copyright?

[rrtrrt95603]

Herllo,
Iam a beginner on this site.
I actually have been enjoying the site and meeting some interesting people, perhaps even relatives. I have even found some people with common interests outside of family history.
Recenty I was taken to task for not minding the Rootschat policy on copyright.  The message was polite enough and even helpfull in its way but seemed to indicated, to me, that if I had found any British info such as their census data I was welcome to look at it and perhaps even enter it into my family records software. But, it seemed also to say I could never share it withe anyone else?? I of cours may be wrong in my reading of the epsitle.
One of the fine folk I had the opportunity to meet on the site sent me the following excerpt { I assume the source of the note was not copyrighted}. Some may recoginze the source.

6.1.1 Crown copyright continues to subsist in public records, but is not enforced in the contents of public records that are available to the public and that were unpublished, or contain material that was unpublished, at the time when they were deposited. Users are free to index, transcribe, publish and broadcast such Crown copyright material without formal permission, payment of a copyright fee or acknowledgement of copyright. The appropriate record office’s custody of the original document must nevertheless still be acknowledged, and the archival document reference given. Crown copyright material among non-public records in The National Archives will be treated in the same way.

If I read this correctly, Rootschat could save us all a bit of hassle by merely stating in some general but obvious place on its site that the origin of much of the info that is shared on the site may be the Crown etc. etc. and would seem to me tto meet the intent of the above papragraph. Am I missing something?

I guess at the least I will add to my little section and invlovement on the site that it is possible that any or all info I place there may have its orgins in something British, which by the way my favorites are Bangers and the Gunners.

RICHARD THOMAS
AUBRUN, CALIFORNIA, USA

[Berlin-Bob]

Hi Richard,

Welcome to RootsChat and I hope you continue to enjoy us/it in all our aspects 

Copyright is a thorny theme, and the Copyright Editors will willingly tell you more, but as I understand it, the problem is not in reading an image and passing on the information on the image, but in passing on other people's transcriptions of the image.

As you so rightly point out, the data and images are Crown Copyright and RootsChat also insist that this fact is mentioned in all relevant postings.

You as a private person are allowed to read the images and copy (transcribe) what you see, on the image

A commercial company can also transcribe these images and make lists of the transcribed data (indexes), which they then sell (CDs, pay-per-view, subscriptions, etc).
These indexes are the copyright of that company. If you copy their indexes, then you are violating their copyright, and this is what RootsChat is warning about.

However, althought the index is company-copyright, the image isn't, it is still Crown-Copyright. So if you see the image on a commercial site or on a CD you have bought, you are still allowed to look at the image and write down what you see on the image, as this is still Crown Copyright, with the aforementioned conditions of use.

In other words, you can make your own transcriptions of an image, but never, never copy a commercial company's transcriptions (index) of the image.

Hope this helps, but if you would like more guidance, then you can always ask the Copyright Editor. 
The more people know, why we handle as we do, the less need for us to handle !!

regards,
Bob

[rrtrrt95603]

Thanks for your response.
I actually don't know how to directly address a Copyright Editor. They seem to have been busy lately. I had been having a few remarks back and forth about the practice of not allowing pasting of anything in a post. I took the impression that Rootschat equated that ability with actual copyright infringement. I voiced my opinion on that. The moderator indicated the practice has been successfull in preventing copyright infringment, said I had a right to my opinion, said there were other open copyright threads and locked that one. Rootschat policy on copyrights indicates it is the posters responsibility to not infringe on copy rights on others. I would have posted again the actual words but I am not allowed to paste it and won't take the time to retype everthing I might want to add to a post. In addition I was interested in how a negative is proven, i.e., how do you prove that not allowing pasting reduces anything other than finger strain. You could get 100% compliance with the copyright protection by not allowing anyone to post anything.

[suttontrust]

The moderators do an excellent job in keeping this site afloat by observing the copyright laws.  These may seem daft at times, but it's the law.  People who look information up for us have to type it in their own version.  This is a hugely valuable resource, and we don't want it shut down.  Frustrating, yes, but we have to live with it.

[Little Nell]

It is still possible to copy and paste into a thread, it is just not possible to do it on any of the look-up request boards by using one of the most common methods i.e. by selecting type/paragraphs or whatever, right-clicking to select copy and right clicking again to paste the selected material in the message.  If someone uses this method, then the warning pops up, thereby reminding people to ensure that they do not infringe copyright.  However, Trystan has yet to invent a way of knowing exactly what might be about to be pasted, so it's a catch-all warning!  Even moderators will get the message if they inadvertently click the right mouse button.

There are ways of carrying out most formatting actions and file operations by using the keyboard.  A number of people have asked similar questions on the Technical Help board:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/board,285.0.html

If you ever wish to contact the Copyright team, then please send a personal message to Copyright Editor and someone will get back to you.

The moderators and the Copyright team agreed the guidelines and policy about what can and what cannot be done with regard to copyright here on RootsChat.  While some people may regard it as heavy-handed, it is done in the best interests of everyone who uses the site, as well as those who administer it.

Best wishes

Nell

[Boongie Pam]

I'm sure one of the copyright editors will correct me but Rootschat ran for sometime (~1 year) where "c&p" was allowed, functionality was then changed so this was not possible.  Therefore the copyright editors can do a simple comparison between the 2 periods of time.

. I took the impression that Rootschat equated that ability with actual copyright infringement

Your understanding is not quite congruent with how RC thinks of C&P functionality.  It isn't that the assumption is that all pasted material is copyrighted it is a risk analysis born out by evidence over the last 2 years.

With the removal of this functionality the risk on the site is less.  Sacrifices are made I'm afraid.  Viewing the statistics on the growth of posts since c&p was turned off there is no evidence that ability to post has been impinged.

We absolutely appreciate your opinion and always appreciate feedback but in this instance c&p will not be switched back on.

I would have posted again the actual words but I am not allowed to paste it and won't take the time to retype everthing I might want to add to a post.

You are able to copy and paste on this board.   The c&p functionality is switched off on boards where there is a risk of copyright or licence infringement NOT every board.

You could get 100% compliance with the copyright protection by not allowing anyone to post anything.

With all due respect as Bob has explained pasting census transcriptions is illegal.  As I have pointed out boards where we are not dealing with census material has c&p functionality - this is a pragmatic approach BUT we still try to ensure that other copyrighted material is not republished.

I hope this goes some way to explaining the situation.  Feel free to ask any further questions you may have.

Regards,
Pam

[Christopher]

Hiya,

I received a reply from the Copyright Team on the Copyright Reminder thread. I cant post another message there so I'm posting here. Lets say a photograph, taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago, is no longer copyright. The photograph is in a museum collection. Do the museum own any copyright? Would I be correct in assuming, with the museum curator's permission, one could take a photograph of the of the original photograph. The person who took the new photo would then own copyright of their own photo?  Is it possible to take action against someone copying your original work if you omit to date and put a copyright sign beside your name at the end of the work?

Chris

[suttontrust]

I don't know about the photo situation you describe, but copyright is something you have automatically, without having to sign or date the work.  However, proving it's your work would be difficult, so it's recommended that you add the copyright sign and phrase, and if you think it's worth it, deposit a dated copy in the bank.

[Boongie Pam]

Christopher,

Copyright as you are aware is a tricky subject and often open to interpretation.  I do not think anyone less than a copyright lawyer can advice to specific situations.  I'm not an expert...

Try this website which has lots of FAQs regarding copyright including one on images.

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq31

It is not a categorical answer as there seems to be different contractual overlays that could change the answer.  Yes the museum may own an agreement which limits access and dissemination.  The last line of the 1st answer is interesting on FAQ 31

You should also be aware that the photograph itself will have its own copyright. If you do not own the copyright or have permission to digitise and disseminate it this will be an infringement.

Any further questions on "action" should be taken through legal advice.

Pam