Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, with new works you don't need to assert copyright protection to have it -- it comes automatically. Even my post here is protected as I write it.
Actually, with new works you don't need to assert copyright protection to have it -- it comes automatically. Even my post here is protected as I write it.
But when it comes to thinks like the OP talks of, I have a hard time finding outrage over it. Where's the harm in sharing the information? It sounds like the offense is that one of the kids consolidated and typed it, but a third party made it public. Like it's a matter of the original typist not getting credit.
I fail to see where's the harm in sharing the hard work done by the deceased relative?
I actually tend to agree with you. It was a very nice story, that aired the family in a very positive light, and it is my opinion that no harm was done by the fact that the story was made public.
The issue isn't that the typist didn't get credit, there are actually three issues.
The first issue is that the story is presented as a unique work of the magazine writer's, when in fact much is quoted directly from the history.
The second issue is that the only person authorized to distribute this story was not even notified that it was going to be published in a commercial magazine.
The third issue is that the family member who did authorize it was never given a copy, and the story was never made public through any means. We don't know how they got the copy used for this. There is more history (no pun intended) here than I care to post on a public forum, but suffice to say there are past hard feelings.
And I surmise there are present and future hard feelings as well. Technically, the laws of inheritance are such that, if this "right" was not specifically granted to anyone in the will, then all the heirs are jointly owners and no individual has the right to release/authorize without the consent/agreement of all the others. It sounds as though the magazine as well as the author of the article are jointly liable for any "damages", whatever they be determined by a jurist.
It is probably a good idea to have a consultation with an attorney in the field of intellectual property and find out more.
I am not a lawyer and the above is not intended as legal advice.
I
I actually tend to agree with you. It was a very nice story, that aired the family in a very positive light, and it is my opinion that no harm was done by the fact that the story was made public.
The issue isn't that the typist didn't get credit, there are actually three issues.
The first issue is that the story is presented as a unique work of the magazine writer's, when in fact much is quoted directly from the history.
The second issue is that the only person authorized to distribute this story was not even notified that it was going to be published in a commercial magazine.
The third issue is that the family member who did authorize it was never given a copy, and the story was never made public through any means. We don't know how they got the copy used for this. There is more history (no pun intended) here than I care to post on a public forum, but suffice to say there are past hard feelings.
Copyright issues aside, and those would probably only be worth pursuing if the author of the published article is receiving a significant financial reward for the material, it does appear that there was plagiarism, which is passing off the words of someone else as your own. If the article did not indicate that the copied passages were written by someone else and give the source, a letter to the editor of the magazine would be in order.
Agreed. Not to mention that quoting material, and not giving credit, is the very cornerstone of bad genealogy.
I always tell researchers to be sure and give credit to the original researcher/source (usually talking about myself) so that they will bear the brunt of any errors. Which is true, but knowing where it came from is my primary purpose.
We are not interesting in pursuing this legally, we are just trying to figure out if we have grounds to send a complaint letter, and what violations our complaint should actually be based on.
And Annie, the person who did this was not an heir at all, but a non-heir family member. And yes, I don't anticipate there will ever be "warm and fuzzies" there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.