The same rules. Really.
The Legal Genealogist was dismayed to hear the comment, made by one of the many thousands of people who attended last week’s combined Federation of Genealogical Societies – RootsTech conference in Salt Lake City.
But no, dear conference goer, actually, it’s not okay.
It’s not okay to use your cellphone or your tablet to record every word a genealogical speaker says at a conference lecture.
It’s not okay to take pictures of every slide (or even any of the slides).
And it’s not okay to take the handout prepared for the lecture and reproduce it to share it with others.
The conference goer last week couldn’t make it to a particular session. But she’d heard good things about that presentation. So she asked someone who had attended to give her a copy of the handout so she could share it with the members of her home society.
When another attendee suggested that perhaps that wasn’t appropriate, she was quite indignant.
“I paid for the conference,” she said. “So it’s okay.”
No, dear conference goer, actually, it’s not okay.
What the lecturer has — with respect to the lecture itself, the slides used to illustrate the lecture on the screen, and the handout — is a copyright.
And when you, dear conference goer, tape or photograph or copy the lecturer’s work, what you’ve done isn’t okay — it’s a copyright violation.
Copyright under United States law exists the minute the lecturer prepares that lecture: the text, the slides, the handout are all covered the instant they exist in some tangible form.1
It’s not necessary for the lecturer to register the copyright in the U.S. Copyright Office.2
It’s not necessary for the lecturer to make an announcement that the lecture is copyright-protected or to include a copyright statement (or that little © symbol) on the slides or on the handout.3
All that’s necessary is that the work be the original work of the person creating it and that it be in some tangible form — which includes even a digital file that exists nowhere except on the lecturer’s computer hard drive.4
And once it exists in that format, the lecturer owns the copyright for the lecturer’s lifetime — and the lecturer’s estate or heirs own it for another 70 years after the lecturer’s death.5
That original work of the lecturer is the lecturer’s intellectual property. It’s no different from any other type of copyrighted material. It’s hard work to produce a good lecture, and it gets the same protection as a book or a movie or any other creative endeavor.
If you, dear conference goer, sat in a movie theater and taped the movie, and then shared it with your friends, the studio that produced the movie could — and would — sue you for at least the statutory damages provided for in the law: up to $150,000 for a single violation if a court were to find that the violation was willful and up to $30,000 otherwise.6
You face exactly the same penalty if you sit in a lecture and tape it or photograph it or copy the handout and share that with your friends. And keep in mind that the societies that put together conferences and publish the syllabus materials in book or booklet form or as a downloadable PDF file have a compilation copyright in the entire book/booklet or file.7
The same goes for a webinar or other presentation that was videotaped or audiotaped: it’s all under copyright. And just as buying the book doesn’t give us the right to copy it and give copies to our friends, buying a lecture tape (audio or video) doesn’t give us the right to copy that and share it with our friends either.
It’s not just that it’s legally wrong; it’s ethically wrong too. The ethical standards of our field are clear about this point as well.8
So no, dear conference goer, actually, it’s not okay to simply take a lecturer’s work. If you want to copy any part of a lecture, or the lecturer’s handout, ask for permission. And if the lecturer is kind enough to grant permission, stay within the scope of the permission granted (as an example, if the lecturer says it’s okay to use one photo, it means one photo).
Getting permission, and staying within the terms of what the lecturer permits, is the right thing — and the legal thing — to do.
SOURCES
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, PDF version at 2 (http://www.copyright.gov : accessed 17 Feb 2015) (“Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work”). ↩
- Ibid., at 3 (“No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.”). ↩
- Ibid., at 4 (“The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial.”). ↩
- See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“Definitions: fixed”). ↩
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, PDF version at 4 (“A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death.”) ↩
- See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (“Statutory damages”). ↩
- See U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 14: Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations, PDF version at 1 (http://www.copyright.gov : accessed 17 Feb 2015). ↩
- See e.g. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Code of Ethics (http://bcgcertification.org/ : accessed 17 Feb 2015) (“I will not reproduce for public dissemination, in an oral or written fashion, the work of another genealogist, writer, or lecturer without that person’s written consent. In citing another’s work, I will give proper credit.”). ↩
Well said Judy.
I read this a few times Judy, not expecting to pass comment, but then I realised that I’m now confused.
