What is copyright?

So the general advice is as usual: You simply don't post your family secrets on internet..

What about this scenario, Family members jointly write an obituary, Send it to a funeral home who send it to newspapers and post on Find a Grave Where is the copyright?

Another, in this case my profile picture. It is from my son;s wedding. He hired the photographer and gave me a copy with no conditions.

Family members jointly write an obituary - they jointly own their joint creation

Newspaper publishes it - no effect, the publication is with the permission of the copyright owners (unless the authors have conveyed their copyright in exchange for publication, which would be unusual in the US)

Posted on Findagrave - no effect, the publication is with the acquiescence of the authors. That is, there is no commercial value to it and it costs money to sue, so they probably won't. Theoretically they could, but they'd need to prove and monetize the damage they've suffered.

Hired the photographer - the copyright belongs to the photographer, unless your son's agreement with the photographer conveys the copyright to your son. Some photographers do, some don't. It depends on whether the photographer's business model is centered around future revenue from re-prints.

Gave me a copy with no conditions - if your son owns the copyright, he has implicitly given you a revocable license to use it. If he does not own the copyright, he can't give you something he doesn't have.

I see that a new thing has been added to images "Attribution". That is a very good step towards making copyright easier to figure out.

Thanks to Geni developers, this is a very good feature, i will use it now rather than comments.

Justin Durand,

Your last part is a little confusing. If somebody gives you something without conditions, it is not the same thing as allowing reuse. It used to around 1920s or so, but not any longer.

Today, if you are unsure if you have the permission to redistribute, then most likely you cannot.

Volodya, I see why that would be confusing. A license to use copyrighted work does not include the right to license it to others unless specifically stated. If Eldon's son gave him a copy of the photo without conditions, Eldon would have the right to upload it to Geni but Geni users would not derive a right to to copy and re-use it without the permission of Eldon's son.

Uploading to Geni is use, not re-use.

Almost every copyright question can be answered from just two basic principles.

If something is copyrighted:

1. You do not have a right use something unless you created it, or the person who created it either gave you permission or transferred the copyright to you.

2. You cannot give someone something you don't have. That is, you can only give someone permission to use it if you own the copyright or you have explicit permission from the owner to give other people permission.

Eldon Lester Clark's obituary scenario is ambiguous about the use on Find A Grave. "Send it to a funeral home who send it to newspapers and post on Find a Grave" does not say WHO posted it to Find A Grave or whether the use on Find A Grave was authorized by the copyright holders. Without that info, no conclusions can be drawn about its use there.

The first question on copyright is always
Did I create it?
Yes - I can do anything I want with it.
No - I canNOT use it without further research (many, many more questions).

You're right. I'm assuming it was not put there by one of the copyright holders. If it was, no problem. If it wasn't, it doesn't matter much who put it there because the effect would be the same.

Justin Durand, will you please clarify what you mean by "the effect"? I want to ensure we are on "the same page" before commenting.

In addition to respecting copyright law, we have to observe contract law by abiding by the terms of use of the websites we use. For example, Geni.com's include:
"You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. It is the policy of Geni to terminate Membership privileges of any Member who repeatedly infringes the copyright rights of others upon receipt of prompt notification to Geni by the copyright owner or the copyright owner's legal agent."

Effect -- if you own the copyright or have permission then you have a right to use it. If you don't, it doesn't matter who you are or how you acquired the image. You are in the same legal position as any other person who is using the image without permission.

Thanks, Justin Durand! Like I said, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page in light of your earlier comment about effect ("That is, there is no commercial value to it and it costs money to sue, so they probably won't. Theoretically they could, but they'd need to prove and monetize the damage they've suffered.") Most websites will remove an infringed item if the copyright holder, or their agent, submits a letter in accordance with the site's copyright policy.

That's the practical dimension. So many people with a little knowledge get very zealous about the legal dimension and forget that copyright laws exist in large part to protect the commercial value something has to the creator. Of course, there is also an underlying legal right to control the use of your own work but even that is founded on the principle that your work might have commercial value.

If I have an old snapshot of my mother from the 1940s and no idea whether the picture was taken by one of her parents or one of her siblings or a visiting relative or a neighbor, I"m not usually going to worry about copyright. There might be a clue in whether the negative is in the same box, but I'm comfortable making copies for my relatives who want one.

On the other hand, if the photo has an imprint from a studio, I'll generally do some research about the copyright law that was in existence at the time the picture was taken, and (depending on the answer) do further research like checking to see if the studio is still in business before I decide whether to risk making copies.

If I make a mistake somewhere, someone will ask me to stop or take it down, and I'm always content to do that because it gives me a new piece of information -- there is someone who thinks they own the copyright.

I choose the easiest and most legal path by not publishing items I know I didn't create or inherit the copyrights to.

If the infringed item is a biographical sketch copied/pasted into a text area, I will contact the person in charge of that text area because it probably isn't a file on the site's server. If the same biographical sketch has been published as a document or a graphic, it probably IS a file on the site's server so I email the hosting site as users rarely have access to remove files from the server.

