Public-domain GEDCOM files wanted

[TomAlciere]

Greetings:

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

If you have a corpses-only GEDCOM file from transcribing records or a
family tree, you may submit it via e-mail. People researching the same
names in the same locality may then find and download your GEDCOM file
and see if the lines cross. Typically, a GEDCOM file has its author's
name and contact information near the top.

You can include a password to allow future changes or deletions.

The SUBJECT field of the email must say,

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. (Optional Password)

It is not case-sensitive.

Email it to GEDCOMS AT GEDCOMLIBRARY.COM

To modify a GEDCOM file, delete the old one and submit a new one. To
delete the old one, find the file number as used on GedcomLibrary.com
for the file you uploaded, and send an email with the SUBJECT field
saying

DELETE GEDCOM FILE GL300001.GED. (Password).

Also not case-sensitive.

The file will be deleted with the next update.

Tom Alciere
webmaster@GedcomLibrary.com

[Kerry Raymond]

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

I have a number of questions.

Firstly, who is running this site, where is it located (i.e. under whose
laws does it operate)?

And as it says, web sites do come and go, who or what is backing this site
to give it a longevity that others do not have?

How is it better/different to rootsweb world connect (which incidentally
holds over 400 million people's details)?

Kerry

[Gerry]

In article
<456f4334$0$24751$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

I have a number of questions.

Firstly, who is running this site, where is it located (i.e. under whose
laws does it operate)?

And as it says, web sites do come and go, who or what is backing this site
to give it a longevity that others do not have?

How is it better/different to rootsweb world connect (which incidentally
holds over 400 million people's details)?

Kerry

Here is the information found at the Whois web site:

TOM ALCIERE
PO BOX 106
NASHUA, NH 03061
US

Domain name: GEDCOMINDEX.COM

Administrative Contact:
ALCIERE, TOM tomalciere@tomalciere.com
PO BOX 106
NASHUA, NH 03061
US
+1.6038211347 Fax:

Technical Contact:
ALCIERE, TOM tomalciere@tomalciere.com
PO BOX 106
NASHUA, NH 03061
US
+1.6038211347 Fax:



Registration Service Provider:
Misk.com (Nitin Networks), support@misk.com
845-896-4602
845-896-2535 (fax)
http://www.misk.com
This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords
DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.


Provider of Record: Misk.com
Record last updated on 11/7/2006.
Record expires on 1/22/2007.
Record Created on 1/22/2006.

Domain servers in listed order:
ns10.eboundhost.com
ns11.eboundhost.com

[Paul Blair]

TomAlciere wrote:

Greetings:

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

If you have a corpses-only GEDCOM file from transcribing records or a
family tree, you may submit it via e-mail. People researching the same
names in the same locality may then find and download your GEDCOM file
and see if the lines cross. Typically, a GEDCOM file has its author's
name and contact information near the top.

You can include a password to allow future changes or deletions.

The SUBJECT field of the email must say,

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. (Optional Password)

It is not case-sensitive.

Email it to GEDCOMS AT GEDCOMLIBRARY.COM

To modify a GEDCOM file, delete the old one and submit a new one. To
delete the old one, find the file number as used on GedcomLibrary.com
for the file you uploaded, and send an email with the SUBJECT field
saying

DELETE GEDCOM FILE GL300001.GED. (Password).

Also not case-sensitive.

The file will be deleted with the next update.

Tom Alciere
webmaster@GedcomLibrary.com

You going commercial, Tom?

Paul

[TomAlciere]

Kerry Raymond wrote:

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

I have a number of questions.

Firstly, who is running this site, where is it located (i.e. under whose
laws does it operate)?

The site is run by Tom Alciere.

And as it says, web sites do come and go, who or what is backing this site
to give it a longevity that others do not have?

Doesn't much matter, if you download a public domain GEDCOM, you have
it. Don't rely on it as a back-up, though. For that, export your
GEDCOM file to CD-ROMs every year or so and snail-mail them to
somebody.

How is it better/different to rootsweb world connect (which incidentally
holds over 400 million people's details)?

Because this one is indexed by locality and not by surname. A surname
match isn't much good if they're from a different town. You can also
download the whole GEDCOM with no problem, and I don't know if Rootsweb
allows you to do that.


> Kerry

[Kerry Raymond]

How is it better/different to rootsweb world connect (which incidentally
holds over 400 million people's details)?

Because this one is indexed by locality and not by surname. A surname
match isn't much good if they're from a different town. You can also
download the whole GEDCOM with no problem, and I don't know if Rootsweb
allows you to do that.

As well as searching by name, you can also search Rootsweb Worldconnect
using place of birth, marriage, or death (with or without the name):

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi

You can download whole GEDCOMs from World connect provided the user has
agreed to this. Users have the option of asking people to email them to
obtain the GEDCOM.

Kerry

[Gjest]

Gerry wrote:

In article
456f4334$0$24751$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

I am seeking public-domain GEDCOM files for town-by-town indexing on
GedcomIndex.com and storage on GedcomLibrary.com

I have a number of questions.

Firstly, who is running this site, where is it located (i.e. under whose
laws does it operate)?

And as it says, web sites do come and go, who or what is backing this site
to give it a longevity that others do not have?

How is it better/different to rootsweb world connect (which incidentally
holds over 400 million people's details)?

Kerry

Here is the information found at the Whois web site:

TOM ALCIERE
PO BOX 106
NASHUA, NH 03061
US

Ah, *that* Tom Alciere!

The one who had to resign from the NH house of representatives after
only a month?

The "libertarian"?

Extremist fruitcake if you ask me.

[Dave Smith]

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
news:4576abfc$0$28906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi

You can download whole GEDCOMs from World connect provided the user
has agreed to this. Users have the option of asking people to email
them to obtain the GEDCOM.

You know Kerry I think the worldconnect site is an amazing site, and
their search engine Submissions has resulted in me having lots of hits
from interesting folk.

The one priviso I'd make, is never, ever make part or all of your Gedcom
downloadable ! Some years ago I made this mistake, and one fellow with
only a partial connection to one of my names, downloaded the lot,
imported it into his family data, called it his own work, then published
it as such online. Polite emails from me to at least have my work
credited, were greeted with "Tough titties, it's in the public domain, so
live with it".

I'm a fast learner, & I'll never be caught again !

Cheers
Dave

[TomAlciere]

Dave Smith wrote:

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
news:4576abfc$0$28906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:


http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi

You can download whole GEDCOMs from World connect provided the user
has agreed to this. Users have the option of asking people to email
them to obtain the GEDCOM.

You know Kerry I think the worldconnect site is an amazing site, and
their search engine Submissions has resulted in me having lots of hits
from interesting folk.

The one priviso I'd make, is never, ever make part or all of your Gedcom
downloadable ! Some years ago I made this mistake, and one fellow with
only a partial connection to one of my names, downloaded the lot,
imported it into his family data, called it his own work, then published
it as such online. Polite emails from me to at least have my work
credited, were greeted with "Tough titties, it's in the public domain, so
live with it".

I'm a fast learner, & I'll never be caught again !

Cheers
Dave

Some people want their work to be in the public domain, especially if
it's transcription projects.

[Hugh Watkins]

TomAlciere wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
news:4576abfc$0$28906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:


http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi

You can download whole GEDCOMs from World connect provided the user
has agreed to this. Users have the option of asking people to email
them to obtain the GEDCOM.

You know Kerry I think the worldconnect site is an amazing site, and
their search engine Submissions has resulted in me having lots of hits
from interesting folk.

The one priviso I'd make, is never, ever make part or all of your Gedcom
downloadable ! Some years ago I made this mistake, and one fellow with
only a partial connection to one of my names, downloaded the lot,
imported it into his family data, called it his own work, then published
it as such online. Polite emails from me to at least have my work
credited, were greeted with "Tough titties, it's in the public domain, so
live with it".

I'm a fast learner, & I'll never be caught again !

Cheers
Dave


Some people want their work to be in the public domain, especially if
it's transcription projects.

I do soon I willl be 71 years old

my work should live on after I am gone

Hugh W

--

Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks

old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[TomAlciere]

Hugh Watkins wrote:

TomAlciere wrote:


Some people want their work to be in the public domain, especially if
it's transcription projects.

I do soon I willl be 71 years old
my work should live on after I am gone

Hugh W

--

Then export the data as a GEDCOM file, selecting the option to omit
info on living persons, and attach the GEDCOM file to an e-mail with
the subject line saying exactly:

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

to: Gedcoms@GedcomLibrary.com

Tom Alciere

[Kerry Raymond]

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I think people need to consider if public domain is what they want. Public
domain means anyone can do whatever they like with your data, including
modify it with false information, sell it etc. And there is no way to go
back later and reassert your ownership or control over the information after
you have made it public domain. I am not saying that evil things would
happen on this particular site, but rather that people ought to question why
someone wants them to place their data in the public domain. You can
publicise and share your family history without putting it into the public
domain.

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for limiting the information
you make public, limiting it to basic details sufficient to attract people
researching the same people. You can then give them a GEDCOM of that
intersection of your families that meets their needs without disclosing
information on other branches not relevant to them.

There are a number of people who have strong ideological views about
information being in the public domain. At one level, I am sympathetic to
the notion that sharing of knowledge has its benefits (and I do publish data
on the WWW for that reason), but on the other hand, intellectual property is
a legal right and relinquishing that right by placing information into the
public domain ought not to be done without people being fully informed about
what that means and what their alternatives might be.

Kerry

[Hugh Watkins]

Kerry Raymond wrote:

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.


I think people need to consider if public domain is what they want. Public
domain means anyone can do whatever they like with your data, including
modify it with false information, sell it etc. And there is no way to go
back later and reassert your ownership or control over the information after
you have made it public domain. I am not saying that evil things would
happen on this particular site, but rather that people ought to question why
someone wants them to place their data in the public domain. You can
publicise and share your family history without putting it into the public
domain.

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for limiting the information
you make public, limiting it to basic details sufficient to attract people
researching the same people. You can then give them a GEDCOM of that
intersection of your families that meets their needs without disclosing
information on other branches not relevant to them.

There are a number of people who have strong ideological views about
information being in the public domain. At one level, I am sympathetic to
the notion that sharing of knowledge has its benefits (and I do publish data
on the WWW for that reason), but on the other hand, intellectual property is
a legal right and relinquishing that right by placing information into the
public domain ought not to be done without people being fully informed about
what that means and what their alternatives might be.

births deahs marriages are all public events listed in official records
and already in public domain


Hugh W


--

Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks

old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[Kerry Raymond]

births deahs marriages are all public events listed in official records
and already in public domain

This rather nicely illustrates my point. People do not understand what the
term "public domain" means. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

BDMs are not public events. They might be listed in official records, but
that does not put them in the public domain nor necessarily make them
available to the public. Even if things are made available to the public, it
does not put them in the public domain. Even if things are made available to
the public by the government, it does not put them in the public domain.

Public domain is the absence of anyone holding intellectual property rights
over a (creative) work. Those intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright)
allow the holder of those rights to specify how their material is used and
under what terms and conditions.

Although we might not think of a GEDCOM as a creative work (because it is
generally intended to be factual not fictional!), nonetheless it is a piece
of intellectual property. Simple facts generally are not subject to
copyright, but the collation of a set of facts and the conclusions drawn
from them (which a GEDCOM represents) most certainly is a piece of
intellectual property over which normal IP rights (including copyright)
apply.

Suppose you put a chair into your front garden plainly visible from the
street. Do you still own the chair? Is it OK for other people to take the
chair? Well, it's visible to the public but you still own it and it's not OK
for someone else to take it. What if you put a sign on the chair saying "I
give away this chair to anyone who wants it"? Then someone can take the
chair away and you lose ownership. The other person can take the chair home,
or smash it up in front of you, and you can't complain saying "I didn't say
you could smash it up" because you gave it away - you can no long put any
conditions on its use.

Putting a GEDCOM on the WWW is analogous to putting the chair in your
garden. It's yours and people should not take it or use in ways you don't
consent to. Putting a GEDCOM on the WWW and stating it is in the public
domain is that same as the sign on the chair giving it away. Once you do
that, you have no rights whatsoever over what subsequently happens to it --
including destroying it, adding false data to it, selling it, etc.

And just to rebut the argument that a GEDCOM is or should be public domain,
just because the underlying facts are public domain in their jurisdiction.
Consider the fish swimming in the middle of the Pacific ocean. Who owns that
bit of ocean? Well, nobody really. It's out beyond every country's off-shore
limits etc. So is it OK for you to go out in a boat and catch the fish? Yes,
you can. Lets call this a public domain fish. OK, so you catch the fish and
take it home. Someone then comes and steals the fish away from you, saying
"it's a public domain fish". But you cry "I went out in a boat and spent
hours in time catching that fish" and indeed you are correct. It was a
public domain fish when it was swimming in the middle of the ocean, but your
efforts in catching it have converted it in a privately-owned fish. Even if
every fact in the GEDCOM was in the public domain, the effort to compile
them gives the person who did the work rights over that GEDCOM.

Now to be practical about it. A lot of people who would never steal the
chair from your garden or the fish from your boat *will* take your GEDCOM
from the WWW and do whatever they like with it, even if it's contrary to
what you've asked them to abide by. They will justify this by all sorts of
spurious logic (as we see in this newsgroup). Now I like to think that the
reason that otherwise honest people misbehave in this way on the WWW is
because the WWW is relatively new and people have not yet understood the
legalities nor have we developed a widely understood social etiquette (just
as things like giving up your seat for an older person is not a law, but
well-honed social custom). Hopefully future generations of children will get
a clip over the ear (or whatever modern parents do) when the child steals or
mistreats intellectual property just as they do today when they steal or
mistreat a physical thing.

Now there is nothing wrong with a person choosing to put their GEDCOM into
the public domain, provided they understand what that means and it is indeed
what they intend, just as it is our right to give away our chairs or our
fish, acknowledging that we lose all rights after it is done.

Kerry

[Ray Murphy]

"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4u9t6lF16i3d0U2@mid.individual.net...

Kerry Raymond wrote:

THIS GEDCOM FILE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.


I think people need to consider if public domain is what they want.
Public domain means anyone can do whatever they like with your data,
including modify it with false information, sell it etc. And there is no
way to go back later and reassert your ownership or control over the
information after you have made it public domain. I am not saying that
evil things would happen on this particular site, but rather that people
ought to question why someone wants them to place their data in the
public domain. You can publicise and share your family history without
putting it into the public domain.

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for limiting the information
you make public, limiting it to basic details sufficient to attract
people researching the same people. You can then give them a GEDCOM of
that intersection of your families that meets their needs without
disclosing information on other branches not relevant to them.

There are a number of people who have strong ideological views about
information being in the public domain. At one level, I am sympathetic to
the notion that sharing of knowledge has its benefits (and I do publish
data on the WWW for that reason), but on the other hand, intellectual
property is a legal right and relinquishing that right by placing
information into the public domain ought not to be done without people
being fully informed about what that means and what their alternatives
might be.


births deahs marriages are all public events listed in official records
and already in public domain


Hugh W

RM: Yes, births, deaths and marriage records, and many others, are in the
public domain (by default) because no one can claim copyright protection on
public records - so therefore no one can be successfully sued.

It is only the *formatting* of public records (artistic layout) that can be
protected, but only if the formatting is non-generic.

It makes no difference whether a gedcom is expressly placed in the public
domain or not - as far as the "public record" elements of it are concerned.
Anyone may still use them for any legal purpose, including commercial
purposes, and they may also place a copyright notice on their work that
INCLUDES those records, but no protection exists for the public records
contained within the work.

Obviously EXTRA information in gedcoms that is NOT public record cannot
legally be used in anyone's published work unless permission is granted -
either personally or by a public declaration by the author of the work or
his/her legal representative.

Deliberate errors in works that are purported to be "public record" but are
not, ARE protected by copyright, so everyone is at slight risk when copying
such work. For example the publishers of Street directories protect their
work in this way by placing non-existent streets in their maps (to prove
illegal copying).

If anyone wants to PREVENT any commercial enterprise from hijacking the
"extra" (non-public) information in their gedcoms and using it for their
sole benefit, then they can do so by declaring it to be Public domain IF
they actually authored it.

None of the above applies to "Fair use" of any material. Anyone may copy
anything if it's within the bounds of "fair use".

Ray

[Kerry Raymond]

If anyone wants to PREVENT any commercial enterprise from hijacking the
"extra" (non-public) information in their gedcoms and using it for their
sole benefit, then they can do so by declaring it to be Public domain IF
they actually authored it.

No, public domain says anyone can do what they like with it. That includes
selling it. Putting something in the public domain relinquishes your ability
to control how it is subsequently used. It does NOT protect the information
from commercial exploitation.

Retaining ownership and licensing it on the basis of free use for
non-commercial purposes is the only way to prevent commercial hijacking.
Well, at least, it achieves that goal from a legal standpoint, whether it
achieves that goal in practice is another matter.

If someone has a copy of public domain information, they are NOT obliged to
make it available to anyone else. Making something public domain does not
ensure it remains freely available to the public. So if a WWW site (say) has
your public domain GEDCOM file published there, they could remove it from
public access and sell it.

None of the above applies to "Fair use" of any material. Anyone may copy
anything if it's within the bounds of "fair use".

True, but fair use is generally limited to making a copy of some parts of
the information for purposes such as personal study and research, and
redistribution of the material is generally not allowed.

For what it's worth, the conditions we put on our headstone photo collection
(which includes complete coverage of over 100 cemeteries in our local area)
are [slightly reduced for brevity]:

"The copyright of our photos of headstones and war memorials belongs to us.
However, we give permission for people to download individual photos
relating to their personal research to use for non-profit purposes (which
includes displaying it on your personal WWW site or in a book that you might
write about your family history). If you republish any of our photos (e.g.
on a WWW site or in a book), we would appreciate an acknowledgment that the
photo came from our WWW site. Copying large collections of our photos (i.e.
more than just what you need for your personal research) or using our photos
for profit-making purposes is not permitted."

If you want to publish your information for public use but prevent
commercial exploitation (in law at least), you need to retain ownership and
make it available under stated conditions like we do. Do NOT put it into the
public domain if you want to prevent commercial exploitation.

Kerry

[Ray Murphy]

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4581c928$0$2713$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

If anyone wants to PREVENT any commercial enterprise from hijacking the
"extra" (non-public) information in their gedcoms and using it for their
sole benefit, then they can do so by declaring it to be Public domain IF
they actually authored it.

No, public domain says anyone can do what they like with it.

RM: That's what I said, but they cannot legally do it for their sole
benefit - which means that the original owner of the work has his/her
wish granted and protected by law.

That includes selling it. Putting something in the public domain
relinquishes your ability to control how it is subsequently used. It does
NOT protect the information from commercial exploitation.

RM: That's what I said.
The paragraph quoted above refers only to preventing the sole
use of donated material by any person.

Retaining ownership and licensing it on the basis of free use for
non-commercial purposes is the only way to prevent commercial hijacking.
Well, at least, it achieves that goal from a legal standpoint, whether it
achieves that goal in practice is another matter.

RM: No, once a person legitimately places their material in the public
domain, it remains there and no one can claim copyright on it.

If someone has a copy of public domain information, they are NOT obliged
to make it available to anyone else.

RM: I'm not sure where that came from, but it's not in question.

Making something public domain does not ensure it remains freely available
to the public.

RM: It does.

So if a WWW site (say) has your public domain GEDCOM file published there,
they could remove it from public access and sell it.

RM: Yes, if it's been donated as public domain material, they can remove it
from public access (on THEIR website only) but it remains in the public
domain on any other websites or publications.

None of the above applies to "Fair use" of any material. Anyone may copy
anything if it's within the bounds of "fair use".

True, but fair use is generally limited to making a copy of some parts of
the information for purposes such as personal study and research, and
redistribution of the material is generally not allowed.

RM: It varies greatly, but fair use includes the re-publication of small
parts of most works. Academic books are full of it.

For what it's worth, the conditions we put on our headstone photo
collection (which includes complete coverage of over 100 cemeteries in our
local area) are [slightly reduced for brevity]:

"The copyright of our photos of headstones and war memorials belongs to
us. However, we give permission for people to download individual photos
relating to their personal research to use for non-profit purposes (which
includes displaying it on your personal WWW site or in a book that you
might write about your family history). If you republish any of our photos
(e.g. on a WWW site or in a book), we would appreciate an acknowledgment
that the photo came from our WWW site. Copying large collections of our
photos (i.e. more than just what you need for your personal research) or
using our photos for profit-making purposes is not permitted."

RM: I suppose a lot depends on how wide a person casts their net for
"personal research" for non-profit purposes, because if someone had a
special interest in the same area as your 100 cemeteries, rather than
particular surnames or families, then they could legitimately download every
photo according to the permission given above.

They could also reproduce every one of them in personal websites or
in non-profit books IF they considered they *needed* them (to give the
most comprehensive view possible of cemeteries or history etc in that area).

Even Ted Turner, the owner of CNN could legitimately do the above things if
he did it on a "personal" level instead of a commercial one.
If I had gone to all that effort I'd limit reproduction rights to 20% per
individual per lifetime (not 20% per personal book or personal website).
Still, if a whole family (or group) had a big interest in the same area,
they could each use 20% of the photos in separate publications.

If you want to publish your information for public use but prevent
commercial exploitation (in law at least), you need to retain ownership
and make it available under stated conditions like we do. Do NOT put it
into the public domain if you want to prevent commercial exploitation.

Kerry

RM: The whole idea behind placing material in the public domain is to share
it widely and provide free access to all interested people. That in effect
minimises commercial exploitation, but in many cases the original owners
would be delighted if commercial enterprises like NBC or Womens' Weekly
thought enough of their version of their family history to reproduce it.

Placing material of any kind in the public domain often involves some
commercial "exploitation" of it, but in general it does the opposite, and
(as we have all seen through our internet experiences) a lot of it is
extremely valuable and the greediest companies on the planet can never
get control of it.

Ray

[Kerry Raymond]

RM: That's what I said, but they cannot legally do it for their sole
benefit -

Yes, they can and do.

For example, many old books (like Shakespeare) have gone beyond the time
limit of copyright protection and are now in the public domain. But of
course that does not stop new copies of books of Shakespeare's works being
published and sold. Nor does it stop people buying and selling used books of
Shakespeare's works. The work is public domain but you still have to pay for
the means to access it (in this case, the book).

However, if some kind soul sits down with a book of Shakespeare's work and
digitises it in some way and puts it onto the WWW, now we have a free way
to access that public domain work. Now Shakespeare is "free", even though he
was public domain for many years.

But if that kind soul removes that WWW page and instead puts up a note
saying "please pay me $1 and I'll email you a copy of Shakespeare's work",
then we are back to having to pay someone to get our public domain material.
Of course, if someone else puts up a freely available copy, then we have
free access again. Of course, if you don't have any Internet access, your
options for obtaining a copy of the works of Shakespeare still might be your
local bookshop at a price.

So, while public domain material isn't owned by anyone, people can
commercialise the supply of that material.

Now it is often the case that for public domain material, there are a lot of
kind souls who make it freely available via the WWW. Of course, public
domain material obviously existed prior to the WWW but making it freely
available to a very wide community of people has been made possible via the
WWW. So if some public domain material goes onto the WWW that is of some
interest, you can reasonably expect that lots of people will take a copy.
Because of that widespread availability, you can expect that someone will be
making it freely available out there somwhere on the WWW, even if particular
sites come and go over time. And if it is well-known that it is freely and
widely available somewhere on the WWW and easy to find with a search engine,
it is a disincentive for people to pay to access the material and hence a
disincentive for anyone to offer it commercially (unless they are somehow
value-adding).

So, while public domain material that is freely available on the the WWW can
be commercialised, there are disincentives for anyone to do it. However,
consumers seem to be sufficiently gullible that they do in fact continue to
pay money for public domain content, mostly through ignorance I expect.
Check out ebay - lots of people there will sell you a CD of material you can
freely download off the WWW.

But public domain material that isn't freely available on the WWW is in a
much better position to be commercialised as there is no easy way to obtain
it for free. If I have the only copy of public domain material, I am in a
very strong market position. I don't own the material, but I do own the only
access to it. Of course, once I sell the material to enough people and if
some of those people realising it is public domain information decide to
make it freely available on the WWW, then maybe my market position is
weakened. But of course people who are in this kind of business usually
don't go out of their way to point out that the material itself is public
domain and often take steps to alter the expression or presentation of the
material, so that they can copyright the derived work or at least make
sufficiently vague and misleading statements about the copyright status of
the work to mislead the purchaser.

This kind of situation is more likely to arise with things like GEDCOMs
which have a single source (one researcher) who may deposit the GEDCOM at
some online site (for storage or publishing or whatever). That site has the
only convenient access to that content and might choose to charge for it. If
the content was placed in the public domain as a condition of using that
site, the original researcher can't withdraw the content or have any control
over "their" work is being sold in that way. Of course, they can try to
frustrate the process by republishing their GEDCOM elsewhere on the WWW.
This is why my spider-sense starts tingling when someone asks for material
to be placed into the public domain when there is no need to do that to
achieve the *stated* purpose, which to me begs the question of whether there
is some other unstated purpose.

So there is a distinction between what is legally possible versus
commercially viable when it comes to public domain material. But you can
commercialise it.

One final point about the risks of putting something in the public domain.
It does not extinguish liability of the author. It is possible for the
author of public domain material to be sued for damages for faults in the
work. While I doubt this is an issue in practice with GEDCOMs and family
history, it is an issue for software (which is why I have to be abreast of
intellectual property law in my work). In theory, someone using public
domain software could sue the authors if the software did them harm in some
way. Now if you ever buy software, you will usually notice the big
disclaimers all through the license etc, which is intended to avoid
liability. However, public domain software does not have a license and
therefore can't have disclaimers, which is why I would not normally
recommend people at work put software into the public domain. If we want to
make software freely available, we would still use a license, but a very
generous licence that lets you do whatever you want but still have the
disclaimers in order to avoid liability.

One of the best licenses for "free software" will seeks to maximise the
likelihood that free software remains free and available (and is not
commercialised) is the GNU Public License. It is a much better solution than
public domain if your motivation is actually to make the material freely
available and not commercialised:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Because placing things in the public domain cannot be reversed (your rights
are gone), it should be the last resort as a solution and not a decision to
be taken lightly or uninformedly. It may be the right decision in specific
situations, but think hard first about the other alternatives.

Kerry

[Kerry Raymond]

They could also reproduce every one of them in personal websites or
in non-profit books IF they considered they *needed* them (to give the
most comprehensive view possible of cemeteries or history etc in that
area).

That would be fine with us. We wanted to share them for family and local
history purposes.

Even Ted Turner, the owner of CNN could legitimately do the above things
if
he did it on a "personal" level instead of a commercial one.

I have no problem with that. Admittedly it had not occurred to me to
prohibit any specific individuals. I suppose I would not like Sadam Hussein
or Ivan Milat to use our photos, but I guess it could be a long list if I
listed everyone I don't like I can see it now. "Copying of the photos on
this site is prohibited to anyone who was in any way involved in that beer
advertisement where the man sells his pet pig to buy a beer".

If I had gone to all that effort I'd limit reproduction rights to 20% per
individual per lifetime (not 20% per personal book or personal website).

Our main concern was to stop for-profit use. We are happy to give our time
and effort and expertise to other amateur historians, but we weren't
comfortable with the thought that someone might profit from it. In practice,
we'd probably be agreeable to people having the whole collection as long as
we were satisfied it was in a "good cause". Technically people selling
copies of their family history book containing some of our photos might be
said to be commercialising our photos, but I've yet to see anyone really
financially profit from publishing their family history. If family history
books start becoming Book of the Month, we might revise our thinking

I am a bit of a Jekyll & Hyde when it comes to intellectual property. At
work, I must of course take all reasonable steps to manage my employer's
intellectual property within a capitalist framework. At play, I am more
inclined to operate in the pay-it-forward gift/reputation economy, but
because I know from my work that there are some people who will take
advantage of such well-intentioned people, I bring that caution into my
family history activities. It would be nice if everyone played fair but
sadly they don't.

Kerry

[Ray Murphy]

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:45831e76$0$21918$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

RM: That's what I said, but they cannot legally do it for their sole
benefit -

Yes, they can and do.

For example, many old books (like Shakespeare) have gone beyond the time
limit of copyright protection and are now in the public domain. But of
course that does not stop new copies of books of Shakespeare's works being
published and sold. Nor does it stop people buying and selling used books
of Shakespeare's works. The work is public domain but you still have to
pay for the means to access it (in this case, the book).

RM: They are still not controlling public domain material for their sole
benefit.
Usually it's a simple commercial transaction that benefits both parties.

However, if some kind soul sits down with a book of Shakespeare's work and
digitises it in some way and puts it onto the WWW, now we have a free way
to access that public domain work. Now Shakespeare is "free", even though
he was public domain for many years.

RM: It's easier than that. Just photocopy a library book.

But if that kind soul removes that WWW page and instead puts up a note
saying "please pay me $1 and I'll email you a copy of Shakespeare's work",
then we are back to having to pay someone to get our public domain
material.

RM: It's usually a lot cheaper than going to a library for something free.

Of course, if someone else puts up a freely available copy, then we have
free access again. Of course, if you don't have any Internet access, your
options for obtaining a copy of the works of Shakespeare still might be
your local bookshop at a price.

RM: If it's cheaper to photcopy it, then the "price" is minimal.

So, while public domain material isn't owned by anyone, people can
commercialise the supply of that material.

Now it is often the case that for public domain material, there are a lot
of kind souls who make it freely available via the WWW. Of course, public
domain material obviously existed prior to the WWW but making it freely
available to a very wide community of people has been made possible via
the WWW. So if some public domain material goes onto the WWW that is of
some interest, you can reasonably expect that lots of people will take a
copy. Because of that widespread availability, you can expect that someone
will be making it freely available out there somwhere on the WWW, even if
particular sites come and go over time. And if it is well-known that it is
freely and widely available somewhere on the WWW and easy to find with a
search engine, it is a disincentive for people to pay to access the
material and hence a disincentive for anyone to offer it commercially
(unless they are somehow value-adding).

So, while public domain material that is freely available on the the WWW
can be commercialised, there are disincentives for anyone to do it.
However, consumers seem to be sufficiently gullible that they do in fact
continue to pay money for public domain content, mostly through ignorance
I expect. Check out ebay - lots of people there will sell you a CD of
material you can freely download off the WWW.

RM: And SAVE people money and a lot of time. That's what free enterprise is
all about.
That's also why we in the southern states BUY coconuts instead of collecting
free wild ones in Queensland.

But public domain material that isn't freely available on the WWW is in a
much better position to be commercialised as there is no easy way to
obtain it for free. If I have the only copy of public domain material, I
am in a very strong market position. I don't own the material, but I do
own the only access to it. Of course, once I sell the material to enough
people and if some of those people realising it is public domain
information decide to make it freely available on the WWW, then maybe my
market position is weakened. But of course people who are in this kind of
business usually don't go out of their way to point out that the material
itself is public domain and often take steps to alter the expression or
presentation of the material, so that they can copyright the derived work
or at least make sufficiently vague and misleading statements about the
copyright status of the work to mislead the purchaser.

RM: Copyright claims on that sort of material ought to include words like
"except those parts which are in the public domain".

This kind of situation is more likely to arise with things like GEDCOMs
which have a single source (one researcher) who may deposit the GEDCOM at
some online site (for storage or publishing or whatever). That site has
the only convenient access to that content and might choose to charge for
it. If the content was placed in the public domain as a condition of using
that site, the original researcher can't withdraw the content or have any
control over "their" work is being sold in that way.

RM: No we cannot "withdraw" gifts, nor should anyone contemplate it.

Of course, they can try to frustrate the process by republishing their
GEDCOM elsewhere on the WWW. This is why my spider-sense starts tingling
when someone asks for material to be placed into the public domain when
there is no need to do that to achieve the *stated* purpose, which to me
begs the question of whether there is some other unstated purpose.

RM: No one does *anything* for a single reason, but we have no right to
demand answers regarding anyone's motives. It's a basic human rights issue.

So there is a distinction between what is legally possible versus
commercially viable when it comes to public domain material. But you can
commercialise it.

One final point about the risks of putting something in the public domain.
It does not extinguish liability of the author. It is possible for the
author of public domain material to be sued for damages for faults in the
work.

RM: It's always possible if damage is done.
It's also possible for criminal charges to upheld if "intent" is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

While I doubt this is an issue in practice with GEDCOMs and family history,
it is an issue for software (which is why I have to be abreast of
intellectual property law in my work). In theory, someone using public
domain software could sue the authors if the software did them harm in some
way.

RM: Only if they can afford a few thousand dollars a day for the Supreme
Court, and only if their victim can afford to pay them back their costs, and
only if they can prove their case.

Now if you ever buy software, you will usually notice the big disclaimers
all through the license etc, which is intended to avoid liability.
However, public domain software does not have a license and therefore
can't have disclaimers, which is why I would not normally recommend people
at work put software into the public domain. If we want to make software
freely available, we would still use a license, but a very generous
licence that lets you do whatever you want but still have the disclaimers
in order to avoid liability.

RM: If you wern't so active by taking photos in 100 cenetries and publishing
them, I'd suggest staying glued to the TV so you can't take any of life's
normal "risks".

One of the best licenses for "free software" will seeks to maximise the
likelihood that free software remains free and available (and is not
commercialised) is the GNU Public License. It is a much better solution
than public domain if your motivation is actually to make the material
freely available and not commercialised:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Because placing things in the public domain cannot be reversed (your
rights are gone), it should be the last resort as a solution and not a
decision to be taken lightly or uninformedly. It may be the right decision
in specific situations, but think hard first about the other alternatives.

RM: People are not usually interested in all that legal stuff for the
passing on or sharing straightforward genealogy information.
If anyone on the planet ever gets sued, we'll hear about it.

Kerry

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:45832630$0$21883$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

They could also reproduce every one of them in personal websites or
in non-profit books IF they considered they *needed* them (to give the
most comprehensive view possible of cemeteries or history etc in that
area).

That would be fine with us. We wanted to share them for family and local
history purposes.

Even Ted Turner, the owner of CNN could legitimately do the above things
if he did it on a "personal" level instead of a commercial one.

I have no problem with that. Admittedly it had not occurred to me to
prohibit any specific individuals. I suppose I would not like Sadam
Hussein or Ivan Milat to use our photos, but I guess it could be a long
list if I listed everyone I don't like I can see it now. "Copying of
the photos on this site is prohibited to anyone who was in any way
involved in that beer advertisement where the man sells his pet pig to buy
a beer".

If I had gone to all that effort I'd limit reproduction rights to 20% per
individual per lifetime (not 20% per personal book or personal website).

Our main concern was to stop for-profit use. We are happy to give our time
and effort and expertise to other amateur historians, but we weren't
comfortable with the thought that someone might profit from it. In
practice, we'd probably be agreeable to people having the whole collection
as long as we were satisfied it was in a "good cause". Technically people
selling copies of their family history book containing some of our photos
might be said to be commercialising our photos, but I've yet to see anyone
really financially profit from publishing their family history. If family
history books start becoming Book of the Month, we might revise our
thinking

RM: Any new policies wouldn't affect material that was gathered beforehand.

I am a bit of a Jekyll & Hyde when it comes to intellectual property. At
work, I must of course take all reasonable steps to manage my employer's
intellectual property within a capitalist framework. At play, I am more
inclined to operate in the pay-it-forward gift/reputation economy, but
because I know from my work that there are some people who will take
advantage of such well-intentioned people, I bring that caution into my
family history activities. It would be nice if everyone played fair but
sadly they don't.

RM: Anyone in business will tell you how hard it is to make a profit WITH
good products and good employees and good advertising and good financial
back-up, so it's not very likely that anyone is going to make a fortune out
of bits of amateur genealogy material that's floating around the place.

Kerry

Ray

[TomAlciere]

Ray Murphy wrote:

Deliberate errors in works that are purported to be "public record" but are
not, ARE protected by copyright, so everyone is at slight risk when copying
such work. For example the publishers of Street directories protect their
work in this way by placing non-existent streets in their maps (to prove
illegal copying).

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names

and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

[TomAlciere]

Kerry Raymond wrote:

If someone has a copy of public domain information, they are NOT obliged to
make it available to anyone else. Making something public domain does not
ensure it remains freely available to the public. So if a WWW site (say) has
your public domain GEDCOM file published there, they could remove it from
public access and sell it.

People will have already downloaded copies of it, and if it is in the
public domain, they are quite welcome to publish it on their websites
also.

Of course, I cannot stop people from reselling the GEDCOMs I publish on
my site.

[Ray Murphy]

"TomAlciere" <TomAlciere@TomAlciere.com> wrote in message
news:1167011660.995859.53070@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ray Murphy wrote:


Deliberate errors in works that are purported to be "public record" but
are
not, ARE protected by copyright, so everyone is at slight risk when
copying
such work. For example the publishers of Street directories protect their
work in this way by placing non-existent streets in their maps (to prove
illegal copying).

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names
and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

RM: Facts that are not in the public domain can be copyrighted.
That's what a lot of copyrighted work consists of - facts that are
provable by only one or a few individuals, which is what makes
them valuable and worthy of protection.

Lies can also be copyrighted, whether they are published as being
facts or fiction.

Ray

[Charani]

On 24 Dec 2006 17:54:21 -0800, TomAlciere wrote:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names
and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

You are correct in saying that facts cannot be copyrighted. What
*can* be copyrighted is the *format* those facts are presented in.

Copyright law is a very complex subject.

