Hello Renate and other list members,
I would agree with Renate, but only to a point. I have been reading the
German version of this discussion, and, from what I saw excerpted from the
German copyright law (§4 on collected works and data base works), I think
that the German law is similar to US law.
Under US law, someone cannot copyright a fact. For example, you cannot
copyright a baptism (birth) or a burial (death). I do not think that even
the archives which hold the books recording this information have any kind of
copyright or intellectual property right, since these are just recorded
facts. Since they own the books, they can deny you access (no law says you
have a right to see them, or microfilmed copies of them), but the have no
intellectual property right on the underlying facts. They are just a
chronological recording of the factual events that occurred in a parish,
(usually, in our cases) a long, long time ago.
In the US you get a copyright when you add something original to the mix or
collection of facts. If you put together a book with written text, you have
a copyright. If you put together a genealogy, using your own judgement to
make certain connections (e.g., you think Gerd Arlinghaus was the son of
Lutmar and Catharina Gier versus the son of Johan and Catharina Schwegmann),
then maybe you have something protectable, but somebody else is always
welcome to publish something coming to the same, or a different conclusion on
their own. In the US something is only protectable if you put thought into
how something is ordered, collected (i.e., if it's selective) or organized.
In other words you have to add something of your own to the mix to make it
legally protectable, and then, only your organization is protectable. People
can still use the underlying facts to make their own works. You don't own
the facts, just because they are part of a work that you have a copyright in.
Too many people think that whenever they write something done (or more
accurately copy something), that it is theirs. Often it is. Sometimes it's
not, especially when it's just based on facts we copied from someplace else.
One of the leading cases in the US dealt with someone copying a phonebook.
The US Supreme Court said there was no copyright in the phonebook (i.e, it
was okay to copy it) because there was no special thought or organization in
the collection. It just listed everybody in a given town, in alphabetical
order. These were just a recording of existing facts. Somebody put a lot of
work into it, yes, but it was not protected because there was no thought work
or "intellectual property" added. Time and effort, without adding something
"intellectual" doesn't give you anything protectable. Now if they put all
the people in the order of who was smartest, or who was crankiest, then they
probably would have had something protectable. Similarly, I'd say that just
recording all of the baptisms, marriages or deaths in a given parish is just
a list of facts. Nothing "special" is added to make it copyrighted (at least
in the US).
I don't know what the exact line is, and I don't think anybody does either
(that's why we have caselaw and binding precedent in the US). They make
decisions like this (and rules come about by example) to leave the judges
room to change their minds later and for lawyers to make money arguing.
From reading the excerpt of German law I mentioned above, I think German law
is similar. It seems to say that a copyright arises from the selection or
collection of items to include in the database, and it points out that this
is happens, even if the items in the database have a copyright of their own.
Here, I personally think that the fact someone was baptised, married or
buried is not a copyrightable element anyway. If I have misread or
misunderstood the excerpts above, please let me know. I'm the first to admit
that my German is far from perfect.
Back to Werner's original question (i.e., two people collaborate on research,
and one wants to make a book), I think it may matter what kind of information
is at issue, and how it was used. If the shared information is just raw
facts (i.e., not organized), neither has rights. If there was some thought
put into it, maybe, but a person could look at the same facts and come to the
same conclusions. I have seen genealogies done of my family (and have
sometimes disagreed, as in my example above), but that does not prevent me
from doing the same or (I would sometimes vainly argue) better research,
using the same archive sources and coming to the same or different
conclusions. Just because it's written down, it doesn't make it right.
Also, you don't get a copyright to prevent other people from researching and
sharing their family's genealogies just because you did the work first.
I think the facts in Werner's question about whether you charge for copies,
get reimbursed, etc. has more to do with remedies. That is, assuming you did
violate a copyright, what the damages/penalty would be if you got sued would
take into account whether you did it privately or commercially (i.e., sold
copies for profit).
I do agree with Renate fully that using someone else's information (which you
have not independently researched yourself) without giving them credit is
more of a fairness question.
My personal opinion for my own research is the same as Werner's. If my
information can help someone with their family tree, I'm glad to have helped
(he's also right that a thank you is always appreciated too).
I think that this is an interesting topic and would be interested to hear
others thoughts (even if you think I'm full of it). I know that sometimes
this can be an emotional issue, especially if somebody seems to be saying
that you may not have any protectable rights in information that you worked
very hard to put together. Maybe if we're lucky, we have an IP lawyer on the
list who could set us all straight.
Don
In a message dated 2/9/2003 5:26:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
renate.ell@web.de writes: