tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post11419102667964778..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Concerns in FamilySearch/NARA partnershipThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-60482897600886922202007-11-03T23:00:00.000-06:002007-11-03T23:00:00.000-06:00Dear Suzie,I'm afraid I'm guilty of elicit elidati...Dear Suzie,<BR/>I'm afraid I'm guilty of elicit elidation. After you read the elided material in Lindsay's comment you may wish to update your translation.<BR/><BR/>Still, you and Lindsay do seem to agree that the general purpose of the language is to say, "whether there is a copyright or not." I think that's a reasonable assumption.<BR/><BR/>-- The Ancestry InsiderThe Ancestry Insiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-90309776682554415882007-11-03T22:52:00.000-06:002007-11-03T22:52:00.000-06:00Dear Lindsay,Thanks for your comments. Fortunately...Dear Lindsay,<BR/>Thanks for your comments. Fortunately my dictionary contains both the words "allayed" and "elided". Yes, I elided, and no, I'm not allayed. Given the contradictory statements, I'm glad the intent is still clear to you. Given the general complexity and ambiguity of copyright law and the ability of case law to evolve in unexpected directions, I remain concerned.<BR/><BR/>-- The Ancestry InsiderThe Ancestry Insiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-12665720799553583092007-10-31T07:50:00.000-06:002007-10-31T07:50:00.000-06:00Section 3.3 is poorly worded as it both says that ...Section 3.3 is poorly worded as it both says that GSU will assign any copyright on the Digitized Images to NARA and then goes on to list the Digitized Images as one of the things that GSU will own copyright for. As I said earler, the point is moot because the digitization of a document does not affect its copyright but the section you elided makes clearer what the issues are, the clear intent of section 3.3 is that GSU will not make any copyright claims to the images themselves, and NARA will ensure, no doubt through licensing, that GSU's investment in digitization will not be exploited by commercial entities such as Ancestry.com, just as Ancestry uses terms of use licensing to prevent the use by others of the digital images it has produced. Any metadata about the images will remain the property of GSU is a key point. Given the general complexity and ambiguity of copyright law it is prudent of NARA and GSU to lay out any potential copyright issues, just in case the case law evolves in some unexpected direction.<BR/><BR/>"3.3 GSU hereby assigns to NARA all copyright that GSU does or may own in and to the Digitized Images by virtue of having created digital copies of original documents in the public domain. <B>This assignment of GSU's rights does not (i) diminish the obligations of NARA, as an express condition of the donation of the Digitized Materials, to prevent large-scale commercial exploitation of the Digital Images for a period of five years after donation; or (ii) transfer any rights of GSU to the metadata associated with the Digital Images.</B> GSU will own all copyright and other intellectual property rights to the Digitized Materials (the Digitized Images with the associated metadata). This copyright to the Digitized Materials is subject only to the rights granted to NARA under Sections 1.4 and 1.5, above."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-1091471976137070282007-10-30T17:28:00.000-06:002007-10-30T17:28:00.000-06:00In non-legaleeze..the way I read clause 3.3 is thi...In non-legaleeze..the way I read clause 3.3 is this: <BR/>"Whether we have any copyright or not, based on the fact that we spent a lot of time and effort making these digitized images, we are giving NARA the sole right to decide what to do with them. So, if NARA wants to let Ancestry.com or some other entity use these images and charge a fee to people who want to see them then that's NARA's decision and you are not gonna get any flack from us."Suzie Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01144806041716992429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-9820787333476376302007-10-29T06:55:00.000-06:002007-10-29T06:55:00.000-06:00Perhaps your concerns will be allayed by the fact ...Perhaps your concerns will be allayed by the fact that copyright does not apply to digitized copies of two-dimensional documents. Copyright only applies to creative works, and photographing or scanning a work is not a creative act, as established by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Just as a photocopy of a copyrighted work, or even the printing of it does not create a new copyright, the copyright on a scanned copy of a work is the same copyright as applies to the copied work, and if that work is in the public domain so is the copy. All you can do to protect a copy is require people to sign a license/contract before they can access it.<BR/><BR/>For additional background see:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_worksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com