In an earlier message Jay Cavender wrote:

> There is a popular misconception that, when one takes data from publicly
> available documents, that there is an enforceable copyright right as to that
> particular "taker" as to each and every piece of data taken (i.e., copied).
> That is not true. The copyright applies only to the overall compilation
> or "works", and not to each individual piece of data in the compilation.
> Also, in all instances, there is the doctrine of "fair use" of even
> copyrighted works that one must consider. Once data is in the public domain,
> it stays there. Also, anyone who attempts to "verify" the accuracy of the
> data taken is being rather reckless as I have found conflicting data in more
> that one sources, many many times.

As I have been in the scholarly publishing business for more than 30
years, I am fully aware of copyright law and "fair use". What WFT did
to my compilations is plain and simple piracy. My work contained far
more than mere dates and places; it included my reasoning for various
conclusions about relationships, essays on historical and onomastic
matters, proof that certain earlier claims were incorrect, and a list
of my sources (some of which were unpublished documents in my
possession). It is inconceivable that WFT could have collected the
information it published and sold on its CDs from any other source.

It doesn't matter that WFT published information that someone else
stole from me and contributed to the firm without my copyright notice;
WFT did absolutely nothing to ascertain that the contributor owned
copyright and denied me the right to insert my notice when I was told
of the theft and complained. In fact, WFT wanted to charge me for
merely viewing the stolen material. My consolation is that the
material WFT stole is now seriously out of date and contains errors
that I would have liked to correct, had they allowed me to do so and
agreed to append my copyright.

It would be far more expensive for me to sue WFT for copyright
violation than I could hope to recover in damages. That is what
pirates count on. Our sole practical recourse is to expose copyright
violators and hope that honest people will refuse to do business with
them in the future.

Kathleen Much

Sorry, Brent, for flouting your request to cease discussion of
Ancestry and WFT. Jay's condescending comments missed the point of my
contributions, and I feared that others may also have misunderstood.

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html