[Ray Murphy]

"Charani" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:4590f80a$0$97270$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

On 24 Dec 2006 17:54:21 -0800, TomAlciere wrote:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names
and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

You are correct in saying that facts cannot be copyrighted. What
*can* be copyrighted is the *format* those facts are presented in.

RM: The trick is to identify which (non-public record) parts of family
histories in gedcoms are factual and which are not. Without that
extraordinary ability, a defendant in a damages suit could not prove that
only facts were copied.

It would be even more risky if the author of an original work indicated
in some way that not every part of the work was factual - thus removing
from freeloaders the defence that they believed they were dealing with
facts.

If one was feeling awfully lucky they could publish a list of (re-formatted)
"facts" which show how a copyright protected Microsoft program is coded -
but would it be a defence in a breach of copyright action, that only facts
were reproduced?

http://writerswrite.com/journal/sept97/cew2.htm [Quote from U.S. website]:
"To sue someone for copyright infringement the owner of the work must first
register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. You may register the work
after someone has infringed upon the work, but the registration will only
apply to infringements that occur after the registration. However, if you
register your work within 90 days of publication, the statutory damages
provisions apply to infringements before and after the actual
registration."#

Ray

[Lesley Robertson]

"Ray Murphy" <raymur@chariot.net.au> schreef in bericht
news:459111ef$1_3@news.chariot.net.au...

"Charani" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:4590f80a$0$97270$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
On 24 Dec 2006 17:54:21 -0800, TomAlciere wrote:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names
and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

You are correct in saying that facts cannot be copyrighted. What
*can* be copyrighted is the *format* those facts are presented in.

RM: The trick is to identify which (non-public record) parts of family
histories in gedcoms are factual and which are not. Without that
extraordinary ability, a defendant in a damages suit could not prove that
only facts were copied.

While you cannot copyright facts, you can copyright the format in which they

are displayed. Thus you cannot claim that the "fact" that Kermit MacMuppet
was born on 17 June 1929 is copyright as anyone could have seen his birth
cert independantly and got the same information. However, if you put that
information into a table, a paragraph of text or even a gedcom, then you own
the copyright on however you've done it.
Mind you, as has been said, proving the theft of your work (for that is what
copyright infringement really is) in a court of law would probably cost more
that the damages you;d be likely to receive.
Lesley Robertson

PS Please note that Kermit MacMuppet is an imaginary character used for the
purposes of illustration and that the birthdate given is thus not a genuine
fact.

[Ray Murphy]

"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:Daadnd7lS_IlvQzYRVnyhgA@infopact.nl...

"Ray Murphy" <raymur@chariot.net.au> schreef in bericht
news:459111ef$1_3@news.chariot.net.au...

"Charani" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:4590f80a$0$97270$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
On 24 Dec 2006 17:54:21 -0800, TomAlciere wrote:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Adding fake births into a list of names
and places of births is the same as declaring them to be facts. You
cannot copyright facts, nor lies presented as facts.

You are correct in saying that facts cannot be copyrighted. What
*can* be copyrighted is the *format* those facts are presented in.

RM: The trick is to identify which (non-public record) parts of family
histories in gedcoms are factual and which are not. Without that
extraordinary ability, a defendant in a damages suit could not prove that
only facts were copied.

While you cannot copyright facts, you can copyright the format in which
they are displayed.

RM: Copyright *protection* exists automatically once any work is produced,
whether published or not, so there's no need "to copyright it", however any
part of a work that is generic is not protected, but (as mentioned earlier)
in the U.S. one cannot sue for breach of copyright unless the work is
officially registered, and then only for (alleged) breaches after that date
- with one exception.

Thus you cannot claim that the "fact" that Kermit MacMuppet was born on 17
June 1929 is copyright as anyone could have seen his birth cert
independently and got the same information.

RM: It's more important for a re-publisher to verify that copied material is
factual, rather than relying on imaginary people who could have verified
statements or words as being facts.

However, if you put that
information into a table, a paragraph of text or even a gedcom, then you
own the copyright on however you've done it.

RM: One cannot be sure that they hold the copyright to any work unless a
court agrees that it's not generic or that the formatting style hasn't been
copied from someone else (besides any litigant) in the first place.

Mind you, as has been said, proving the theft of your work (for that is
what copyright infringement really is) in a court of law would probably
cost more that the damages you;d be likely to receive.
Lesley Robertson

RM: "Theft" (or larceny) is a crime, and with very few exceptions crimes
cannot occur without intent, so breaches of copyright are not always theft;
in fact until recently there was nothing in the Crimes Acts in Australian
states to say it was.
Alleged breaches have until recent years been civil matters where damages
are sought (for actual damage done). Plagiarism is also breach of copyright
but it's neither a crime nor a subject of damages suits because no damage is
done.

PS Please note that Kermit MacMuppet is an imaginary character used
for the purposes of illustration and that the birthdate given is thus not
a genuine fact.

RM: Bugger it!
That means none of us can legally copy and re-publish Kermit's birth details
because they are not factual. You've got me wondering now about one of my
disabled ancestors, a Captain Hook.

Ray

[Lesley Robertson]

"Ray Murphy" <raymur@chariot.net.au> schreef in bericht
news:45914be0_1@news.chariot.net.au...

RM: Bugger it!
That means none of us can legally copy and re-publish Kermit's birth
details
because they are not factual. You've got me wondering now about one of my
disabled ancestors, a Captain Hook.

Believe it or not, after the first couple of times the gentleman appeared in
my messages, together with his relatives Piegi and Ralph, I actually had
people asking whether I thought "MacMuppet" might be a spelling variation of
surnames they were researching!
Lesley Robertson