A Note About Copyright & Sources

1906 Newspaper Advertisement 

I try to give credit where credit is due. Sometimes I get it wrong. Sometimes I just plain fail. Sometimes I mean well and just forget.  The vast majority of what I use here on this blog is fair use, or  in public domain, or I mistakenly thought it was one of those. 

In Homer Folk's 19th Century Town On Limestone Run, he writes, in part: 

"... They recorded important parts of ... history and I have used their work as FAIR USE with no intention of violating copyright laws....  Historical facts are readily available in what I consider the public domain.... I did not apply for a copyright.  Students and historians are free to use the facts to tell how it was in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century"

And so, there's my statement on copyright, copied from Folk.  Yes, I do love the irony of copying the lack of copyright to use as my own lack of copyright statement.  

Increasingly frequently, I receive calls, emails, and messages asking if someone can use "my" photos, from here on the blog. This concerns me for a number of reasons, two being the greatest:

1. These postcards are frequently more than 100 years old. They are not photos I myself have taken.  Owning a copy of a photo, even owning the original photo, does not give me the copyright. I cannot give you permission to use it, because it's not mine to give.

 
2. I'm a hobby blogger, not an attorney.   It is foolish to ask me about copyright law and what you can use in your professional publication.  My opinion on copyright should be of no value to you.  Try this website instead: https://www.copyright.gov/

As for where I get the material used here, my sources include:

• Historical Societies
• Facebook
• Google Image Search
• Newspapers.com
• Genealogical Books 
• Old forums (those were a big thing before facebook)
• Ebay
• Postcard Websites
• Auctions
• Flea Markets
• Yard Sales
• Random people finding out who I am, and then asking me if I want piles of old things

As for the histories... I try to list my sources, and attribute them. But it's not always a straight forward issue. Three historians in the same time frame may have used the exact same story.  Four newspapers may print the same column, word for word, without listing the book they originally got those words from.  When that happens, I can very frequently source it back to Meginness, who acquired more history than any other along the West Branch.   Was he the first, or did he use someone else's work? I don't always know - and from what I have read, he didn't always know either.   Kenneth Wood, noted historian from Muncy, tells this story in Now And Then:

"An amusing story was once told me by Mr. Gernerd as to Meginness's voraciousness for data. This was a case of a hound doubling in on its own scent and not knowing it. He called one day on Jerry [Gernard] (which I am informed he frequently did) and finding him out, was shown into his library. As he idled about, he saw a manuscript lying open upon the table and casually looked over the first pages. He then eagerly seized pen and paper started to rapidly copy it, knowing it would be all right with his friend. He had been at work for an hour or more when Jerry appeared and Meginness began raving over the remarkable "find" that he (Jerry) had made and asking were, under the sun, he had located it. One can imagine the shouts of laughter when Mr. Gernerd informed him that the manuscript was in Meginness's own hand-writing and had been left there by him a few weeks previously".

Jerry Gernerd & John Meginness

1893, at Gernerd's Home in Muncy Pa

Wood concludes with "Personally, I can understand how such a ludicrous thing could happen." Most likely, any historian can understand, even more so now, in the age of internet.

I find a lot of history in genealogy files with no attribution. Later I may find that information was copied from a book or website, but even then, I can't always tell which came first - was the information copied from the website, or did the website find and use the same document I did?

 Quoting a historical document does not give you the copyright to that document. If I use that same text, even if you found it first, the copyright still belongs to the original author, not to you, and certainly not to me.

Quite a few years ago, I started out doing genealogy research. I acquired a portable scanner for that research, and I was frequently asked to scan piles of old photos. Often there would be photos from local areas, and postcards, included in the piles. I've been hoarding everything of local interest for 25+ years now, I have an external hard drive full of interesting things.   Often the people who owned the originals didn't even know where they came from. Sometimes they told me where they originated, but I have no memory of it. I've also  saved hundreds of photos from ebay listings and auction listings over the years.

Let me say this again: Owning a copy of a photo, even owning the original photo, does not give me the copyright. I cannot give you permission to use it, because it's not mine to give.

 And the opposite is true as well. You owning a copy of a photo, even owning the original, does not necessarily prohibit me from using it. 

 Frequently I find old photos with new "copyrights" watermarked across them on facebook. A reverse image search, or even a little digging through my own collection, will often turn up an unmarked copy of the photo.  Slapping your watermark on a 100 year old photo does not give you the copyright, and does not prohibit me from using it.   Owning a postcard is not the same as owning the copyright to that postcard.

As for the modern photos I take - share away.  Now if for some reason, in some way, you find a method to make money off of my work, then we need to talk.  But if you are using it just to share history, or for your non profit, you have my permission, no need to wait for me to respond to your message, which I most likely saw and forgot to answer.

==================