Re: ... it probably IS a file on the site's server so I email the hosting site as users rarely have access to remove files from the server.

Photos and documents on geni are stored in a member's album and are under the control of that member. So that should be the contact. I believe, although not sure, it works the same way on other sites, such as FamilySearch, ancestry.com and MyHeritage trees.

Erica Howton, do you know (for sure, not just "think") that removing an item from the member's album will remove it from Geni's server entirely? I've never run across a service where members can add content and also remove that content from the server.
By the way, Geni's Terms of Use lists a procedure to follow in these situations and it doesn't include "contact the member".

You have to ask geni those questions, I only speak for myself as a member. But certainly I can de tag docs & images from profiles, and delete them from my albums / documents.

Some people have a more adversarial disposition. If I were going to ask someone to remove my work (unthinkable unless they're misusing it), I would follow the standard procedure of asking politely and privately first. I would resort to a formal complaint only if that didn't work.

Users of all the major genealogy sites (Geni, Ancestry, MyHeritage, WikiTree) have the ability to delete photos they've added. Of course, that doesn't mean someone else hasn't copied the photos or that there isn't a copy on the company's servers -- but it does mean the photo is no longer being distributed by that user.

De-tagging photos and documents in an album is not the same as removing the item from the server. When an item was added to a website without the copyright holder's consent, it should be removed from that site completely, not just "from view".

Submitting the infringed item to the hosting service is less adversarial because there is no interaction between the 2 parties. In addition, sending an email to the hosting service IS standard procedure for instances of copyright infringement in every Terms of Service document I have read...and I don't use a website without reading the TOS.

Only the copyright holder has the right to decide
Whether to publish,
When to publish, and
Where to publish
so any use that was not authorized by the copyright holder is, by definition, "misuse". And it's simple enough to avoid the problem: if you didn't create it, don't use it unless you can obtain permission or determine it is public domain. When in doubt, leave it out.

Re: .Submitting the infringed item to the hosting service is less adversarial because there is no interaction between the 2 parties."

Well, it's what Justin said about differences in approaches and dispositions. Geni and I value our collaborative relationship, it sours things when they need to involve themselves in my genealogy - and I imagine vice versa. It's also not an educational approach to advocating for respecting copyrights in genealogy. The member would have learned nothing and racked up a black mark they don't know about, or understand the reason why.

If it is by your argument easy enough to click extra links it is also easy enough to request an image removal of the one who put it there.

The way this FindAGrave contributor authorizes re shares is clever:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&GRid=55528997&...;

I doubt it would be researched by a server host in a take down notice, though.

As someone who deals with copyright issues on a daily basis as part of my job, I'm keenly aware of the differences in approach.

It's endlessly fascinating. The one constant is that some people get very personally invested in protecting their own work, while others simply don't care. At the same time, some people are very exact about what they do and others seem to be barely aware that there are any rules at all.

I could tell you many funny stories, for example about people who are afraid to publish childhood photos of themselves because they don't know whether mom or dad took the photo, or whether it's possible the sister they aren't speaking to might own the copyright and sue them. Some of the discussion here is lot like those stories.

After so many years of doing genealogy I find my images and my text strewn across the Internet, often without attribution. And, you know what? It bothers me a little but I don't really care. It's far more important to me that the information gets distributed.

On the other hand, if I see an image on the Internet of one of my father's paintings or sculptures, that's a different matter. Those copyrights have real commercial value. I send a polite explanation and request to take down the image. If that doesn't work, I send a legal demand.

Of course, no one is required to be courteous, but I figure it doesn't hurt to remember that my mamma taught me some manners. My goal, always, is to build good-will for my "brand", not to start and win battles.

Erica Howton, I would suppose that Geni, like most websites, are going to contact the member to let them know the item was removed and why. It's every user's responsibility to ensure they are using a site correctly by reading the Help and Terms, etc.

Again, Geni **has** to be involved to get the item removed from the servers.

Erica, you said "I doubt it would be researched by a server host in a take down notice, though" which just doesn't make any sense. That particular Find A Grave user gives blanket permission to republish his photos and that compliance with his condition is entirely up to your (the other person) conscience. So who would be sending the take down notice to different hosting service (like Geni) for UNauthorized use that you think would not research?

As far as "sharing". If you see something on the internet, it IS being "shared" which is completely different than allowing republication. Let's say you have a vegetable garden and I'm your next door neighbor. Would it be sharing if I just waltzed into your garden and took what I wanted without your consent?

Jackie, I'm not here to argue your concept. I'm here to suggest methods to get your concept across in ways that are less adversarial.

Re: "On the other hand, if I see an image on the Internet of one of my father's paintings or sculptures, that's a different matter. Those copyrights have real commercial value. ..."

Yes, that's exactly where I'm stuck in this whole discussion. "Of course" an original work of art has value, and copyright is meant to protect that. There's nothing to argue.

But "doing genealogy" is a "citizen historian" pursuit, and history advances by sharing information; the more accurate, the better. Some people use the term "tree hugger" to describe those who hoard that priceless and UN copyright-able commodity: information.

FindAGrave, as example, is built by generous souls who take pictures to preserve history. Yes, attribution, of course! There can never be too many thanks. But frankly the idea that it could be an economic loss is kind of blowing me mind. Maybe to ancestry.com's profit picture. :)

Jackie, you said:

> I've never run across a service where members can add content and also remove that content from the server.

That comment requires some careful parsing. At Geni, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and Wikitree a member can add content and then remove it. Removing stops publication although it does not remove backup copies from the company's servers

One point that is getting lost here is that it is not illegal to have a private copy of a copyrighted work. It's publication and distribution that are illegal.

For example, I have one of my dad's paintings in my office. He licensed the image to a greeting card company but gave the copyright to me.

A copy of that image no doubt still exists in cards stuffed in drawers and could exist on computers and servers around the world. None of those stored images violate my copyright. It only becomes a violation of my copyright if someone decides to publish the image without my permission.

It would technically be a violation of my copyright if someone with a copy of the card scanned it and emailed it to a friend but there's a practical dimension here. First, I would probably never know. Second, if I did find out it's not worth it to spend $10 thousand to sue someone over an image that has a commercial value to me of something like 2 cents per copy. And third, it would be impossible to exterminate copies of the image on every email server that ended up with a cached copy.

It's the same way with genealogical photos on Internet servers. It's irrelevant that they're there. It's only a problem if they are published.

Justin Durand, I have all copies of the item on the server where it was added inappropriately removed because NONE of them were authorized. The terms say that if you add something, Geni is granted a license to "use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works of..." Geni doesn't have a legitimate license for infringed items, so why should the items be left on the server?

I sincerely doubt emailing a (one) copy of the scanned card to a friend would be considered copyright infringement unless it was to have more cards printed... If the person in possession of the card decided to use that painting as a logo on a website, that would be copyright infringement.

Justin, that's the thing - you get to handle your copyright issues *your* way. I get to handle mine *my* way. And both of those ways are 100% correct. And it is 100% wrong is to justify or excuse infringement.

Erica, I'm having the same kind of feeling that I've walked into an alternative universe.

I understand this stuff quite well. I dealt with it in my days as a corporate attorney. I deal with it now in the publishing industry, as a consultant and as a mediator. I deal with it in my parents' estates, both of whom were successful artists. And, I have my own copyrights, both as a retailer and as a genealogist.

In my world copyrights are interesting if they have commercial value. If no commercial value, then there's no money in fighting. It's just a power game without much point ;)

Of course, I'm joking a bit. I do see that it can feel very intrusive to discover someone you don't know is using a private family picture. What I don't see is making a personal choice to go to mat over something that has no commercial value.

As I've said before, I don't think I've ever asked anyone to take down something that violates my personal copyright if there is no commercial value to me. I might think to myself "Hey, that's my photo" or "That's my text", but then I shrug. I wanted it to be distributed or I wouldn't have put it out where people could grab it. This is genealogy after all. The idea is to publish the information as widely as possible so it doesn't get lost by being someone's private hoard.

Every now and then I see a photo online that has the imprint of my grandfather's photo studio. I sometimes wonder whether it might be helpful if I wrote a cheerful note to explain that my aunt and uncle actually own the copyright, and that it still has some (mostly theoretical) commercial value because they could be charging for prints. Then I think, Nah. I would be educating people about copyright but it would make them defensive. And, the real commercial is so small it is far outweighed by the social benefit of people documenting and sharing their genealogies.

Erica Howton, as I said, the method I use is what Geni has listed in their terms and it IS non-adversarial. Consider Geni as an unbiased 3rd party. If my claim is not substantiated, Geni will not act on it. If it is, Geni decides if it is appropriate to contact the other user.

Again, if Geni wanted people to use another method, wouldn't they list that method in their Terms?

It's funny because I feel like I'm in an alternate universe too.
Betsy was mugged by Susie.
Users in this forum tell Betsy she should have the common courtesy to ask Susie to give her belongings back.
::crazy::

Jackie,

Geni would have to respond to your argument that all copies are removed in the way you mean. It does not make sense to me that it is possible to do something like that, particularly considering the architecture of the Internet.

You are quite wrong when you say, "I sincerely doubt emailing a (one) copy of the scanned card to a friend would be considered copyright infringement unless it was to have more cards printed".

Making even one copy of an image on which I own the copyright and for which you do not have a license is a violation of my copyright. You have just deprived me of the 2 cents per copy I'm supposed to receive under the license agreement with the greeting card company and which they would pay me if they ever decide to reprint that line.

If you scanned it for your own personal use, I probably wouldn't have a case but since you are distributing it you've injured my right to the income.

As you say, "it is 100% wrong is to justify or excuse infringement", but that's what you're doing here ;)

And that's how silly this is. A person can have legal rights under copyright law that would make no sense to try to enforce. A court would toss out a case like this because suing over a loss of 2 cents is not worth anyone's time.