Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can I take the fact that somebody has died and place on my website, from another website?

Posted on 02/09/2013 4:26:08 PM PST by FoxPro

Can I take a death notice, which would be name, date of death and optionally general location, birth-date and place it on a website, I own, from another website?

Example:

Joe Smith died February 9, 2013, age 84 in Miami, Florida.

How about a whole list of these?

From one source or multiple sources?

Is this news?

Would this carry a copyright?

Is this not "fair use"?

Would a birth be news also?

I cant find anything written about this and was wondering what the smartest people in the world thought of it, legally and ethically.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: deadpeople

1 posted on 02/09/2013 4:26:12 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

It seems like fair use to me. If there was a long obit written by a loved-one though, that could be a copyright issue... what you described seems like general info


2 posted on 02/09/2013 4:28:07 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

The only legal advice I can give you is, do not solicit legal advice on the internet.


3 posted on 02/09/2013 4:31:21 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I have looked into the obit thing and apparently that is in legal limbo because:

1) It depends on who wrote the obit, the family, the funeral home or a newspaper.
2) This hasn’t reached the Supreme Court yet.


4 posted on 02/09/2013 4:31:49 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

..perhaps if you posted a link to the original at the end of your posting it would help. If the originating post explicitly states copy rights are in effect...


5 posted on 02/09/2013 4:32:34 PM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
do not solicit legal advice on the internet.

I don't consider Freerepublic.com "the internet".

6 posted on 02/09/2013 4:34:26 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

That is interesting!

But the name and date and stuff, that’s public info right?


7 posted on 02/09/2013 4:36:38 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro; 1rudeboy
I don't consider Freerepublic.com "the internet".

Well said! I heartily concur!

As for the obit, it probably depends on the policy of the originating website. I would think you could at least post an excerpt with a link to the source.

8 posted on 02/09/2013 4:39:47 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

A death is a public event, yes?

Like a fire, terrorist attack or the fact it snowed last night...

It is not prose or a work of art.

So it is news.

So it doesn’t matter what it was sourced from.

I have talked to lawyers about this, with mixed opinions.

Am I missing something here?


9 posted on 02/09/2013 4:43:12 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
Good luck with that, then. Maybe some lawyer will take your case pro bono.
10 posted on 02/09/2013 4:45:17 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

at least you have one guy who wont object


11 posted on 02/09/2013 4:46:04 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
But the name and date and stuff, that’s public info right?

I think this is an open question and needs to be litigated.

I guess what I am trolling for is, has this ever come up in a courtroom anywhere?

12 posted on 02/09/2013 4:50:50 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
I'd say, post it.

If we've come to the point that your question is cause for worry, then we're dead anyway.

13 posted on 02/09/2013 4:53:19 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

What you can do is use whatever ‘sharing’ options that website offers such as an RSS feed. That way you will be using the method they have approved to share their stories which should offer you some sort of protection.


14 posted on 02/09/2013 4:54:41 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
share their stories

But they are not sharing stories, they are sharing "news" and "facts" in whatever format and conveyance.

15 posted on 02/09/2013 5:15:32 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

They still own the authorship. When you write an obituary, for example, and give it to your local news paper, it is usually spelled out in whatever submission process that you are granting them rights to that content.

You can say, the fact is XYZ died.
You can’t copy the obituary in full from the paper/site without some sort of permission.

Sure, you may have a technical argument, but you would spend thousands in court arguing that fact. Look at the Righthaven lawsuits. They ended up losing in the end, but not after they got tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands from websites and many sites spent many more thousands in legal fees fighting it.

It isn’t worth it. Just go with the cleanest legal route which is to use the paper’s approved sharing methods.


16 posted on 02/09/2013 5:21:43 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

So it seems that this post wont get the interest that my “Miracle Whip” versus “Mayonnaise” post I had.


17 posted on 02/09/2013 5:30:44 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

You can retype the information that would be publicly available on a death certificate.

Other information printed in another publication is probably held under their copyright.

Just don’t cut and paste..re-write it.


18 posted on 02/09/2013 5:55:05 PM PST by Vermont Lt (Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro; 1rudeboy
I don't consider Freerepublic.com "the internet".

I don't either. It's like, it's like, well, it's like the neighbourhood dope dealer.

19 posted on 02/09/2013 5:58:53 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

I think of FR as my local bar, with less drama. (Yes, I need to find a new bar).


20 posted on 02/09/2013 6:01:50 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
I don't consider Freerepublic.com "the internet".

Let's see, writing on the wall and sharing cat pictures.

It is either the Internet or ancient Egypt.

21 posted on 02/09/2013 6:03:28 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; 1rudeboy
Ya see, if Freerepublic.com was connected to anything having to do with the Internet, you could instantly find the very phrase I don't consider Freerepublic.com "the internet" via a simple Google search.
22 posted on 02/09/2013 6:07:47 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
it's like the neighbourhood dope dealer.

It really is!

23 posted on 02/09/2013 6:15:23 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

I have done research on copyright in seeking to be lawful (in conscience toward God), and believe me copyright issues requires research, as there can be a lot of nuances and difference btwn countries.

The below article applies to your case i believe.

Feist v. Rural is an important United States Supreme Court case establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural’s telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural’s phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

It is a long-standing principle of United States copyright law that “information” is not copyrightable, O’Connor notes, but “collections” of information can be. Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.

Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O’Connor concludes, “the sine qua non of copyright is originality”. However, the standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a “spark” or “minimal degree” of creativity to be protected by copyright.

In regard to collections of facts, O’Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.

The court ruled that Rural’s directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural’s copyright claim was dismissed.

Implications

The ruling has major implications for any project that serves as a collection of knowledge. Information (that is, facts, discoveries, etc.), from any source, is fair game, but cannot contain any of the “expressive” content added by the source author. That includes not only the author’s own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover, his choice of which links to make among the bits of information, his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered “original creative work” of the author rather than mere facts.

For example, a recipe is a process, and not copyrightable, but the words used to describe it are; see idea-expression divide and Publications International v Meredith Corp. (1996).[2] Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But, if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author’s copyright in the choice of recipes and their “coordination” and “presentation”, even if you used different words; however, the West decisions below suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity carried over from the original presentation.

Another case covering this area is Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (2003),[7] in which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a copyright holder in a compilation of public domain data cannot use that copyright to prevent others from using the underlying public domain data, but may only restrict the specific format of the compilation, if that format is itself sufficiently creative.

In the late 1990s, Congress attempted to pass laws which would protect collections of data,[8] but these measures failed.[9] By contrast, the European Union has a sui generis (specific to that type of work) intellectual property protection for collections of data.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural


24 posted on 02/09/2013 6:44:29 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

You can provide a link to this info on the other site vs. copying the data and this would not infringe upon any potential copyrights.


25 posted on 02/09/2013 7:05:25 PM PST by Momtothe8th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Wow!

This is exactly what I was looking for!

I will put an extra $50 in the offering plate at church tomorrow, in your name.

Thank you daniel1212, can I retain you?


26 posted on 02/09/2013 7:11:05 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
(in conscience toward God)

That was a nice touch.

Dude, you have exceeded my expectations.

G*d bless America and G*d Bless Freerepublic.com.

27 posted on 02/09/2013 8:32:15 PM PST by FoxPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
Thank God i could be of some help. Note also that the "fair use" clause allows for a relative small portion of copyrighted works to be included in works such as reviews, parody, news, and allows for use of such in derivative works also, in all cases provided sufficient attribution is given (outside commonly held knowledge, info), with the courts looking more favorably on free content.

This provides more details on that, but try to read the links also:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference.

My own advice to writers is that if you place something on the Internet, expect and allow it to be copied for later use and for free sharing, and if you object, then do not make it available. However, those who copy copyrighted works and do not give attribution, likewise significant amounts in derivative works, and or make money off it without permission, are the criminals.

Note that plagiarism is also a cloudy issue to some degree)

And yet i believe it is wrong for Christians to make things as sermons, songs, video, as part of Christian ministry, to criminalize free sharing of it so that they can get more income. Instead, free sharing should be allowed, as i state for my own works on the rather basic site of this small ministry, and in fact it should be encouraged if your priority is to get the word out.

It took much prayer for me to get permission to use just a few videos from CBN's Amazing Stories, which are a blessing, and thank God you can download some of them.

Likewise i found some other videos and songs that i could share (Calvary Chapel showing some real faith in this area), but this is rare.

28 posted on 02/10/2013 2:28:55 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson