Copyrighting Genealogical Information

With access to the Internet, people today are publishing creative works more than ever. Genealogy websites are springing up everywhere. Can copyright protection extend to genealogical information?

Lately I have noticed much discussion about copyright protection for genealogical information. Someone creates a website of their family history, publishes on the Internet, and someone else "steals" the information and publishes it on their website. People get upset after spending so many months and years to collect and validate the information, and then many hours to create the webpages, only to have someone take the information and publish it elsewhere.

I can certainly understand the frustration. But what protections do the copyright laws provide? Well, there's a lot of protection, but only for specific things.

In general, copyright protection extends to "original works". That is, anything you create, is automatically protected as soon as you complete the work, and present the work in a fixed format. A "fixed format" is anything that presents the work in physical form. That is, if you create a work, but is stored only in your brain, it is not protected.

The operative word in the above paragraph is "original". If it does not already exist, it is original. If you create a work that is derived from an existing work, it is not original, and you'd be violating someone else's copyright protection. For example, if you published your own sequel to Star Wars, you'd be violating George Lucas's copyright.

Copyright protection does not extend to factual information. You cannot publish a fact, and then claim copyright protection of that fact. This is because facts are not "original" works. No one creates a fact. It occurs and exists on its own. It is public information. For example, the fact that one plus one equals two is not an original work. The fact that the United States declared its independence in 1776 is not an original work. The fact that Elvis Presley died in 1977 is not an original work.

However, any book that I write which contains these facts is protected. That is, the "book" is protected, not the "facts". The book is the original work, which includes the layout of the book, the format of the pages, and any thoughts I write down. The presentation of the facts is protected, but not the facts themselves.

Genealogical information is factual information, and is not protected under copyright law. My birthdate is factual information. The burial location of my grandfather is factual information. The maiden name of my grandmother is factual information. If I created a webpage that contained these facts, and nothing more, only the webpage is protected. Not the facts. If I added any additional writings, ideas, comments, or anything else I create, they would be protected, but not the facts.

The United States Copyright Laws are codified under Title 17 of the United States Code. Chapter 1, section 102 defines what is and what is not protected:

The Copyright Office has published a FAQ (frequently asked questions) concerning copyright protection. FAQ #1 states:

Note the second sentence which says that facts are not protected, however the way these facts are presented may be protected.

So what does this mean to us genealogists? Well, it means that anyone can lift the genealogical information off of our websites, and publish it elsewhere, without consequence. The information may even be sold, and we couldn't do anything about it. What may be protected is the presentation of that information, and any other ideas, opinions, or fiction we create.

But you say, "I've seen so many websites that publish copyright statements forbidding anyone to republish the information contained within it." Well, those people are not correct. Their webpages are copyrighted, but not any factual information contained within it. What if someone published your mother's birthdate, and then included a statement that no one else could use that information? Come on, please!

The USGenWeb Archives includes a statement on every one of its text files that says that anyone can use the information, as long as their notice remains with the information, and as long as the information is not used for profit. That's got to be either one of the most misguided statements, or the USGenWeb is unaware of the copyright protections. No where do the copyright laws prevent anyone from using factual information for profit, and nor does the USGenWeb have any right to enforce such restriction.

But none of us should feel down on this. It is good that facts are free. What if facts could be exclusively owned? We'd all be stuck in lawsuits. What if someone owned the fact that the United States declared its independence in 1776? No one could make that statement without obtaining permission from the owner. What if someone owned the fact that one plus one equals two? Just think of all the things that could be considered derivative works on that single principle alone!

Imagine if someone asked you for directions on how to get to the airport. You pull out your road map, and then give the person directions. Then, the publisher of the road map sues you because they lost out on a potential sale! Directions to the airport is factual information. The roadmap is the presentation of that information.

Because facts are free, we are all able to create works, and create works that compete against each other. Yes, it is frustrating that all the labor you spent to collect factual information can be freely republished by someone else. But then, I always believed that genealogical information should remain free for use by anyone, without restriction. That's why today, we are able to use census records, cemetery records, vital statistics, and all the other genealogical records.

Reader Responses

09-16-1999, Louise Hunter [maclou@arkansas.net], "Thank you for your clear and timely explanation of what can and cannot be copyrighted. One of the joys of using the internet for genealogy is to give and receive information which may enrich our knowledge of generations past. Perhaps your article will encourage that exchange. I hope so."
09-16-1999, Teresa C. Brown [tcam_brown@hotmail.com], "Excellent article on the copyright laws. I think many people get confused between the presentation of facts and the actual facts. Nevertheless, I think it's important to stress - as you did - that reproducing the creative content (whether it be a detailed side comment or memory chronicled) is protected."
09-16-1999, W. T. Wittel [wwittel@aol.com], "Thanks for the explanation. I'm drafting a book now on my family history and appreciate the information. Question. If someone writes an anecdote about the family and sends it to you, do you have to get their permission to quote them in your book? I plan to quote several letters that I have received and credit the person who sent the info, but I didn't plan to get a legal clearance to do so."
09-16-1999, Peggy [b8deer@earthlink.net], "This is indeed a touchy subject. My line (Alt/Ault) has had numerous books published about it which I myself have a problem with. You have folks out there on the internet corresponding just to get information and they share nothing with you. If you put a lot of hard work into any project no matter what it is, it is indeed frustrating when someone else publishes it. I myself have a lot of info that I have no plans on publishing except for my children, which I will do privately in the privacy of my own home putting my own thoughts into it using the good old fashioned pc. I will still however continue to purchase items of family history even if they are published by someone else. Granted there may be a few good souls out there just wanting to be an author or trying to find more family info but when you have someone who will not tell you where they belong in the tree that amounts to nothing more than greed in my opinion. Copyright laws are like anything else. First come, first serve. Most authors would make more money most likely if they tried to write something about something other than genealogy."
09-26-1999, Ace NeSmith [acene@pamlico.net], "Thanks for the clarification on copyrights. Greed drives most of the web sites that have sprung up overnight. How do you find one to trust not to sell your 'facts' ?? I'm for 'free' interchange of data."
12-09-1999, Linda Nebrich Beilein [lbeilein@mindspring.com], "Excellent clarification of a much discussed subject. With your permission, I will publish your URL on our family home site."
12-09-1999, Patty Frost [pdfrost@sympatico.ca], "I read your article with interest. You mentioned the fact that many haour, day and years are out into obtaining information for genealogy. This is true but when you hear or connect with someone who comes from the same lineage, most share the information. I gladly share mine and usually receive recognition and a thankyou from those I share with. It always starts "thank you for the info, I know all the hard work and search that you have done and appreciate your help." Genealogy is about tracing roots and it is very rewarding to find decendents living elsewhere and communicating with them. If I wrote a book on my family and included stories then I would be upset if someone else tried to publish them but creating a family web site and posting info is my way of sharing with others, and by sharing my genealogy charts grows."
12-09-1999, June A. Palmer [ggran2@aol.com], "It is indeed frustrating to find work you have spent many hours and dollars for, greedily acquired by someone with a website and and when they say, they are only doing it to help others. They give no mention of where they acquired the information. What I object to most is not getting the feedback from others for corrections and additions and of course the ultimate meeting another cousin. It just is not fair."
12-09-1999, Linda Moore [benlinda@flash.net], "My husband's father wrote his memoirs back in the 1940's, dating from 1900. If I edit that information and add to it, can I copyright my article(s)? He died in 1966, his wife died in 1997, and both estates have already been settled. He never copyrighted his writings, and they were not discovered until this year. I understand that HIS writings could have been copyrighted only by him or his legal heirs. No copyright exists as of now."
12-09-1999, Sue Jones [macduff@citrus.infi.net], "On copyright and books, if you purchase a book on genalogical material and facts about a family and their decendants and nowhere at the beginning of the book do you find a copyright page, is that book copyrighted anyway or must there be a copyright page showing when copwritten and renewed, etc. to qualify?"
12-09-1999, David Taylor [dtaylor@visionet.org], "Overall, I found your article to be very interesting. I am certainly a strong proponent of freely sharing genealogical "facts". However, I have some serious misgivings about your statements which sanction anyone's legal and/or moral right to "lift the genealogical information off of our websites, and publish it elsewhere, without consequence". The facts themselves are not copyrightable, but the synthesis of isolated facts into a body of knowledge, such as an extensive genealogy, is protected. The creative construction of the isolated "facts" into a coherent work may require decades of effort and is protected as an original work of authorship. No reasonable genealogist is interested in attempting to prevent someone from borrowing and republishing their "mother's birthdate"; but likewise, no genealogist can pretend that it doesn't hurt when they accidentally stumble across an exact duplication of their extensive work with the only change being the authorship. Some genealogists have resorted to inclusion of one fictitious name in their data for the purposes of verifying theft. For most creators of genealogical material, the copyright issue revolves around the recognition of authorship, not the securing of financial gain. I derive very little monetary advantage from the old door mat on my back steps, but it is mine and I do not wish to have it stolen. However, if you were to ask me for it, I would probably willingly give it to you."
12-09-1999, Sharon [Flintlock@kcnet.com], "I research a lot. Read a lot. Make copies a lot. What I have and post is there to help people, if possible. They are my family, and if they can help someone else, to add to their TREE, is fine with me. My ancestors will not be forgotten and if they fit into someone else's TREE then there are more family members I have missed but they have been found. My family is ADAMS-TERRY-SPEERS and many more."
12-10-1999, Shawne FitzGerald [sean@mtn.org], "A great and timely article! I have immense respect for cemetery transcriptionists for this is truly tough work - but is copying publicly displayed info an original work? Wouldn't the families who erected the tombstones be the original authors? Is their permission needed before publishing a transcription? If we want the data compiled and distributed, how do we compensate the folks who perform this job?"
12-10-1999, Nettie Mae [dysfun4@internetni.com], "Just found your site. Loved your article. The way it was explained to me by a lawyer friend is that, basically, anything that can be entered onto a pedigree chart can't be copywrited. The notes you add, like "Mom told me..." would be copywrited."
12-10-1999, Lawrence E. Strahan [tnreb@prodigy.net], "Our family association assembled genealogical information from our members. The information was compiled by our members. Our Treasurer then published a three ring binder book named "The Strahan Story" and began selling the book to pay for the expenses of creating the book. When he became ill and unable to continue gathering information, publishing revisions and keeping the book updated he asked me to take over as I was President of the family association. I checked with the U.S.Copyright Office about obtaining a copyright in the name of the association, not me, the association. I didn't think anyone should have the right to own the work of all the members and make a profit for themselves. I was told to obtain a certified letter from the copyright author (publisher) giving me ownership in the name of the association for the purpose of obtaining a copyright in the name of the associaton. This I have done and I am in the process of updating the book with the latest information (asking for permission from the researcher or supplier to add it to the book) I have received. I have found that one gentleman, who bought a copy of the book, and without asking permission from the copyright author proceeded to put it on the internet. And now has a web sight and is using the infomation from the book to gain notoriety as a genealogy researcher. His web site even has a copyright warning. I have asked him to remove any information he has gained from our book from the internet. I don't mind that he helps a person (as I do also)tie the inquirer's lineage to our book. Am I in the right? If not please inform me of the correct way to handle the problem. I would appreciate it if you would tell me how to send the above article to him. Thank you for the article."
12-10-1999, Tex Dendy [texden1@aol.com], "Steve this article should be required reading by all people. With so many lists coming into being, a copy of this information should be included as a heading for each list. I dare say that 90 percent of the people talking about copyright laws really don't know what they are talking about. What is the difference between "fact" and "fiction" or to copyright or not to copyright material, do we really know the difference. Thank you Steve."
12-10-1999, Jim Wiley [jrwiley@raex.com], "So far, so good. To expand on this excellent treatise on copyrights just a bit, let's consider the "average" family history we may write and publish. If you are like me, you want to read more than mere facts, and you include tidbits of family lore, stories of your ancestors' military exploits, etc. THESE bits, your creation of something, are copyright protected, AND you should register your final product, your book, with the Library of Congress. It's not expensive to do so, not difficult, and places your work with other copyright registered books, with that added measure of protection from plagiarism (though that IS hard to prosecute). If you include someone else's narrative, story, etc. DO give citations and DO get permission."
12-10-1999, Ann Johnson [chipper@mlode.com], "I don't think that birthdates and wedding dates and that ssort of info should be copywrited. However I do belive that people who that use facts that have taken years to trace should asat least give crdit where crit is due."
02-06-2000, Lila H. Dolinger [genealogy98@juno.com] "Thanks so much for your indepth article on the clarification of copyright laws. I do continue to trust that folks will at least have the 'courtesy' to give credit where credit is due!"
03-01-2000, Donald Erlenkotter [derlenko@anderson.ucla.edu] "Certainly one cannot copyright a genealogical "fact," and even an assemblage of genealogical facts that naturally forms family groups probably isn't copyrightable. But when a family group must be synthesized from fragments of information, painstakingly gathered, interpreted, and presented, the result may fit within the realm of what is copyrightable. Even in this case, I doubt that anyone would complain about someone else abstracting material pertinent to their own lineage, especially if properly referenced and documented. But I draw the line when an entire study in the form of "The Descendants of . . . " is lifted and passed off by someone else, without reference or attribution. For a report of such an occurrence, see http://genforum.genealogy.com/boutwell/messages/591.html The person involved submitted a tree in March 1998 that appears in World Family Tree Vol. 22. A month later, a vastly expanded tree was submitted by the same person that appears as #335 on World Family Tree Vol. 23. Most, if not all, of the added material was taken from a five-generation study that had been obtained in a computer file from someone else. No permission was sought or obtained for this, in violation of the World Family Tree's policies. Two of us sent certified letters to the World Family Tree publishers complaining about this, and neither received a response. The publishers, of course, claim copyright protection for their World Family Tree volumes."
04-13-2000, Heather Garner [carolinadreampag@hotmail.com] "Okay everyone, Steve has showed us what the laws say, but 99% of this is common sense and common courtesy! If you want to use something that you find elsewhere, how hard is it to ask? Most of the time, you will be given permission, if for no other reason, you asked! [And very few people have the courtesy to do so!] There is almost no way to enforce some laws, especially being that in genealogy, most of the info is public knowledge. Just use common sense! It has worked for me every time, as I have used lots of other people's info. It only takes a minute to send an e-mail and ask permission. Keep the e-mail replys printed out in a folder so if your use of any item is ever questioned, you have the "written permission". Good Luck!!"

Copyrighting Genealogical Information

Reader Responses

Publish your response to this article.