I often think there is only so much you can write about Copyright and Genealogy, but every so often an issue arises that makes me reconsider. Tonight I received my copy of Genealogy in Time Magazine, and the major topic was not copyright….but beyond… Plagiarism. It is often hard to decide when we are just sharing facts that others reported first, and we might err in trying to pass on what seems to be important information……….BUT…….. it shouldn’t be hard to know that directly copying someone else’s words and neglecting to put them in quotes or in any other way attribute them to the source is a step beyond.
I highly recommend you check out Let’s Talk About Plagiarism on Genealogy in Time and let the conversation begin. Every genealogist should think about the ethics of how they share what they find.
PS….while you are on the Genealogy in Time website be sure to look at the links to new records on the web. I find at least one new resource in every newsletter I receive.
Last week the 9th circuit reversed a Los Angeles federal judge and ordered Google to remove the controversial “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube. The ruling is controversial for a number of reasons. This blog does not intend to take a position, but rather to lay out the facts and perhaps relate them to the genealogical world.
- The actress was paid to create a scene for a specific movie
- The movie was never made
- The scene was later included in an anti Muslim film with her voice dubbed over with an insult to Mohammed
- The actress claimed copyright to her artistic work (It is important to remember that artistic expression retains the same copyright protection as writing a book or painting a picture)
- The court upheld her copyright and ordered Google to remove the film
Over the years, as I held copyright discussions, the concept of using a copyrighted work in an “unacceptable” way was one of the hardest concepts to explain. I would mention using a holocaust book in a Nazi display and other equally ridiculous ideas that no one could quite see happening. Is this in fact that type of use?
Google, in its arguments, stated that taking the video down from YouTube would be pointless as it had already been widely distributed and that Garcia had contributed to her “notoriety” by filing a lawsuit to stop the video. The 9th circuit called this argument preposterous and actress Cindy Garcia stated she is a “strong believer and supporter of the First Amendment and the right not to be associated with this hateful speech against her will.”
As I thought about this case it made we wonder about some of our “genealogical” practices. We are wonderful collectors,users, and sharers of stories, sometimes to the point of forgetting the rights of those telling the stories. Do we record without permission? Do we share oral and video sessions without permission? Do we make a point of having a signed release for anything we have recorded? If someone has sent us a family story do we make sure we have permission to share it before we do?
An oral or video recording might in fact be subject to copyright protection for artistic performance as well as protection for the telling of the story itself. While facts can not be copyrighted the creative telling of factual circumstances can.
Another thought I had as I reviewed this case was the right to privacy of individuals. That permission to share stories, recordings and videos can be really important in protecting privacy. We are very quick to share stories and more on instant media: facebook; youtube; google+ and more. Are we sharing items that others might be not want known? Does the right to know drown out the right to privacy?
There are many fine lines that we need to pay attention to as we share our genealogies.
In commenting on “Who Holds the Copyright” Michael Hiat, CG noted that it seemed like an implied work for hire to have someone snap your photo with your camera. This was definitely part of my thought process, but…. There are many professional genealogists out there that believe they own the copyright of the work they do for clients. The law agrees. Without a contract stating otherwise, anything written by the researcher can only be used with their consent. The facts they dig up can of course be shared, they are facts. But the actual report is another matter, and many have statements on the report stating it is not to be shared.
I am interested in comments from researchers, clients, and potential clients on the issue of works for hire. I would also like to post copies of contracts that deal with the copyright issue up front (we can leave out any names and specific details. If you are willing to share, please send to firstname.lastname@example.org)
Results of Last Poll— 55.5% of respondents thought the picture taker owned copyright of the picture. 44.5% thought the camera owner owned the copyright, no one was still confused. Take the new poll, who owns the copyright when a genealogist is paid to do research for a client?