tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post2845795797855223978..comments2024-03-26T12:01:39.690-07:00Comments on A Family Tapestry: Where Credit is DueJacqi Stevenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03471698670217119444noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-40270404458455402302016-06-27T13:24:47.628-07:002016-06-27T13:24:47.628-07:00It's a bit of a sticky wicket. I think Wendy i...It's a bit of a sticky wicket. I think Wendy is on the right rail though.<br /><br />What might be a bit hard to take is paying for DNA tests and having others "freely take" the results.Intense Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441598926026727682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-46334415724890619962016-06-22T08:10:04.282-07:002016-06-22T08:10:04.282-07:00I agree with Wendy. While some data in one of my ...I agree with Wendy. While some data in one of my internet-hosted trees may be unique discoveries on my part, the elements of a document are not copyrightable. It is my written description of analysis, correlation and conclusions that are my own work.<br /><br />A tree viewer usually cannot tell what items are new discoveries on my part. I could have copied any of them from a publication or obscure website without giving a source-citation [eccch]. Something may be new to treedom or newly published in (say) a journal, but not hitherto-undiscovered, and in any case it would be my wrote-up or discussion that would be copyrightable.<br /><br />For items new to treedom (to the best of my knowledge) that were found by another person, I try diligently to credit the finder right there. Conclusions are not necessarily authored by a finder of documentation.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-35691425796482264412016-06-22T05:38:54.620-07:002016-06-22T05:38:54.620-07:00Maybe I'm not following the issue accurately, ...Maybe I'm not following the issue accurately, but I wonder if people are confusing the FACT with ANALYSIS of the fact. I understand that nobody owns the family tree; Joe Blow is as much a descendant of Jane Doe as I am. I can't copyright the BMD. However, I should be given credit for my thoughtful analysis of how I know it's THIS Jane and not THAT Jane. Wendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863357756727783017noreply@blogger.com