From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:25:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
    wrote:   
      
   >In message , Richard Smith   
   > writes:   
   >>On 20/03/19 17:51, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a   
   >[]   
   >>It is true that the party who scanned the images claims rights, but I   
   >>don't think it is copyright: I think it's normally a licensing issue.   
   >   
   >Yes, I've said in a later post that copyright may not be the relevant   
   >rights legislation, but for the ordinary Joe the effect is similar.   
   >   
   >>In order to access the scans, you agree to be bound by their terms and   
   >>conditions, and it is common for these to impose additional   
   >>restrictions on what you can do.  There are few relatively limits on   
   >>what restrictions the terms can impose.   These may say you cannot copy   
   >>the images, or that you can only do so for personal use; they may also   
   >   
   >Ancestry and FindMyPast certainly impose such conditions; I have seen   
   >(but cannot now cite) anecdotal evidence that FMP at least are quite hot   
   >on pursuing infringements.   
   >   
   >>say you cannot transcribe the images.   
   >   
   >I'm not sure they can do that! The _information_ in the text is not   
   >copyright to the scanning entity. (IANAL, so that may be wrong.)   
   >   
   Some copyright statements can be too simple and have the effect of a   
   false claim to copyright on things to which they have no rights. WRT   
   transcribing, it should in most cases be fairly easy to distinguish   
   e.g. record content (which might or might not be copyright) from   
   something originated by a contributor's relative which could easily   
   still be in copyright for anything created in the last century and a   
   half.   
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)