As an instructional technologist with a degree in history (not law) and a hobby genealogist...
My understanding of the law is inline with that of Ms Michaels and Mr. SkinnerLopata.
Mr. SkinnerLopata wrote: "geneological information (names, dates of birth, parentage) organized in the obvious chronological fashion would have little or no copyright protection."
I would probably add in standard "GEDCOM" fashion along with chronological.
This data would be considered factual information or data available to all people within the public domain and although compiled for her work by Ms. Bankdevine, the actual facts are not owned by her and cannot be legally. Her translation of data, compilation and anecdotal information is "owned by her." Consider the many translations of the Bible, American history and the many maps one can purchase at your local bookstore. All are copywritten and contain the same facts. Many genealogical facts are actually found in government documents via census docs and land grant docs compiled by government employees or volunteers and now may even be available online at various reputable or government sites. It would be considered "directory type information" just as a telephone book. No one can copy her compilation or extract her interview information, but they can extract basic factual information if they wish. I don't know a single "good" genealogist who would without verifying her information using primary source documents, but I'm sure it will be done and can be done legally. I know that there are at least three compilations of my family history registered with the copyright office containing similar family facts, stories, and information. One from the early 1900s of which is now considered in the circle of "good genealogical researchers" a work of "historical fiction" as many of the facts were not verified prior to publication and was used so that the person could join DAR.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Theodora Michaels
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:01 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
>IF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL "OWNED" THE SAME WORK (AS YOU SEEM
TO IMPLY) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WOULD NOT ( I REPEAN WOULD NOT)
HAVE ISSUED THE COPYRIGHT.<
Just chiming in here to say yes, they would. If two people independently and coincidentally came up with the same work that meets the standards for copyrightability, and registered them with the Copyright Office, they would indeed each receive a valid copyright certificate.
For that matter, if one person came up with an original work and someone
else copied it, and they both sent in copyright registrations, the Copyright Office most likely would also issue two copyright certificates, but in the event of a lawsuit the infringer's registration
could be declared invalid.
The Copyright Office simply doesn't have the resources, nor is it legally required to, research the validity of every registration form they receive. They do look at them enough to catch anything glaringly wrong (if, for example, you tried claiming copyright in the original version of the Mona Lisa, I doubt they would register it), but generally
they do assume whatever you send in is correct unless something really jumps out at them. The Copyright Office doesn't perform the same sort of in-depth research as the Patent and Trademark Office.
Thea Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 09:25:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT