Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Linda --
Great, thanks for telling us. I always get Ancestries database report
the next day after they close it!
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Tom & Linda Carman wrote:
> Just a note for those whose Carman ancestors may have been in New York
> City in 1869 or 1890 but who have been unable to access this information
> previously:
> 1869 and 1890 New York City directories published by Ancestry Inc are
> among the new databases that can searched (free, but only temporarily
> so, if you are not a subscriber) at www.ancestry.com
> Hope this helps somebody on the list.
> Linda Carman, Bismarck ND
>
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
Just a note for those whose Carman ancestors may have been in New York
City in 1869 or 1890 but who have been unable to access this information
previously:
1869 and 1890 New York City directories published by Ancestry Inc are
among the new databases that can searched (free, but only temporarily
so, if you are not a subscriber) at www.ancestry.com
Hope this helps somebody on the list.
Linda Carman, Bismarck ND
A BBS for Carman Controversies is being given a trial run at
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi/mb305550
For those interested:
There are posts there regarding administrative and policy matters --
research theory, and hopefully discussions of differences of opinion on
Carman genealogy --.
This is only a trial run and this board is open to the public.
Christina --
Thanks for your post. Your comment is correct. We must all take care to
put in the subject so those who are not interested in copyright subjects
can delete them.
Would you consider posting one or two of these to the GenConnect query
boards? Have you run into any instance where your line has been mixed
with the Carman name.? Also do have any probable or possible locations
you would feel comfortable adding?
GenConnect http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/indx/FamAssoc.html
Again thanks.
Regards, Patricia
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, christina routt wrote:
> you know i have been a subscriber on this list for about one week. not really
> sure what everyone is talking about as far as copywrited material. but it
> seems to me we have gotten way out in left field on genealogy. i suscribed to
> this list hoping someone would connect with my carmean-carmeen-cremean family
> so far i have not seen much posting on this list as far as lineage goes. so
> this is my carmeen family maybe we could all get back to posting info on our
> families.
>
> DESCENDANT LIST CHART
> Generation Number
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
> 1-john carmeen (1656/1660 AD- 1713) married 1688/1694
> susannah mace (- 1734)
> 2-john carmeen (1691/1695 AD- 1748) married 1725
> elizabeth beauchamp ( 1709-)
> 3-jacob carmeen ( bef 1731-1790/1791 AD) married
> rachel (- 1772)
> 4-curtis cremean ( 1760- 1819) married
> philidelphia "filly" greyless ( 1780- 1845)
> 5-elizabeth cremean (-) married
> stephen ireland (-)
> 5-daniel cremean (-) married
> jemina hire (-)
> 5-mary cremean (-) married
> solomon carr (-)
> 5-smith cremean (04 Jan 1787-28 Jul 1858) married
> mary (polly) dillon-dillen (18 Jul 1789-20 Feb 1880)
> 6-henry cremean (27 Sep 1809-01 Apr 1866)
> 6-edward cremean (31 Jan 1814-11 Mar 1860) married
> mary povenmire (-)
> 6-john cremean ( 1808-)
> 6-curtis cremean (06 Jun 1820-05 Jan 1892) married
> sarah custer john (-)
> 6-stephen decatur cremean (-) married
> tamsey john (29 Aug 1829-31 May 1888)
> 6-smith cremean (-)
> 6-james c. cremean (26 Apr 1816-) married
> mary summerset (-)
> 6-william jackson cremean (-)
> 6-mary jane cremean (-)
> 6-eleanor cremean (22 Nov 1811-14 Mar 1879) married
> aaron shobe (-)
> 6-henrietta cremean (22 Jun 1818-05 Sep 1865) married
> issac povenmire (-)
> 5-keziah cremean ( 1795-) married
> samuel baxter (-)
> 6-curtis baxter ( 1822-) married
> emely ( 1822-)
> 6-david baxter ( 1830-)
> 6-eliza baxter ( 1828-)
> 5-jacob cremean ( 1803-) married
> judith(joban) wilson (-)
> 5-kitturah cremean ( 1799- 1872)
> ferdinand miller ( 1796- 1873)
> 6-issac miller ( 1822)
> 6-joseph miller ( 1823-) married
> minerva j. shock ( Dec 1828-)
> 6-israel miller (-)
> 6-austin miller (-)
> 6-william miller ( 1828-may 13,1898) married feb,21 1858
> susannah spangler ( 1835)
> Page 1
>
> DESCENDANT LIST CHART
> Generation Number
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
> 6-james miller ( 1830)
> 6-curtis miller ( 1831- 1907) married may,10,1860
> malinda spangler (jan.21,1837)
> 6-jesse miller ( 1832)
> 6-soloman miller ( Dec 1834) married 1879
> cordelia kephart ( Nov 1843)
> 6-kezeah miller ( 1836) married 1868
> william little ( Oct 1830)
> 6-ketturah miller ( Sep 1842-) married 1873
> samuel herring ( Dec 1849-)
> 6-sarah miller ( 1843) married
> john heisler (-)
> 6-wesley miller ()
> 6-charles miller ( Dec 1869-)
> 5-kitturah cremean ( 1799- 1872)
> ferdinand miller ( 1796- 1873)
> 5-pearson cremean (-) married
> elizabeth (-)
> 5-deborah cremean (-) married
> stephen wilson (-)
> 4-john carmeen (1771/1780 AD-) married
> nancy greyless (-)
> 5-jacob carmeen (1790/1794 AD-)
> 5-james carmeen (17 Dec 1799- 1888) married
> mary miller (15 Mar 1793-13 Jun 1878)
> 6-john carmeen (-)
> 6-william h. carmeen (-)
> 5-william carmeen (1794/1804 AD-)
> 5-zebdial carmeen ( 1802-)
> 5-judge carmeen (-)
> 6-mary carmeen (-)
> 6-martha carmeen (-)
> 5-jesse carmeen (10 Jun 1793-22 Dec 1850) married 13 Dec 1825
> mary dehaven (-)
> 5-mathew j. carmeen (1820/1830 AD-)
> 6-mary ann carmeen (-)
> 5-noah carmeen (-)
>
> sincerely christina
> ancestry(a)wcoil.com
>
>
>
> patricia wrote:
>
> > Nancy --
> >
> > Yours is an interesting question, and I cannot answer it. In fact I am
> > not sure without research exactly what the definition of plagarism is,
> > Offhand I would think that plagarism is passing someone else'w work off
> > as your own, which is pretty clear. It might or might not involve
> > violating someone's copyright. I am not a lawyer. This is only an
> > opinion. In very broad terms you might plagarize Shakespeare and write
> > To Be or Not To Be That is the Question, but, I believe Sharkespeare
> > may not have the copyright anymore, It wouild be more of an ehitcal or
> > moral violation. You would not be eligible for the Academy Award
> > writers award. Copyright implies more of a contemporary and monetary
> > value which can be defended.
> >
> > That is what I think.
> > Do you share any of these opinions?
> >
> > As listowner and board manager on a very large, very popular server
> > site I feel it is my responsiblity not to allow posting of copyrighted
> > material. The most conservative interpretation is that everything
> > created in the last 95 years is copyrighted unless explicitly declared
> > in the public domain.
> >
> > GenConnect was created for the County websites which, for instance,
> > often post hundreds of obituaries. The posters write for permission
> > from the newspapers to do this. A wise move, since mass uploading would
> > be noticeable.
> >
> > Let me know what you think, please feel free to state your opinion --
> > politely, of course. Email me if you have a specific question.
