Feldgrau.net

John, I'm not sure there has been any violation of the law on Feldgrau. Can you point to such cases? I see a lot of researchers and authors posting and answering questions, but I'm not aware of pirate copies of books floating around, or of blatant misuse of copyrighted materials. The first step if ever there was such an instance though, would be to point it out to allow one to rectify the situation. As well, I think it would be hard to carry a case against myself or a user of this site because someone might post a passage from a book or offer to make a few copies for another person.

Again, I support what you're saying in full, but I'm also a little taken-aback by the tone this discussion is taking, basically making the statement that Feldgrau and it's users are in some sort of legal breach. If that's the case, please point out the exact instances, the exact laws they are breaking, how they are breaking them, and what can be done to rectify.

Gentlemen,
I'm going to gingerly step into this thread, because it is raising some important questions in my mind.
I recently embarked on a project that if all goes well, could turn into a book. I was taught in college that as long as you properly cited information taken directly from a printed source, that was legitimate. Right now, as I'm scratching out ideas, I have a bizillion end notes, as I'm noting every separate thought I'm pulling from different sources. It won't be that way when I'm done, naturally, but I want to make sure that a) I remember where each article was, and b) whatever I use in the end is properly attributed. I believe I'm doing this right?
I will admit, I photocopy pages. For me personally, if I only need a few sentences, or a paragraph, it's easier to put a sheet in a folder than a whole book. I am in the habit of writing the source information on the sheet so I can give credit where it's due. That's the way I wrote all my papers in college, and even my most virtuous instructor never criticised me. Am I still okay?
Do any of you authors know of a website that explains copyright law? If so, it might just be easier to point people there. That way, if there are any questions, the person can go right to a legal (?) source for the legal answer. Mayhap there are sites like that overseas, since there are bound to be international differences.
If I'm doing anything illegal or immoral I want to know now, before I get too deeply attached to bad habits.

Follow this URL to an explanation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

Recent court cases in the US appear to be following a strict interpretation of this law, while courts in some other countries are less willing to support author`s copyrights. When in doubt it is always best to consult with an attorney who is knowlegeable in this area.

Thanks, John! It is finishing printing as I type. I can tell by glancing at the first few pages, though, that I'll have to look at it when I can really concentrate. It was written by attorneys, so I'll have to engage the brain a little! It'll be worth it if I avoid a lawsuit, eh?

Tom, you won't find anything in that document that impacts you ability to use sources of information from already published works with proper citation.

I posted the URL to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 because of its reference to the larger body of copyright law together with its discussion of electronic publishing along with certain protections and liabilities of web site hosts. As an electronic publisher this law has special interest for me due to its support of imbedded protections in an author`s work that prevent or impede illegal copies.

Next month I am planning to publish a major revision to "Führerliste der Waffen-SS". It has been expanded to include more than 10,000 pages of digitally enhanced documents from the Personalakten (personnel files) of over 1,000 Waffen-SS officer and NCO holder of the Ritterkreuz, Deutschen Kreuz in Gold and Silver, Ehrenblattspange and Anerkennung des Führers. (This new section currently stands at 9,780 pages of selected documents completed from 1,010 personnel files) This will distributed on 6 CDs. I expect that this will prove to be a very useful tool for researchers at a reasonable price. However, I fully realize that a resourceful and unethical person could subvert my copy protections and post everything on some web site in Turkistan, leaving me with no recourse. It would be doubtful that anyone else would undertake such a large-scale project in the future. I would prefer not to encumber this software with such protections as activation codes or Adobe Acrobat that would only allow on-screen viewing.

I believe that the future is in electronic publishing due to the lower unit cost, independence from traditional publishers and the big plus of ensuring that each CD sold contains the most current and accurate information available compared to a hardcopy book where the same mistakes are repeated 5,000+ times.

Mark C. Yerger wrote:
Wartime publications of the 3rd Reich do not have copyright. This is not the topic being discussed.

Bundesarchiv it comes to the better part of a dollar per page.

hey Mark.

Whew this is a long thread.

As to your first point, true, but I think what more people get granged about is the use of private photos, which sadly in many publications are being used illegally. Most of the private photos out there have unknown origins to collectors and researchers, but that doesn't necessarily mean their "Shooter" isn't out there somewhere. Then Joe Q goes into one's new book, grabs the photos, scans em and posts em to their website, or perhaps even used them in their own publication. As if writing for a small press isn't bad enough financially to begin with.

As far as the Bundesarchiv goes, I have always wondered why it is so bloody insanely expensive! Imagine how much NARA would pull in if they charged those rates!

Doc

Kimmo wrote:
They are my original work and I certainly would be pissed off, if I would see them somewhere else, copyrighted to some other person than me.

Can they make a claim to the pictures?

As to your first point, I totally agree. A few years ago, some of my photos that I took during Desert Storm were going to appear in a book (that apparently still has not been released). Little did I know hoever, until a friend that had seen some of the work being done called me and to my chagrin, viola! What really burns me is virtually no one has copies of these photos, so now I am hunting down the putz that made copies without my permission! Anyways.

Yes, they could, provided they have not entered the public domain by one means or another. Most private photos (ie soldier taken photos) from WW2 are NOT in the public domain, and regardless of if they have photographer info on them or not are still copyrighted. Copyright is a sticky issue, but you can generally expect that most private stuff from WW2 is "technically" off limits.

Doc

Mark C. Yerger wrote:
Photos in archives are in public domain, but obviously some simply copy the photo from a book already printed and use it.

This may or may not be the case. It depends on what sections of the archives you are accessing, and whose archives we are talking about. In the case of items donated to archives by familys, there can be publication restrictions place on said items as per the family's wishes.

There was a recent discussion of this on a C-Span Book TV program. I forget which it was, but it was a retired US Army Major & author who's apparently done a number of works on "personalities". I do not read a lot of "personality" books (some but not many), so I could not place him. Anyways, he was asked by the host about his work in the Patton archives, and apparently, until relatively recently, much of the archives were not publishable as per the family's wishes. They later, apparently, relented, and the archives were opened.

Doc

Jason Pipes wrote:
Would you gentlemen agree?

In principal, yes. But it IS possible for one to include new "facts" in a book that cannot perhaps be found anywhere else but the originating author and/or their collaborators.

For example, sometimes writers gain access to diaries, letters, memoirs/manuscripts/holographs, vet contacts etc that perhaps some others may not have. That is NEW (perhaps) info, and somebody else "borrowing" it would be illegal (without permission anyways).

I guess the question is: what is fact that is publically accessible and what is fact that is privately accessible. Hrm.

But in general, I certainly agree with your statement.

Doc

Mark/John have left their personal feelings on the ww2 forums. I appreciate what you have to say and I have been ripped of the same. The problems will be taken care in immediate fashion. But for the future would you please write a PM to said party.
there is much to learn about copyright law and maybe it would be best if Jason and other web-masters of fine forums on the world net post said these copyright laws. I do believe that you gents are quite up on this since you have been 'burned' whether it be text or photos. As in the case of the poster on Ww2, he wrote Mr. Yerger several tiems asking for permission to use text from his books but recieved no answer......what then can be done. In this case it was not out of spite but to inform others of interesting information and giving Mark credit from his books. Also since I do know the said person some of the materials were from his own "original research". Again the lines have to be drawn, and I personally would like to see the copyright laws mentioned so I do not fall under the same category.
As to chekcing sites for the possibilty of copyright breakage, it will take years and a long drawn out process. It does appear from some European countries and their researchers that they are exclusive of US copyright laws and that the copying of books and especially internet texts and photos are of public domain.....

thoughts on this please ? Again I do not wish to step on toes I am just one that would like more clarification on the matter so this can be stopped on this site, and the WW 2 froums and others....

thank you for the assistance in this matter gentlemen.

v/r ~Erich

Maybe people could said:
If you used one book or source for your reference then you are plagiator
but
If you used many books or resources, then you are a good researscher

Nino

Rarely do I attempt to correct, and even more rarely do I offer legal counsel without proper solicitation, however, some statements contained in this thread have caused me some concern. First, the domain of copyright law lies exclusively within the purview of federal courts. Good luck to all authors and/or publishers seeking recompense for the alleged misappropriation of an author's photo or the sampling of a page of his respective work. I would enjoy watching your plight in retaining effective legal counsel to pursue such a claim, and would relish ever so more the scolding you would get from a cantankerous judge or magistrate for wasting judicial economy.

Second, I would think an author touting the laborious nature of research would be apt to perform a little when it comes to the real protections afforded by copyright. Please delve into the area of FAIR USE - a defense to any copyright claim - and I think you will surmise very quickly how a little research will change your position on contacting each and every author when samplings of other's works are copied herein.

Fair Use is fairly spelled out (no pun intended).

And please don't try and sound like a lawyer if you arn't one. It just confuses the Joe Blows.

Real lawyers are bad enough.

Doc

[quote="Jason Pipes"]Tom, you won't find anything in that document that impacts you ability to use sources of information from already published works with proper citation.[/quote]

-->+ Jason, that law is not the law like it is in France, Japan, the Netherlands and all those many other countries in the world that are no members of this.
So legaly, Feldgrau falls under exception 1 of 6 (page 5 and 6). Don't forget that lot's of countries signed other treaties that prevail on this one. Like allready told by Erich. According to the 6 exceptions in Toms link,
nothing on Feldgrau is illegal.

It is pitty when someone does it but not illegal, (the non citing of the author) here.