Is this breaking copyright?

Question

On the featured profile this week there are two document images from Ancestry.ca. The links are provided as sources, but doesn't publishing them break Ancestry's copyright?

Comments

Actually the image is in Wikicommons.... Public domain!! And Ancestry has no control over its use.

---

If you copy it from Wikipedia, it says you need to attribute the author:

By Herb Roe, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39464359

 

---

Well, this opened up a whole new can of worms.  How do we even know that this is really Joseph Brousard, since Herb Roe is a contemporary artist and Brousard was a bit earlier.  

But yes, authors and artists should be given their proper attibutions when possible.

---

Actually, I was referring to the images of the marriage document, not the portrait. :)

---

Marriage records are public records in the US. Public records are not copyrightable.

---

while the records themselves may be public, the scanned images of those records may in fact belong to Ancestry (or some other entity). I have no personal knowledge in this particular case.

Answer 1

No.  Once again, I will post Ancestry's Terms and Conditions: (emphasis added)

"Ancestry does not claim an exclusive right to images already in the public domain that it has converted into a digital format. However, the Websites contain images or documents that are protected by copyrights or that, even if in the public domain, are subject to restrictions on reuse. By agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, you agree to not reuse these images or documents except that you may reuse public domain images so long as you only use small portions of the images or documents for personal use. If you republish public domain images, you agree to credit the relevant Ancestry Website as the source of the digital image, unless additional specific restrictions apply. If you wish to republish more than a small portion of the images or documents from any of the Websites, you agree to obtain prior written permission from us."

Assuming these documents are in the public domain, there is no copyright violation and posting them to Wikitree doesn't violate Ancestry's terms as long as they are given credit for digitizing and making them available.

Part of the last sentence, "small portion of the images or documents", has frequently been misunderstood to mean only a portion of a page can be used.  Their intellectual property claim is regarding the collection of documents they put together.  They don't want users to republish documents in bulk without permission.  "Small portion" applies to the collection, not part of a page.

Comments

It's interesting that these questions always come up regarding pay sites like Ancestry, but seldom/never regarding the free site FamilySearch.  People assume that the content of a free site is free for the taking.  FamilySearch's Rights and Use Information is much more restrictive than Ancestry's.

There is an interesting Wikipedia article on Copyfraud, described as:  "false copyright claims by individuals or institutions with respect to content that is in the public domain. Such claims are wrongful, at least under U.S. and Australian copyright law, because material that is not copyrighted is free for all to use, modify and reproduce. Copyfraud also includes overreaching claims by publishers, museums and others, as where a legitimate copyright owner knowingly, or with constructive knowledge, claims rights beyond what the law allows."

The originator of the term, Jason Mazzone, describes several types of false copyright claims:

1. Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material.
2. Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows.
3. Claiming copyright ownership on the basis of ownership of copies or archives.
4. Attaching copyright notices to a public domain work converted to a different medium.

---

Thanks. I have been wondering about this for a while; the images just prompted me to ask!

---

Denver Public Library, in their digital photographs section, includes many photos of my relatives.  The originals were paid for by my great-grandfather--e.g., a family portrait made around 1910-- (I have all his receipts, so I could probably find that one).  DPL made quality scans from the original glass plates, so one could ALMOST see them copyrighting the scan, but I don't feel that their copyright is valid.

---

From Ancestry's quoted Terms "If you wish to republish more than a small portion of the images or documents from any of the Websites, you agree to obtain prior written permission from us."
The entire document was republished so prior written permission IS required. 

---

This misinterpretation was addressed in the answer above:

Part of the last sentence, "small portion of the images or documents", has frequently been misunderstood to mean only a portion of a page can be used.  Their intellectual property claim is regarding the collection of documents they put together.  They don't want users to republish documents in bulk without permission.  "Small portion" applies to the collection, not part of a page.

Additionally, Wikitree has no responsibility to police Ancestry.com's terms and conditions.

---

Is that a statement from Ancestry itself?

WikiTree is responsible for policing itself and its users. If the item was obtained from another site contrary to that site's terms, it's use here is improper because it is fruit of the poisoned tree.

---

From Ancestry's quoted Terms "If you wish to republish more than a small portion of the images or documents from any of the Websites, you agree to obtain prior written permission from us."
The entire document was republished so prior written permission IS required. 

If it was written "If you wish to republish more than a small portion of the image..."  it could be implied that it was talking about a potion of the image.  But by saying the plural, "images," it is talking about the collection.

Is that a statement from Ancestry itself?

I did reach out to Ancestry and they (more or less) confirmed.

Answer 2

I would have thought that publishing the full image like that is a breach of their Terms & Conditions.

Comments

The books are available through other means, so I think it's public domain

---

It is.

Answer 3

On a lighter note, don't you just love and appreciate the nice neat handwriting of this priest?

Answer 4

It is a legal impossibility to exercise copyright over something that does not belong to you. So a picture of a public document can not be copyrighted.

Comments

This isn't a copyright issue. It is an issue of "contract law". Those pesky documents called "Terms of use", "Terms of service, "Terms & Conditions", etc. are all legal contracts - if we want to use a site, we agree to abide by their terms.