Isn’t the copyright more about reproducing the material — as in your example of sharing a taped film — rather than the mere act of making a tangible copy? I ask this because any material you have on a Web site — whether published or private — will be invisibly copied by the host in the form of backups. This is a normal activity of the host, and we pay little heed to it, but it seems to go against your explanation here.
Merely making a copy for your own use in another format (scanning a hard copy handout into your Kindle, for example) is generally considered fair use, and taping a TV show to watch it at another time is as well. It’s sharing the use beyond yourself that’s the copyright issue.
Do these same issues apply if one records the lecture and the slides only for one’s own use, never sharing or reproducing except for oneself? Is this not fair use?
And a modification of that, getting closer to the original situation: do the proscriptions apply if a conference attendee finds a conflict between two presentations and asks someone to record the missed session solely because of that conflict and not for any other kind of sharing (e.g., with “my group at home.”)
When it is strictly for yourself, no, there’s no copyright issue. But in your second case, if the attendee missed the one session because he or she was attending the other, the solution is to purchase the recording of the second one, not to ask someone to skate around the recording system chosen by the conference organizers.
Could the person who was asked for a copy of the handout simply pointed “Dear Conference Goer” to the website http://rootstech.org, where various handouts from the conference are available for download? And couldn’t “Dear Conference Goer” have returned home to share the link with the members of her home society? Would sharing that link be a violation? Would sharing the link to download the handout differ in any way from sharing a copy of the handout in question?
Jerry, as much as this may surprise the RootsTech people, this was NOT just a RootsTech conference. It was the FGS conference as well, and FGS materials are NOT online for anyone to retrieve. And just because RootsTech chooses to put handouts online does NOT change the copyright issue: it’s a convenience for RootsTech attendees but a RootsTech attendee who chooses to look at a handout online or download it for his or her personal use does NOT have the right to violate MY copyright by redistributing or republishing it to anyone else.
Thanks, Judy. I couldn’t fathom why giving a paper copy of something freely available online was a problem. But I had forgotten to consider the FGS conference. Clear now.
Jerry, just because something is online does NOT mean you can share it with others. Reading it online is fine — that’s why it’s online. Downloading it and sharing it, by definition, is copying — and that’s NOT allowed without permission.
Here is a new topic for you. Who owns the copyright to a large genealogy with photographs, original documents, reminiscences, etc., that has been abandoned/given away?
I’ve actually written blogs on these sorts of issues. Take a look at the copyright category here on the blog.
Sadly, the devices have gotten more pervasive but this is nothing new to those of us in high-tech. Certainly, in my experience within the science community, it has been going on for well over 20 years. However, I have found the “asking permission” tack has not been that effective. Many of the conferences, societies and companies (whose employees both present work and pilfer)do not treat the material as the intellectual property that it rightly is and thus do not make enforcement a priority. More recently, on a daily basis, we see blatant abuses online.
From personal experience, I have had (science) material ripped off and reused – in one case on a university website aimed at education (and thus their feeble attempt to justify it using copyright educational-use loop holes). Since I worked for a company, in that case, what I produced was considered company property and as such, they had to be the ones to push for remedy. Good luck with that… Unfortunately, corporate legal departments are usually more interested in frying much bigger fish and they often regard such an author as merely having a bruised ego whose issue is simply not a profitable use of legal resources.
Add to this the fact that companies often justify sending an employee to a conference with the caveat that said employee WILL come back and share the wealth, including materials, slides, you name it. If they don’t they get dinged. Also, many companies consider even technical presentations as more of a marketing tool – interesting others in possible patents and profitable cooperative ventures. It is a mindset where any publicity is good publicity even if it skirts some law and most know that it isn’t really going to amount to much if someone tries to make hay about it. Technical professional societies are often hesitant to police the very people who are sponsors or are supporting their efforts with attendance. (IEEE is a notable exception).
I totally agree that we all need to set an example as individuals but we also must consider how we will encourage those larger entities we work with or within to start thinking of such material as valuable and protecting/enforcing the rights that go along with such intellectual property.
All we can do is try to be good examples ourselves — and educate people on law and ethics!
Judy, I have never seen as many people taking photographs of slides as I did at RootsTech. I purchased seven tapes through FGS but RootsTech only taped a minimal number of sessions and none that were not live streamed. It looks like the conferences need to be very specific regarding this behavior. RootsTech could also benefit from increased availability of recorded sessions.
It was terribly pervasive in the RootsTech crowd, wasn’t it? Education — and clear policies — will help.
So are we supposed to be stigmatizing photography at conferences? Is copyright infringement the default assumption? Guilty until proven innocent?
How about we simply have clear and unambiguous rules and then ask everyone to follow them? It’s not hard to produce rules that allow individuals to take single images for social media or similar purposes, while protecting the speakers’ intellectual property rights. I’d rather believe that most people don’t understand the issue and will do the right thing when they understand what the right thing is. “Stigmatizing” and “guilty until proven innocent” are labels that aren’t at all useful here, really.
Great info to know and verified. eg just like a movie theater situation. 🙂
Yes, just exactly like the movie theater.
Thank you for stating these points. It is NOT o.k to bring a cell phone into a lecture and use it to photograph every slide in a lecture, yet the practice is now epidemic.
I agree that it’s endemic… and disappointing. The only exception I can see is the case that Kerry Scott suggests, where the listener has a hearing issue that makes notetaking hard (or impossible). But there, as the speaker, I’d prefer that the person let me know privately in advance so we can arrange it unobtrusively/
There was a hearing-impaired individual in my “Jewish Geography/Jewish Genealogy” lecture who had a signer interpreting my lecture. I am not sure if he was provided by the conference or not. Most conferences are required to provide this assistance. Many of us still have text-heavy slides so it’s easy for people to take notes, and the handouts provide the URLS since most lectures are fast-paced and it’s hard to slow down for full note taking, since the audience isn’t always following the same pace. For future conferences it would make sense to have the “introducer” not only ask people to turn off cell phones, but also state the policy on taking photographs, which can be established by the speaker ahead of time on the info form we fill out. I haven’t encountered this problem at genealogical society talks, but with the growing numbers at RootsTech and the desire to take a bit of the conference home with them, this trend may be changing.
Having the policies stated clearly and unequivocally at the outset is really the only way to go.
Just wondering what the question was in reference the the interpreter? I sometime must use an interpreter when I am in a very loud place. I usually bring along a friend of mine,and pay for their attendance. It just works easier for me to do it this way.
Since the interpreter is not “taking” anything from the speaker, the speaker is getting paid not only for my attendance but for the attendance of the interpreter, and I am “reading” what the speaker is saying.
Due to the ADA 1974, I don’t believe the interpreter is a violation in any way. If it were then the issue would become discrimination by exclusion of the deaf / hearing impaired community. Is this not correct Judy?
Thanks,
Anna Kay
The issue with respect to an interpreter for copyright is translation AND REPUBLICATION from one language to another. It’s when an original work is published in language 1, and someone else translates it into language 2 and then republishes it. Simply having an interpreter at the same place and time to assist someone who has a hearing issue is not a copyright issue at all.
One small point: Sometimes, people take photos of the slides because taking notes is not a viable option. If you’re hearing-impaired, it’s extremely tough to take notes, because you have to keep your eyes on the mouth of the speaker in order to “hear.” If there’s material on the slide that isn’t covered in the handout, it’s an issue.
Nearly 1 in 6 Americans has some form of hearing loss, so this is a more common issue than you might expect.
That said, from what I heard, there were WAY too many people taking photos of slides for this to be what was driving the majority of photo-takers last week. Plus, if you’re posting photos of slides to social media…NOPE. If you need to take photos because a disability prevents you from taking notes, the only person who should ever see those photos is you.
But I would like to point out to speakers that not EVERYONE who’s taking photos of slides is doing so for nefarious reasons.
I’d also suggest that a person with that problem let the speaker know privately. Perhaps something could be worked out to make it a non-issue or at least unobtrusive.
I usually do when I’m in this situation. But I have an advantage, in that I know many of the speakers…and judging by the size of the crowds at RootsTech, it may not have been feasible for some folks.
It would greatly help the situation at places like RootsTech if the rules were clear from the outset.
Let’s hope that the rules don’t become draconian.
I don’t like this notion that someone should feel compelled to report an impairment in order to exercise fair use rights.
It is not even remotely “fair use” to photograph an entire set of slides or record an entire lecture without the speaker’s consent.
Where do you draw the line?
I think the usual rule of one photo for social media or similar use is just fine. If someone needs more, he or she can ask the speaker. Or buy a recording for personal use, if the lecture is being recorded.
That sounds reasonable. I haven’t been to any conferences in a few years, so perhaps I don’t appreciate the magnitude of the problem. I just don’t like the idea that someone is an unethical copyright infringer if he/she takes photos of a couple of busy slides during a fast paced lecture.
You absolutely are missing the magnitude of the current problem, Jason: in one of my RootsTech presentations last week, an attendee was taking a photo of every single slide, using flash photography, from the back of the room. And I’m hardly the only person who’s seeing this sort of problem.
I’ve been hearing-impaired for the entire time I’ve been attending genealogy conferences, and I’ve never had an occasion where I’d have to photograph an entire presentation. I think the most I’ve ever done is two slides, and even then, I explained why I was doing so, and I STILL felt self-conscious about it.
Photographing an entire presentation is absolutely ridiculous. I would do some on-the-spot educating, and probably in a pretty cranky tone of voice.
I’d hate to have anyone with a disability feel self-conscious, Kerry… but have to agree: one or two slides, sure; an entire presentation, no.
My mom has the beginning stages of Parkinson’s. She tried to take notes, but sometimes could not read what she wrote. It gets worse when she is tired. Because of this she took pictures, even then some where so blurry she couldn’t read them. If she is able to write slow, her writing is readable. I went to roots tech with her, but also had different interests than her, so want in the same classes all the time. We never know what someone else is with. I agree sharing lectures and slides with someone not in the class is wrong, but there should be a way for my mom to take notes and not be looked down upon.
Asking permission of the speaker, in advance, so that the speaker can let the room monitor know (and can say something in the intro) will be the best way to proceed. Speakers may also be willing to accommodate a person with disabilities by providing some copies in hard copy rather than allowing photos. But it’s always best to get this handled in advance whenever possible — no speaker I know of would hesitate to help out someone with a disability.
I’ve noticed the last couple of years that the RootsTech crowd is particularly bad about taking photos of slides. Keep on preaching Judy. You’ve done an excellent job educating people on this topic.that said there needs to be more education done on the part of RootsTech.
As a lifetime Educational Administrator, our school district attorneys advised us that we could duplicate copywrite material for educational settings. Thus, could a genealogy society duplicate materials for trainings for their membership, taking care to clearly identify the copywrite and producer of the materials? Appreciate your advisement.
No. The rules for a purely public academic settings are better than they are outside of the purely public-school setting (and they’re not even as liberal as most school districts think they are…). You cannot avoid copyright issues by giving credit to the creator; that’s the polite thing to do but it only saves you from a claim of plagiarism, not from a claim of copyright violation.
Thank you very much!
You’re welcome!
Thank you for highlighting this important issue. I wonder perhaps if conference organisers could do more to clarify the situation by making the rules clear in the conference program. Perhaps the people introducing the speakers could clarify before the start of each talk whether or not photography is allowed.
On a slightly related subject do you think there is anything we as a genealogy community should be doing if we are aware of individuals who we know are making use of copyrighted material for financial gain? Do we have a duty to report such behaviour and make other members of the community aware of what is going on or does this count as “telling tales” as per your three golden rules: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JillBall/posts/AqTk1SHrfCz
Debbie, there is a problem even when the rules ARE made clear. FGS had published written rules as to what should and shouldn’t be done and people still did their own thing. So we need to nicely and politely keep educating our community. As far as discovering that our copyrighted materials are being misused by other professionals for their gain, my own view is that we should (1) ask them to stop and if they don’t (2) file an ethics complaint with any professional society to which they belong and (3) if (1) and (2) don’t work then call them out on it publicly. I would ask the organizers of any conference from which my materials were taken not to work with anyone who took them in the future.
Thanks Judy. It seems to be a question of constant repetition to get the message across. I’ve not been directly affected by someone using my materials but I have come across cases where I’ve seen people lift material from elsewhere without credit. These people don’t usually tend to belong to professional organisations so perhaps its just a question of advising the interested parties and calling the individuals out publicly if necessary.
There are many innocent (unintentional) infringers. Most don’t know that what they’re doing is wrong.
The conference organizers really need to police this. As a speaker you can’t really pause your talk to ask someone to stop — interrupts the class and disengages you from your audience. Within the RootsTech sessions every room had a monitor who could have gently asked audience members to stop when they noticed problems (it’s almost always easy to see). Perhaps as genealogy speakers we can ask the conferences at which we speak to support us in these efforts — not only by making the policies clearer, but actually enforcing them (as politely as possible, of course!).
Yes I agree — the conference rules should be clear, they should be announced at the start of each session and the room monitors should be trained in gentle — but no-nonsense — enforcement.
I’d like to see your post written in every conference booklet and read out at the beginning of every conference day Judy – well said. It used to be the custom to ask people to turn off phones at the beginning of lectures but now it has become the custom to Tweet/social media lectures we seem to have moved away from this. Perhaps those of us who lecture are going to have to lay down our own rules at the beginning of each presentation we do but this really shouldn’t be necessary.
I have no objection to the tweets or even a single photo for a Facebook post. I like social media. But there’s a real difference between that and copying the entire work!
There are cases when tweets are inappropriate, especially in the academic world when there are pre-publication embargos. Your readers might find this article of interest. Although written for the scientific community there are lessons that could also be applied to genealogy conferences:
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000563
That article sure underscores the need for clear announced policies, doesn’t it?
You state that “You face exactly the same penalty [as when taping a movie] if you sit in a lecture and tape it or photograph it or copy the handout and share that with your friends.” This is only true if the lecture has been registered for copyright. If unregistered (as is the case with most lectures), statutory damages and more importantly attorneys’ fees, are off the table: see 17 USC 412. You can only get actual monetary damages, which would be pretty hard to calculate and likely not worth the bother of bringing a copyright infringement suit.
I have had one copyright lawyer suggest to me that the difference in remedies is evidence that copyright law does not consider copying an unregistered work to be much of an issue – primarily because you are not cutting into the profits of the copyright owner. He suggested that equating copying a lecture with copying a movie is going too far. The bottom line: copying a lecture is an infringement of copyright, but the law views it as a relatively minor violation.
I mostly agree with you that there are ethical issues at play here. But I think that Code of Ethics statement in footnote 8 goes too far. After all, there are many genealogical works that have no copyrighted content in them. Asking permission before reproducing one of these just encourages people who seek more control than the law allows. Proper citation, however, is important.
Proper citation, in genealogy, is essential, and if we err on the side of going too far rather than not far enough that’s a good tradeoff. Your point about registration, however, is quite right: only registered works can get statutory damages.
I agree that proper citation is essential. The Code of Ethics statement goes farther, however, requiring permission to reproduce a work. That is not required in all cases – even if attribution should be required. Asking for permission when none is needed can be dangerous, encouraging authors to believe that they have more rights than the law allows.
I don’t think the language is intended to prevent fair use, Peter, but merely to bring practice into line with copyright. But I agree that the language can be read that way.
This would pretty much be the same answer in Canada. Canadian copyright legislation says that the form of “literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work” (i.e. what can be the subject of copyright) includes “lectures”, which include an “address, speech, and sermon”. Therefore, a lecture like the one in this fact pattern would be protected under the Canadian statute, both in its written form (e.g. the lecturer’s speaking notes, handouts, or slides) and spoken form.
However, despite the apparent clarity of the statute, the case law is a bit murkier. For example, it appears that the case law might support the proposition that someone could make verbatim notes of a speech, and that person would then own the copyright in the transcription. As well, there seems to be some suggestion that not everything that might be considered a “lecture” by the ordinary sense of the word is necessarily a “lecture” under the statute. Like you say, there always seems to be an exception!
In any event, the focus of the comment you overheard was the handout itself – a document – so there should be no dispute that it would be covered by copyright protection under Canadian law.
The transcription here would likely not be copyrightable since it would in no way be original to the transcriber, and that’s the key element of US copyright law.
I don’t think the matter has been litigated recently, but I somewhat doubt these authorities would be followed by our courts today and would be significantly distinguished nowadays. Some of our case law on copyright comes out of terrible fact patterns, and a couple “leading” cases (“leading” because they’re mostly of lower courts) on copyright were decided in cases unrelated to intellectual property law (e.g. one came out of a labour relations dispute). As well, the Canadian statute has significantly changed in recent years, which could give the courts a bit of leeway in distinguishing the older cases.
So after your comment bounced around in my head for a while, my brain went, “hold on – originality is a key component in Canada, too” then “duh”. Looking into it further, the problem is how the courts have defined originality, a term not defined in the statute or any of the applicable treaties. In the context of a public speech or lecture, it appears that the courts will consider a verbatim transcription as “original” based on an analysis of originality under three different models: an authorship model, a labour model and a public interest
model. In the cases where a transcript of a speech or lecture was “original”, the court put more weight on the public interest and labour models.
This gives a clear view of the situation but also highlights the inherent conflicts. Progress is made by building on the knowledge of others so being able to access and use what others have found is essential. Genealogy is hamstrung by situations where people are not sure what to do.
In the case of a conference paper, it would help if the organisers got presenters to give permission, with restrictions clearly stated. I’ve had Archives say that they themselves don’t know what advice to give re use of their holdings. What we need is a practical way forward.
Accessing and using what others have found is easily reconcilable with protecting the work product of individuals.
As a lighter aside, and under UK law…. in my distant past as an undergraduate, the noon lectures on Saturdays were very unpopular (not only the time, but the quality of lecture, although fortunately the lecturer’s textbook filled some of the gaps.) Those of us who did attend, in the days before mobile phones and laptops, arrived with loads of sheets of paper, suitable ball-point pens with which we presssed hard when making notes, and plenty of carbon paper to interleave: we then passed copies of lecture notes to those who had escaped the confines of the lecture theatre. Now I’m wondering, in a way, what copyright went where!
No answers expected, just mild entertainment value…..
In several of my law school classes, lecture notes were shared as well.
These notes were you own creation. Taking notes in a genealogy presentation and presenting your summary to your local club would not be breaking the copyright. (Or would it?)
My favorite answer: it depends. If you’re merely giving a summary of the presentation to a local club (similar to a news report of an event), then no it’s not a copyright violation. But if you’re doing your best to reproduce the content for the benefit of your local club, then yes it is a problem.
Canadian Copyright and Berne Convention still say works are protected for 50 years after death of originator. So it is important that those outside the U.S. realize the term there is longer.
Yes, the US term is longer.
Nice article! Your article was featured today on Genealogical Gems at http://www.genealogybyjeanne.blogspot.com/2015/02/follow-friday-this-week-including-good.html
Thank you!
Judy,
Thank you! At the beginning of each of my FGS lectures, I reminded the attendees about the policy for taping, photography and social media and referred them to the syllabus (as per the intro material we were given). In my RootsTech lecture, I also did this with a little more information since there was no syllabus other than the individual online material.
In all cases, there were people in the room that were taking pictures of my slides. They seem to have a feeling of entitlement. I would hope RootsTech would do something about this next year.
The RootsTech attendees really did not seem to understand copyright at all, Donna. We can certainly hope the organizers address this next year — clearly and unequivocally.
Judy,
I want to let you know that two of your blog posts are listed in today’s Fab Finds post at http://janasgenealogyandfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/follow-friday-fab-finds-for-february-20.html
Have a great weekend!
Thank you, Jana!
At one of the FGS lectures, the woman sitting next to me kept taking pictures during the lecture. She may have taken some photos of the presenter, though I’m not very certain that was all she photographed. I wanted to say something to her, but as we were in the front row, I felt it would be quite disruptive to the other attendees. Do you, or any of your readers, have suggestions on how to handle this? Please note that I’ve been known to confront drunks at a football game who were using foul language in front of children, so shyness is not the problem.
Alerting the room monitor is probably the best way to proceed unless you want to simply tell the person that she’s being disruptive (and rude).
Hi, Judy,
I just wanted to let you know that this post, as well as the follow up, “Credit and copyright,” is highlighted on my “Friday Finds and Follows” post at my genealogy blog, AnceStories: The Stories of My Ancestors.
Thank you!
I think it is important to remove one motivation for copying: That is for “multi strand” conferences, by ensuring that anyone registered at a conference (so paying for it) can receive handouts for sessions they miss because they were in another strand. Doesn’t affect the legal situation of course. I have visited one conference where many of the slides and all of the handouts were put onto memory sticks and put in a conference goody bag. We were reminded not to abuse the copyright, but we did get more material than we could have seen personally.
No problem with that at all, Dave: anyone registering for a national conference gets the syllabus for all sessions. That’s not an issue at all. Copying any of those for someone NOT at the conference? That’s an issue.
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that this post and the one on “Credit and Copyright ” are featured in my NoteWorthy Reads post this week. (http://jahcmft.blogspot.com/2015/02/noteworthy-reads-3.html?m=1). And, actually, many of your other copyright articles are linked to in the Copyright section of my Resources pages – the Resources – Etc. Page. You explain the topic very well and are appropriately firm about it. It’s an area a lot of people don’t understand well, including me, and so your work in this area is essential. (I’ve now had to research copyright laws in four countries to decide whether I could use something in my blog.) Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to do these articles.
[by the way, if you don’t want to be linked, just say so and I’ll take them down.]
Thanks, and links are never a problem.
I just wanted to point out one thing on the damages.
Copyright registration is needed before U.S. owners can bring suit. Also, prompt registration provides remedies that make lawsuits affordable. Statutory damages of $150,000 (or more, and attorney fees) for willful infringement can be obtained if published works are registered within three months, or unpublished works are registered before they are infringed.
Registration is inexpensive, and simple application forms with basic instructions are available from the Copyright Office.
So I suggest that all speakers register their work and post this information at the entrance of the Seminar along with posting “no recorders or cameras allow.”
Registering is a prerequisite, yes, and it’s really easy to do.
I attend 3 lectures and tape them all.
1. speaker read from prepared script This was reduced to tangible form, I presume. (the dullest of all lectures)
2. speaker talked from notes. Probably not reduced to tangible form? (most common)
3. speaker talked completely extempo. No reduced form.
Ignoring wiretap laws, are any of my cases legal?
On a more realistic note, wouldn’t a genealogical speaker WANT as much distribution as possible? She’s not going to get rich from reprints. I agree it’s morally wrong and I would be really upset over this copying, but sometimes egos need flattery.
Ethically, taping any of those is wrong. Legally, the one case where the comments were entirely extemporaneous may not be a copyright violation depending on the contents of the powerpoints. But no, the speaker doesn’t want the talk distributed by someone else. The speaker can’t recoup the cost of putting together a talk unless the talk is repeated many times before many groups. If someone else steps in and makes the tape available the speaker is directly hurt.
I meant to add in the last that after taping, I made copies for everyone in my local society.
And I repeat: by doing so, it meant the speaker’s investment in that talk was directly hurt.
Hi Judy. A very informative article. I have 2 questions/things to say:
1) Wouldn’t this also apply to a web site such as Pinterest? Especially since you just click the “Pin” button and a photo comes up, you pick which one you want and “pin” it? Some people also “Pin” things on their blog/page or whatever and may if you are lucky provide a link to the original. I hate when people “Pin” something (with an explanation in the description field)and the “Pin” does NOT go to the original link. I will ALWAYS go to the original page before I “Pin” anything, and make sure that if someone clicks on my “Pin” that they are taken to the original site.
2)So if I read your article right, when I save a document on ancestry, such as a census and add that image to my “tree”, I am violating copyright laws? Or does that only pertain to public trees? My tree is private, so permission is required to see my tree.
Thank you for your time and your insights!
A pin that does not return to the original website is ethically improper. By contrast, saving a document like the census is not an issue since it’s already in the public domain.
Have people been violating your copyrights on your presentations about not violating copyrights? If so, there is a lot of irony in that.
I haven’t caught anybody doing that at a copyright lecture, but there was one person at an ethics lecture…
Really interesting post Judy. I believe any societies organising genealogy conferences should read your post. Similar guidelines should be part of purchasing a ticket for the conference/meeting. “That by purchasing a ticket to said conference you are agreeing not abuse the copyright of any speakers and their intellectual property…etc”
That would sure make it clear!
I know that I should not tape a lecture but . . . I have a bad hand tremor that results in unreadable notes, especially the next day, due to cramping. I have been known to contact a speaker after the conference saying that my notes say “this, this” and “that, that” but what was the word/words in between. All have resaponded. May I tape for absolutely my own use? Would it be proper to ask and explain why first?
It absolutely would be proper to ask and explain why, and I can’t imagine that most speakers wouldn’t be completely accommodating.
Amen!
Judy,
I just read this (Feb 2016). Having attended one of your sessions at RootsTech 2016 where you had to call people out on this very thing twice within the first 10 minutes of your lecture, I heartily applaud your steadfastness (and direct approach!). Honestly, I thought about it every single time I saw this happen in every session afterward, and wished that I could have said or done something. Thank you for clarifying these important copyright topics!