> >
> > ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> > UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
>
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
you know i have been a subscriber on this list for about one week. not really
sure what everyone is talking about as far as copywrited material. but it
seems to me we have gotten way out in left field on genealogy. i suscribed to
this list hoping someone would connect with my carmean-carmeen-cremean family
so far i have not seen much posting on this list as far as lineage goes. so
this is my carmeen family maybe we could all get back to posting info on our
families.
DESCENDANT LIST CHART
Generation Number
1 2 3 4 5 6
1-john carmeen (1656/1660 AD- 1713) married 1688/1694
susannah mace (- 1734)
2-john carmeen (1691/1695 AD- 1748) married 1725
elizabeth beauchamp ( 1709-)
3-jacob carmeen ( bef 1731-1790/1791 AD) married
rachel (- 1772)
4-curtis cremean ( 1760- 1819) married
philidelphia "filly" greyless ( 1780- 1845)
5-elizabeth cremean (-) married
stephen ireland (-)
5-daniel cremean (-) married
jemina hire (-)
5-mary cremean (-) married
solomon carr (-)
5-smith cremean (04 Jan 1787-28 Jul 1858) married
mary (polly) dillon-dillen (18 Jul 1789-20 Feb 1880)
6-henry cremean (27 Sep 1809-01 Apr 1866)
6-edward cremean (31 Jan 1814-11 Mar 1860) married
mary povenmire (-)
6-john cremean ( 1808-)
6-curtis cremean (06 Jun 1820-05 Jan 1892) married
sarah custer john (-)
6-stephen decatur cremean (-) married
tamsey john (29 Aug 1829-31 May 1888)
6-smith cremean (-)
6-james c. cremean (26 Apr 1816-) married
mary summerset (-)
6-william jackson cremean (-)
6-mary jane cremean (-)
6-eleanor cremean (22 Nov 1811-14 Mar 1879) married
aaron shobe (-)
6-henrietta cremean (22 Jun 1818-05 Sep 1865) married
issac povenmire (-)
5-keziah cremean ( 1795-) married
samuel baxter (-)
6-curtis baxter ( 1822-) married
emely ( 1822-)
6-david baxter ( 1830-)
6-eliza baxter ( 1828-)
5-jacob cremean ( 1803-) married
judith(joban) wilson (-)
5-kitturah cremean ( 1799- 1872)
ferdinand miller ( 1796- 1873)
6-issac miller ( 1822)
6-joseph miller ( 1823-) married
minerva j. shock ( Dec 1828-)
6-israel miller (-)
6-austin miller (-)
6-william miller ( 1828-may 13,1898) married feb,21 1858
susannah spangler ( 1835)
Page 1
DESCENDANT LIST CHART
Generation Number
1 2 3 4 5 6
6-james miller ( 1830)
6-curtis miller ( 1831- 1907) married may,10,1860
malinda spangler (jan.21,1837)
6-jesse miller ( 1832)
6-soloman miller ( Dec 1834) married 1879
cordelia kephart ( Nov 1843)
6-kezeah miller ( 1836) married 1868
william little ( Oct 1830)
6-ketturah miller ( Sep 1842-) married 1873
samuel herring ( Dec 1849-)
6-sarah miller ( 1843) married
john heisler (-)
6-wesley miller ()
6-charles miller ( Dec 1869-)
5-kitturah cremean ( 1799- 1872)
ferdinand miller ( 1796- 1873)
5-pearson cremean (-) married
elizabeth (-)
5-deborah cremean (-) married
stephen wilson (-)
4-john carmeen (1771/1780 AD-) married
nancy greyless (-)
5-jacob carmeen (1790/1794 AD-)
5-james carmeen (17 Dec 1799- 1888) married
mary miller (15 Mar 1793-13 Jun 1878)
6-john carmeen (-)
6-william h. carmeen (-)
5-william carmeen (1794/1804 AD-)
5-zebdial carmeen ( 1802-)
5-judge carmeen (-)
6-mary carmeen (-)
6-martha carmeen (-)
5-jesse carmeen (10 Jun 1793-22 Dec 1850) married 13 Dec 1825
mary dehaven (-)
5-mathew j. carmeen (1820/1830 AD-)
6-mary ann carmeen (-)
5-noah carmeen (-)
sincerely christina
ancestry(a)wcoil.com
patricia wrote:
> Nancy --
>
> Yours is an interesting question, and I cannot answer it. In fact I am
> not sure without research exactly what the definition of plagarism is,
> Offhand I would think that plagarism is passing someone else'w work off
> as your own, which is pretty clear. It might or might not involve
> violating someone's copyright. I am not a lawyer. This is only an
> opinion. In very broad terms you might plagarize Shakespeare and write
> To Be or Not To Be That is the Question, but, I believe Sharkespeare
> may not have the copyright anymore, It wouild be more of an ehitcal or
> moral violation. You would not be eligible for the Academy Award
> writers award. Copyright implies more of a contemporary and monetary
> value which can be defended.
>
> That is what I think.
> Do you share any of these opinions?
>
> As listowner and board manager on a very large, very popular server
> site I feel it is my responsiblity not to allow posting of copyrighted
> material. The most conservative interpretation is that everything
> created in the last 95 years is copyrighted unless explicitly declared
> in the public domain.
>
> GenConnect was created for the County websites which, for instance,
> often post hundreds of obituaries. The posters write for permission
> from the newspapers to do this. A wise move, since mass uploading would
> be noticeable.
>
> Let me know what you think, please feel free to state your opinion --
> politely, of course. Email me if you have a specific question.
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
Patricia.....seems to me that lately this whole "copyright" and "proprietary"
concern has actually turned into an unwarranted spectacle, hurting feelings
and causing much confusion....I for one am tired of hearing about it. Before
the "Internet", I wrote letters, and in those letters I quoted from letters or
books or other compilations that I have come across over the years, and never,
never ever ever have I given one thought to being sued for using that
information, even after I went and verified some of it myself with other
sources. I will not be held to account for the distribution of work that
others CLAIM to own, because if they owned it and did not want it put out,
they would not have put it out. No one OWNS Vital Statistics (lets face it,
thats better than 75% of a genealogy anway...what good is the genealogy if
there are no dates?) and just because someone placed one person with another
(ie: daughter to parents) does not mean that they OWN this information...this
information can be had ANYWHERE. While I complained at some point about
others taking information that I had compiled, and given it out or presented
it as their own research (for which I oppose still), I do not deny that the
dates, times, places, names and everything else in my research can be found by
anyone else looking for it without my work. I have dedicated alot of my time
and money and energy to compiling information on the Northern NJ Carmans, and
I had given what I had (in its entirety) to a few others....this was not just
one name, or one date, or several names and dates, these were full families
and several generations of the Carmans in that area. For that I expect one
should get SOME credit for that work, because the person who received didnt do
it, they only repeated or restated what was given to them by me. The long and
short of it is, the spirit of genealogy is to share...you can be choosey as to
whom you share your information with, but ultimately it will end up in the
public domain...suing or threatening to sue someone is as about as ridiculous
as a square moon. (say that three times fast......). Can you imagine this
hobby continuing if everyone hoarded information like it was gold (to some it
is I guess, they want to sell it in book/CD form) I feel sorry for their
survivors, because God forbid something should happen to these people, and
their survivors come in and find boxes of stuff they consider crap, and throw
it all away. Its happened before countless times, and its a crying shame.
Thats my unsolicited opinion. Dave
Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
> In my message of December 10, 1998 I announced to the list that Barbara
> Parker had been suspended from the list for a week.
>
> I did not understand that the phrase "passed on" meant the message she
> posted had been declared to be in the public domain by the poster and was
> not considered proprietary or copyrighted by the poster.
>
> I appologize for any damage to her reputation and am sorry for any pain or
> discomfort my public statement caused to her.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Patricia Carman Tidmarsh
> Listowner Carman-Roots-(a)rootssweb.com
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
In my message of December 10, 1998 I announced to the list that Barbara
Parker had been suspended from the list for a week.
I did not understand that the phrase "passed on" meant the message she
posted had been declared to be in the public domain by the poster and was
not considered proprietary or copyrighted by the poster.
I appologize for any damage to her reputation and am sorry for any pain or
discomfort my public statement caused to her.
Very truly yours,
Patricia Carman Tidmarsh
Listowner Carman-Roots-(a)rootssweb.com
Patricia,
Does this mean she is going to be allowed to join the list again since it has
been well over a week since you notified the list of this action.
I understand she has great deal of family to contribute to this list.
Thanks
Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
> In my message of December 10, 1998 I announced to the list that Barbara
> Parker had been suspended from the list for a week.
>
> I did not understand that the phrase "passed on" meant the message she
> posted had been declared to be in the public domain by the poster and was
> not considered proprietary or copyrighted by the poster.
>
> I appologize for any damage to her reputation and am sorry for any pain or
> discomfort my public statement caused to her.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Patricia Carman Tidmarsh
> Listowner Carman-Roots-(a)rootssweb.com
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
Nancy --
Yours is an interesting question, and I cannot answer it. In fact I am
not sure without research exactly what the definition of plagarism is,
Offhand I would think that plagarism is passing someone else'w work off
as your own, which is pretty clear. It might or might not involve
violating someone's copyright. I am not a lawyer. This is only an
opinion. In very broad terms you might plagarize Shakespeare and write
To Be or Not To Be That is the Question, but, I believe Sharkespeare
may not have the copyright anymore, It wouild be more of an ehitcal or
moral violation. You would not be eligible for the Academy Award
writers award. Copyright implies more of a contemporary and monetary
value which can be defended.
That is what I think.
Do you share any of these opinions?
As listowner and board manager on a very large, very popular server
site I feel it is my responsiblity not to allow posting of copyrighted
material. The most conservative interpretation is that everything
created in the last 95 years is copyrighted unless explicitly declared
in the public domain.
GenConnect was created for the County websites which, for instance,
often post hundreds of obituaries. The posters write for permission
from the newspapers to do this. A wise move, since mass uploading would
be noticeable.
Let me know what you think, please feel free to state your opinion --
politely, of course. Email me if you have a specific question.
Scott--
I am not a lawyer, this is just a laypersons opinion --
I believe you are correct in this case. From what I understand this is
usually true. From the point of view of a board manager, since the
example involved a close family member I would have no trouble with
forwarding the post to the Board for permanent archive. You understand,
of course, that, in this hypothetical case, where only a single entry is
involved, either I or the GenConnect admin could remove the post or edit
it.
However--
Genconnect also deals with county boards where many, many obits are posted
which are not related to immediate family members of the poster and which
cannot be dealt with on an individual basis, simply from a logistical
standpoint -- hence the general rule.
Again, thanks for your input -- any civil discussion is most welcome.
There are several areas on which there are radically differing points of
view. We are on the cutting edge here in cyberspace. I have the feeling
that technical developments will determine the outcome, but we can express
our opinions.
Of course, while researching our shared Carman surname interests.
Regards,
Patricia
.
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Scott Geiger wrote:
> Ray and Patricia,
>
> Very interesting points made by both of you. I would like to add my two cents so
> to say.
>
> When my father passed away the family wrote him obit and paid the newspaper to
> publish it in the paper. I believe this is the case in most obits, right or
> wrong? If the family does not put a copywrite on the obit then it becomes public
> domain, not the papers in my opinion. And I don't believe this has ever been
> brought out as a court issue since an author is never noted.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
>
> > Ray--
> >
> > I am not a lawyer, so my post was just a lay opinion. As a Rootsweb
> > Listonwer and a GenConnect Board Manager I feel it is my responsibility to
> > be conservative in my judgement. It is my understanding that current
> > newspaper articles and email posts are copyrighted under the law of the US
> > and many other countries , unless they are expressly put in the public
> > domain.
> >
> > Obits and biographies are particular instances where copyrighted material
> > can inadvertently be included -- the facts are public information, but
> > additional details and opinions from an article may be copyrighted. It is
> > always best to assume so, and either get permission or abstract the
> > material.
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, the list is for discussion, and copyright,
> > permanent archives and sharing are very relevant topics on which there are
> > polemic opinions.
> >
> > Also, I recently discovered, there are two opposite opinions on how much
> > sourcing is necessary. I read that USIGS has established standards for
> > precise citations. [I believe that their Newsletter "Signal" can probably
> > be found through a http://www.yahoo.com, or http://www.hotbot.com or
> > similar search).
> >
> > I personally disagree and feel that finding aides and
> > honesty (i.e.- my 90-year old great Aunt Martha said) to aid present and
> > future researchers is all that is necessary.
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, rwjustus wrote:
> >
> > > Patricia,
> > >
> > > What is your source for determining copyrighted material? You state that
> > > newspaper obituaries are copyrighted by newspapers. They may be, but only
> > > for the format in which they exist in the newspaper. I seriously doubt that
> > > you would get any court to prosecute for copyright infringement the obituary
> > > of my father or any other relatively unknown person. Sometimes I think we
> > > propagate our own paranoia when it comes to sharing material in the
> > > genealogical community.
> > >
> > > As for material published from other sources, i.e., Bible records, old
> > > letters, etc., unless the author adds something to the original, it is my
> > > understanding that he or she is not protected for copyright except for the
> > > format. What I am saying is, if you photocopy pages from a book that
> > > includes Bible records and distribute them you 'may' be guilty of copyright
> > > infringement. However, if you simply copy the Bible record portion,
> > > assuming that the author did not make the original entries or obtain
> > > exclusive publishing rights from the original author, you are probably not
> > > guilty of anything.
> > >
> > > These remarks are not intended to be a flame of your previous comments.
> > > They are only an attempt to question the current reign of fear going out
> > > across the Internet. In my opinion, the only purpose this activity serves
> > > is to discourage the free exchange of information.
> > >
> > > Ray Justus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > > To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> > UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
Ray--
I am not a lawyer, so my post was just a lay opinion. As a Rootsweb
Listonwer and a GenConnect Board Manager I feel it is my responsibility to
be conservative in my judgement. It is my understanding that current
newspaper articles and email posts are copyrighted under the law of the US
and many other countries , unless they are expressly put in the public
domain.
Obits and biographies are particular instances where copyrighted material
can inadvertently be included -- the facts are public information, but
additional details and opinions from an article may be copyrighted. It is
always best to assume so, and either get permission or abstract the
material.
Thanks for your comments, the list is for discussion, and copyright,
permanent archives and sharing are very relevant topics on which there are
polemic opinions.
Also, I recently discovered, there are two opposite opinions on how much
sourcing is necessary. I read that USIGS has established standards for
precise citations. [I believe that their Newsletter "Signal" can probably
be found through a http://www.yahoo.com, or http://www.hotbot.com or
similar search).
I personally disagree and feel that finding aides and
honesty (i.e.- my 90-year old great Aunt Martha said) to aid present and
future researchers is all that is necessary.
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, rwjustus wrote:
> Patricia,
>
> What is your source for determining copyrighted material? You state that
> newspaper obituaries are copyrighted by newspapers. They may be, but only
> for the format in which they exist in the newspaper. I seriously doubt that
> you would get any court to prosecute for copyright infringement the obituary
> of my father or any other relatively unknown person. Sometimes I think we
> propagate our own paranoia when it comes to sharing material in the
> genealogical community.
