I would like to get some intelligent, thoughtful responses on the current copyright
statement currently on USGW Archive Pages.
My motive behind all of this is the ability to use information in the USGW archives on my
personal pages or in future publications on my family research. I have no intentions for
making a profit or enhancing my personal gain in reference to this subject.
I might say, please no attacks, flames or personal 'revenge' opinions about this
subject, I would prefer a mature discussion. Suggestions and comments on copyright
statements are welcome.
Here's the statement and I will break it down as into segments as I understand it.
"USGENWEB NOTICE: These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for
profit or presentation by other organization or persons. Persons or organizations desiring
to use this material, must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal
representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of
this consent."
(1) These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation
by other organization or persons.
JWM comments: This is a terribly awkard statement. It is so generally inclusive that
even extractions of the smallest minutia of data is prohibited without complying to the
next statement.
(2) "Persons or organizations desiring to use this material, must obtain the written
consent of the contributor, or the legal representative of the submitter, and contact the
listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent."
JWM Comments: Perhaps an example is necessary here. Okay, I find a nifty Cemetery
Listing That has Aunt Sally listed in it. However, this is a private cemetery and was
posted by a generous donor whose name is displayed prominently on the USGW archive file.
JWMcomments: Now, all I want to do, is to list Aunt Sally's inscription (i.e. b 1845
-d. Feb. 11, 1915).
To be displayed like this: (Sally Jones . b 1845 -d. Feb. 11, 1915)
and of course, make the necessary source citation in my bibliography as I do in all my
published works, on or offline.
JWM comments: According to the statement in (2), here is what I have to do to quote the 25
letter extract according to the USGW notice.
(a) "must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal representative
of the submitter"
JWMcomments: Please observe, that this says written, not email nor by telephone; written
and I assume that means a 'signed' release.
(b) "contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent"
JWMcomments: So, I get the written consent from the submitter or the legal
representative, now I must submit, by some sort of Fascimile Copy or U.S. Mail proof that
I have that permission before I'm allowed to use it.
JWMcomments: Let me give a little history before I go on. I attempted to discuss this
with people in the position to alter the statement, but was duly insulted and mentally
discounted by being compared to a current 'rebel rouser' who is viewed as a
trouble maker. Making trouble was not my intention. My intention was getting the
statement worded where "Fair Use' by private parties would be allowed without
jumping through hoops. Just as 'Fair Use' of materials is allowed of the books in
Public Libraries and other information archives. Extracts for research or education are
permitted under the law.
What has been done here on this USGW Notice, and this is my opinion, is an attempt to make
a restrictive 'license' where only the Submitter and the person currently
monitoring the file for the USGW archives can give permission for 'any' use.
Restriction is not bad in of itself, but this USGW Notice does not allow 'Fair
Use' statutes currently in place under Copyright Law to be allowed. If a user
extracts information from the USGW archives and uses it in any publishing, either
electronic or paper, then they could be open to lawsuit under the current wording of the
USGW Notice. What I'm saying is that USGW Notice is attempting to be a 'licensing
agent' rather than a copyright notice, by inclusion of the 'permission' clause
in item 2.
Simply put, you can read it, but you cannot republish nary a word without complying with
statement (2). This, in my opinion, kills the spirit of 'Fair Use' under current
copyright law and the statement needs to be changed in order for researchers to quote
references with standard bibliographic 'Fair Use' extractions.
James W. McCluer
Richland County, OHIO CC