British history about copyright

Is there copyright protection on history books or historical facts?

There's no copyright on facts, just as there's no copyright on ideas. What has copyright is individual works.

So, then, I can go do research, get facts and ideas from primary sources and other scholars, and write my own historical narrative and interpretation. That book is protected by copyright. However, you can go and do the same process, coming up with a book containing similar ideas but written in very different words. That doesn't violate my copyright, and your book enjoys copyright protection as well.

(Oh, and those primary sources on which one might base a history book, if they were written before 1924 in the US or a bit more recently elsewhere, are old enough that they're in the public domain, no longer protected by copyright.)

Under the laws of most countries, any work of art is copyright when it is made. That includes history books. Historical facts are not. Disputes over whether someone has used a fact or copied a work of art are not rare.

On historical facts, no. On books, if they were written before 1927. (I believe) they are in public domain and have no protection. Generally any thing put out by the government is in the public domain although material may be classified. Other than that, history books and articles are protected by copyright protection.

Are history content and facts copyrighted?

If a book was copyrighted in either 1941 or 1976 (or any time in between), but not currently published, is it still copyrighted?

Do I violate copyright when I write about historical figures?

Copyright law in complex: see Copyright law of the United States - Wikipedia. Even with facts, I could see a gray area. For instance, if there were an event which was customarily assigned to a given date, and an historian developed an argument for an alternative date and his or her book were still under copyright, that "fact" would be protected under copyright.

There is of course a much bigger issue—that of intellectual honesty. To take an extreme case, if you were to cite a passage from the 19th century edition of Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire without attribution you would not

Apparently not, or the truth would be out there.

Should we eliminate copyright protections?

If feeding yourself and your family ever depended on something you put hard work to create, say, a book, an album, a movie, etc., I am sure you would never have asked such question. I did, so my answer is no.

What historical fact blows your mind?

For me?

Take a look at this.

That "thick concentration" of dots is basically all the wars/battles ever fought on European soil.

Quite more than even in China,the frequency of those people's bloodletting at least in recorded history.

And if you see Europe now.

It blows my freaking mind that Europe has such a tumultuous past.

Edit 1:I see a lot of people commenting.Okay wait.

Can a work of fiction contain historical descriptions that are not found in history books?

Yes, of course it can. It is your fantasy after all and most people will know that and not complain.

Domed cities on Mars. They may happen, or not. But in your fantasy you can do anything you want. Did they exist in the past? In your fictional history they can.

Is there any archaeological proof that Jesus existed?

[Originally asked: Is there any archaeological proof that Jesus existed?]

YES.

There is more archaeological proof for Jesus' existence than for virtually any other figure from ancient history.

There's an abundance of corroborating archaeological evidence; a great amount of the people, cities, places, etc. of Jesus' life and ministry are established in the archaeological record. I'll summarize a lot of that at the end of this answer.

But when it comes to Jesus specifically, the best proof we have is the Bible.

Many people will object here. They will deny that the Bible can ever be used as proof of J

What is your favorite historical fact?

That one time when an Indian Maharaja figuratively showed his middle finger to the colonial government during a pompous event that was covered internationally.

The year was 1911. George V had ascended the imperial throne of the United Kingdom. And since India was a British colony back then, he also became the "Emperor of India". Hence, the British colonial government in India, headed by Lord Hardinge, organised the "Delhi Durbar"[1], a mass assembly marking the coronation of George V as the Emperor of India. George and his wife Mary would also be attending it.

Delhi Durbar, 1911

More than a million

Footnotes

[1] Delhi Durbar - Wikipedia