>
> As for material published from other sources, i.e., Bible records, old
> letters, etc., unless the author adds something to the original, it is my
> understanding that he or she is not protected for copyright except for the
> format. What I am saying is, if you photocopy pages from a book that
> includes Bible records and distribute them you 'may' be guilty of copyright
> infringement. However, if you simply copy the Bible record portion,
> assuming that the author did not make the original entries or obtain
> exclusive publishing rights from the original author, you are probably not
> guilty of anything.
>
> These remarks are not intended to be a flame of your previous comments.
> They are only an attempt to question the current reign of fear going out
> across the Internet. In my opinion, the only purpose this activity serves
> is to discourage the free exchange of information.
>
> Ray Justus
>
>
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
>
>
How are we violating a copyright law when we fully credit the original owner
and we are not making money by quoting the obit?
>From what I was taught in college, plagarism results when we fail to give full
credit to the original author, thus passing it off as our own work.
Most of us intend to publish NOT for profit but to share with family members.
There may be a different standard for those who do intend to publish and
charge for the product. Ideas?
Nancy Crandell Long, Anaheim, CA
Patricia,
What is your source for determining copyrighted material? You state that
newspaper obituaries are copyrighted by newspapers. They may be, but only
for the format in which they exist in the newspaper. I seriously doubt that
you would get any court to prosecute for copyright infringement the obituary
of my father or any other relatively unknown person. Sometimes I think we
propagate our own paranoia when it comes to sharing material in the
genealogical community.
As for material published from other sources, i.e., Bible records, old
letters, etc., unless the author adds something to the original, it is my
understanding that he or she is not protected for copyright except for the
format. What I am saying is, if you photocopy pages from a book that
includes Bible records and distribute them you 'may' be guilty of copyright
infringement. However, if you simply copy the Bible record portion,
assuming that the author did not make the original entries or obtain
exclusive publishing rights from the original author, you are probably not
guilty of anything.
These remarks are not intended to be a flame of your previous comments.
They are only an attempt to question the current reign of fear going out
across the Internet. In my opinion, the only purpose this activity serves
is to discourage the free exchange of information.
Ray Justus
Glad you are interested. It is a very controversial area because it is
pretty much uncharted territory for cyberspace.
Yes, obits are copyrighted, but it seems different newspapers have
different policies and you could contact them or abstract the article. I
believe the actual facts themselves are public property and in some cases
they are considered advertisements. You will see
more about this at the site.
Biographies also may be copyrighted by the author. Bible records might
be the same if they are puiblished in a book that is still under
copyright. Apparently Deeds, Wills and Pensions are public domain.
I'm not a lawyer so do check it out and see what you think.
I am going to post a reference to Hempstead hiring someone to burn the
Hempstead Plains in 1660s which is part of the modern preservation plan in
the project you told us about last fall.
Regards,
Patricia
Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
>
> GenConnect has added a copyright hints board at
>
> http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/HINTS/copyright.html
>
> which will give guidelines for posts to the Queries boards, and the
> document boards (will, pensions, obits, deeds, bible records, and
> biographies).
[snipped]
Thank you for posting this info....will need to take some time to read
through it. At the moment I am reluctant to post *anything*...an obit
from a newspaper is copyrighted by the paper, is it not? It's a
confusing issue...
Linda
GenConnect has added a copyright hints board at
http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/HINTS/copyright.html
which will give guidelines for posts to the Queries boards, and the
document boards (will, pensions, obits, deeds, bible records, and
biographies).
The queries and documents are permanent records which are indexed and
globally searchable.
For the queries, briefly give as many statistics as you can -- date or
approximation and source -- family legend, census, etc. These are
finding aides and pointers to help others compiling data on the
surname in verifying data for themselves -- possibly at some future
date.
As usual please do not post copyrighted, personal, private or
proprietary data.
Regards
Patricia
Listowner
"should" verify the data for themselves
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Ray and Patricia,
Very interesting points made by both of you. I would like to add my two cents so
to say.
When my father passed away the family wrote him obit and paid the newspaper to
publish it in the paper. I believe this is the case in most obits, right or
wrong? If the family does not put a copywrite on the obit then it becomes public
domain, not the papers in my opinion. And I don't believe this has ever been
brought out as a court issue since an author is never noted.
Thanks
Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
> Ray--
>
> I am not a lawyer, so my post was just a lay opinion. As a Rootsweb
> Listonwer and a GenConnect Board Manager I feel it is my responsibility to
> be conservative in my judgement. It is my understanding that current
> newspaper articles and email posts are copyrighted under the law of the US
> and many other countries , unless they are expressly put in the public
> domain.
>
> Obits and biographies are particular instances where copyrighted material
> can inadvertently be included -- the facts are public information, but
> additional details and opinions from an article may be copyrighted. It is
> always best to assume so, and either get permission or abstract the
> material.
>
> Thanks for your comments, the list is for discussion, and copyright,
> permanent archives and sharing are very relevant topics on which there are
> polemic opinions.
>
> Also, I recently discovered, there are two opposite opinions on how much
> sourcing is necessary. I read that USIGS has established standards for
> precise citations. [I believe that their Newsletter "Signal" can probably
> be found through a http://www.yahoo.com, or http://www.hotbot.com or
> similar search).
>
> I personally disagree and feel that finding aides and
> honesty (i.e.- my 90-year old great Aunt Martha said) to aid present and
> future researchers is all that is necessary.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, rwjustus wrote:
>
> > Patricia,
> >
> > What is your source for determining copyrighted material? You state that
> > newspaper obituaries are copyrighted by newspapers. They may be, but only
> > for the format in which they exist in the newspaper. I seriously doubt that
> > you would get any court to prosecute for copyright infringement the obituary
> > of my father or any other relatively unknown person. Sometimes I think we
> > propagate our own paranoia when it comes to sharing material in the
> > genealogical community.
> >
> > As for material published from other sources, i.e., Bible records, old
> > letters, etc., unless the author adds something to the original, it is my
> > understanding that he or she is not protected for copyright except for the
> > format. What I am saying is, if you photocopy pages from a book that
> > includes Bible records and distribute them you 'may' be guilty of copyright
> > infringement. However, if you simply copy the Bible record portion,
> > assuming that the author did not make the original entries or obtain
> > exclusive publishing rights from the original author, you are probably not
> > guilty of anything.
> >
> > These remarks are not intended to be a flame of your previous comments.
> > They are only an attempt to question the current reign of fear going out
> > across the Internet. In my opinion, the only purpose this activity serves
> > is to discourage the free exchange of information.
> >
> > Ray Justus
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> > UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
> >
> >
>
> ==== CARMAN-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> To unsubscribe send email to Carman-Roots-L@rootsweb with the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE as subject and message.
This is the reference of the sale from Lattin to John-2 Carman in
1666.
Onderdonk,H. Annals of Hempstead, p. 45
"1666, March 12--Richard Lattin, of Huntington, sells to John Carman his
home lot, formerly John Foster's, for one cow.--D.,19."
In posting this to the Carman Deeds board I would put the surnames Foster
and Lattin in the surnames box.
I believe there are other references to this parcel of land, which I will
add or cross-reference.
Regards
Patricia Carman Tidmarsh
Listowner - Carman-Roots-L(a)rootsweb.com
Read GenConnect Carman documents at
Send documents to patriciact(a)yahoo.com for posting.
Read/post GenConnect queries at
http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/indx/FamAssoc.htm
More URLs for GenConnect Boards
http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/indx/FamAssoc.htm
please note that there is no "l" in the "htm".
As I have been saying, setting up these boards has been complicated,
but I think GenConnect will be a great addition to the Rootsweb and
USgenweb mission of providing "free" genealogical information on the
net, and worth a few changes. GenConnect has been 'wildly' successful
and the administrators are catching up with the backlog.
Regards,
Patricia Tidmarsh
Listowner