GENIRE-L Archives

Archiver > GENIRE > 2000-10 > 0972119542

From: "Sean Mac Lochlainn" <>
Subject: Re: 1642 Muster roll
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:12:22 +0100

What research has been made into the copyright question? Have you
contacted the PRO as I advised?

Just to keep everyone informed, John and I exchanged several emails on
the subject last week, the salient points of which are as follows:

1. John said the muster rolls were not covered by copyright because
they were public records.

2. I countered that not everything in the Public Record Office is a
public record (a record created by the state in the course of its
business) and many items in private copyright are held there, such as
donated transcripts.

3. John said that as the original records were public records so the
transcript was a public record.

4. I countered that copyright flows from the application of skill,
judgement and effort on the part of an author, whatever his source,
and that deciphering and transcribing hundreds of pages of muster
rolls written in (an unbelievably difficult) official handwriting
required such skill, judgement and effort.

5. John said that as the Public Record Office held the transcript so
they held the copyright.

6. I countered that copyright exists independently of the work itself
and remains with the author unless specifically transferred with the

7. John said that copyright is 75 years.

8. I countered that copyright exists for 70 years after an authors

As John seems to be creating a cottage industry out of copying someone
elses work, I feel that he has a duty to fully explore the copyright
position rather than making assumptions about it.


"John McQuilliams" <> wrote in message

> Research has been made on this particular information which is
stored in
> the Records at Kews,England. The records are in the Public Domain
and exist
> in several locations elsewhere. These other locations may claim
> rights, and do, in that they may hold a copy of the records in their
> But they cannot claim copyright to them.
> Parts of these records have been published in other books, primarily
> Dobson in the 1920's, but he cannot claim copyright to the records
> only to his book.
> It is my personal belief that records of this type should be made
> to any interested party at the smallest expense possible to do with
as they
> will.
> John McQuilliams

This thread: