now is.

[GrahamH]

Graham, that really is nowhere near our subject.  There, the database consisted of CVs, which obviously were original creations, not the sort of items of fact we deal in.  So I assume it's never been tested by any of the genealogy firms.

It matters not whether it has been tested by a firm in a particular field, the principle applies equally whether the databases include genealogical facts or any other facts.

Graham

[Dancing Master]

The Copyright Law is due to be tested in the Liverpool Courts isometime in the New Year. 

The Lord Lyon in Scotland has also used the Law regarding their objections to people using Arms and Heraldry allotted to other people and people have been fined.

It is all part of the same argument  The general way to avoid such conflict is to read the legal contracts on the items purchased that way you cannot fall foul of it. by opening and using the data you are in effect accepting the terms and conditions.

[Lloydy]

My post has been deleted.

I won't be making any further comments.



Moderator Comment: re: deleted message - Do not publish PMs in your replies.

I only published your PM in my post merely to show the other Rootschatters your answer to my questions about copyright, which I thought would be beneficial for everyone.....I certainly wouldn't post any other members' private messages.

[MKG]

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.

[JAP]

My post has been deleted.

I won't be making any further comments.

Hi Lloydy and All,
 
Just for information, the posts referred to in earlier posts as having been deleted included (or may only have been) a post by me (JAP), a response to my post by Berlin-Bob, and a response to Berlin-Bob by me (JAP).
 
I'd be more than happy for anyone to see all or any of them.
 
All the very best,
 
JAP

[JAP]

Hi Bob,
 
Please don't delete this post. 
 
It's now clear that the deletion of my posts was based on a misunderstanding.
 
You thought that this was a topic which started out as a general discussion of copyright and then drifted into a discussion of RootsChat copyright policy and its application.
 
But obviously (see the original post which began the thread - see *Note below - and see Erato's comments above) this was a misunderstanding; the complete opposite is the case.
 
This is actually a topic which started out as a discussion of RootsChat copyright policy and its application and then drifted into a general discussion of copyright!
 
So, given that the deletions were based on this misunderstanding, I hope that the deleted posts will now be re-instated.
 
Kind Regards,
 
JAP
*Note:

I'd like to know how other Rootschatters feel about the rather messy situation we're in over copyright.
... 
I own 6 booklets of early Hull directories.  These are not available online, but are in the local library.  I offered look-ups on the East Yorkshire board.  Now I've been told that, for copyright reasons, this offer has been taken off.  On the same board are other offers of look-ups of records and I can't immediately see how they differ from my offer.
...
This is not a criticism.  I'm just confused.  What is the experience and opinion of other Rootschatters? 

[rbangorreg]

Re Copyright.
    I don't know if this will be of any interest . I deal with The NewYork Times Archives and inclose a copy of a letter sent to me in response to "copyright"
   Michael Hopkins to me
show details Sep 23 Reply


Brewer,
 
I see the article was published in 1876, any NYT article published before January 1, 1923 falls under public domain. you are free to use it for no fee and without going throught the permissions process.
 
Best Regards,
Michael Hopkins
Rights & Permissions
PARS International Corp.
253 W. 35th St., 7th Floor
New York, NY 10001
P: (212) 221-9595, x124
F: (212) 221-1468
E: michael.hopkins {-- at --} parsintl.com

      Reg.


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