Genealogy Chat

Years on end Claire, in some cases!

I have to say that I think the offers to do look ups are a bit blatant! Im also surprised that Ancestry havent taken GR to task over allowing this to happen.Again, Ive always assumed its because the new subs outweigh the loss of revenue.

Although I believe some while ago someone when haggling over the price of a sub was told by the ancestry call centre rep that one of the reason for increased prices was the amount of revenue lost by people doing look ups for others.

Read this with interest as I have been a member on this site for quite a few years and have seen the help given by many members over the years in finding others their families..to a newbie the census`s are daunting..however what is really being said is that copying and pasting onto a thread on here from say Ancestry without that information being for your own family use is `illegal`..most people say pm me especially I noticed with the electoral roll and getting telephone numbers..all people want to do is help and Genes do say that `people are not paid and do so out of a willing to help` or words to that effect..

All I do know is that due to the help I recieved on here and being made aware of where the information came from by people on here..did I make myself a member of other sites..extortionate as they are..you can bet that most people finish their searching within 3yrs for their family..its only the die hard that continue..those with a brick wall,adopted,orphaned and those with a heart of gold that want to help for helps sake and not to make money out of it...so thats my bit said..before I go though what is the www. site for on the initial thread..is it a site being advertised on Genes???

This is very interesting and I had never really given it a thought

When I first started my research I was sent a lot of information going back years by a GR member. Then some one contacted me and I sent them the info I had been given (thought I was being really helpful)! This person it turns out knew the ladies that had put the family tree together. I got all sorts of messages threatening to sue me over copy right etc. It scared the life out of me! They wanted to know how I got hold of it, who it came from etc. I didn't want to get anyone into trouble so I refused to tell them and said I would make the person aware of what they had done but it got so nasty I had to tell them in the end.

Now I can understand why they were so angry, this person had just copied there whole tree going back to the 1500's and had not made it clear that it was not her work. The ladies had spent a lot of time, effort and money but I didn't realise this as a new researcher. It has put me off researching this branch of my tree!

I must say though that when was threatend with being sued etc I then wanted to know how they had got my mum's name and nan and grandads who were alive at the time and who had given them permission to put it on their tree, it certainly wasn't any of my living relatives!!

To cut a long story short, it isn't just sites like Ancestry that are copied from and if I do find some info I always get certs/parish records to check it out now and back it up as my tree.

Marcelle

This will be my last post about this matter, I am going to leave the thread on for the weekenders and I'm then going to delete it on Monday. I did not intend for the subject to become the topic of a heated debate.

Lorraine asked "How come they let you send info to other people if it's against their policy".

This is easy to answer, they allow this because the person receiving the info is a potential customer, they know that this person is interested in family history. When you send info to someone else it goes to them from the relevant websites system as an e-mail, this e-mail not only contains the info it's also loaded with advertising for that site to try and get the recipient to become a member. They obviously don't want this to happen too many times from one person that's why there's a limit on how many times you can do it. It's called Marketing.

Let's put the boot on the other foot. You own a company that has paid many £1,000's for a license that allows you to display Crown Copyright material on your website. You then have to recoup those £1,000's back from your subscribers in membership fees. Would you like to see hundreds of people diving in many times and supplying that information for nothing to other non members of your site doing you out of potential revenue from the people who are not members but may become members if they can't get the information from anywhere else.

Now you see the point. As I said above it was not my intention to start an argument, that's why I'm going to remove the thread on Monday when the weekenders have had chance to see it.

I'm not trying to stop look up's just pointing out what I know has happened to one person, they lost their subs which had over 8 months to run because they foolishly advertised that they would do look ups for people on a certain pay per view website. The company got wind of it and canceled their subs. If you are going to do look ups then just don't advertise where you got the information from and you'll probably get away with it.

If you think about it these companies employ a lot of people and it's odds on that some of those employees are members of GR if they see the message offering free look ups from their companies website then it's not going to be long before they report it to their company.

I come onto these boards and help out where I can by offering general advice on computers, research in general and software, I don't do look up's. I'm just trying to help out where I can which is what I believe these boards are for.

Ron
www.genealogyprinters.com

Christine is correct. This was discussed on here a couple of years ago after someone had reported a well known site was sending large bills out where they suspected miss-use.

Here is an extract of the relevant T's and C's from the said site.

"# We reserve the right to impose a usage limit and the right to suspend the service in cases of misuse.
# Providing a look-up service will cause immediate suspension without refund.
# Those proven to be using our service to provide a look-up service will be liable to a charge of £5 per distinct name for which they have searched and £10 for each result viewed."

Ron, why delete the thread, it has relevance. Scary but relevant just the same.

I for one would hate to loose my subs to any site I pay for. They cost a small fortune anyway.

In a way GR are taking advantage of these companies by allowing the threads.

Will be more careful in future.

Gail

n

Despite me saying it would be my last post I think Gail deserves an answer and it may also further clarify matters.

I am in a unique position compared to most people, I run a family history business and I am in regular contact with the people who own these companies that we are talking about.

As a printing business owner I also know my way around the Copyright Laws. It appears to me that some people are questioning the things I post as if I am wrong in what I say or I am expected to tell them why these things are so. I do not expect to have to clarify my statements because people that know me know what I do for a living and realise that I know what I'm talking about.

I sit on the fence and would never mention to these company owners what goes on, on this or any other message board but there again I don't have to, they already know, I've had one company owner mention it to me during general talks about other matters. That's why I put the original post on.

I will leave the thread on now that I have made it more clear but I do hope that people will not question it any further.

Ron
www.genealogyprinters.com

I think it is good you have put this thread on Ron and I totally agree with Gail

Marcelle

I sometimes have trouble reading the original census and do ask for help myself and have been given some wonderful leads and lots of help via asking on the boards. Some of the writing on original census is appalling and some very faded.

But this leaves me in a quandary, is it a problem if you ask for someone else to check for you? Especially as they are paying for subs and so are you.

On the other hand would sending via a PM be breaching these regulations as well. IE; not in the public domain.

Gail

YummyMummy

I believe that Ron has permission from GR to show his email addy on site.

He will obviously correct me if I am wrong.

Maureen

GranofOz, I think thats a different matter. If you have paid for a sub anyway but want another member to confirm the info because of poor writing etc. then I cant see that ancestry would be losing revenue in that instance.

Just my view on this.....and I may be totally wrong.

I think Ancestry tend to be very lenient about the lookups people do for others because, although they ARE a business they seem to be running it as a non profit making business. Because of their religous beliefs maybe? Whereas the other's are definitely profit making businesses, and quite rightly object to us who have a subscription, doing lookups for those without and depriving them of money. In their shoes I wouldn't be too happy either!

Mary

Ron.......thanks for this thread! Although I have not minded doing look ups for people I have no intention of losing my subscription by doing so!

Bev x

YummyMummy, Ancestry and other sites will have paid a lump sum to National Archives for the scanned images, and paid salaries/sub-contractors etc for the transcription work - either way, it has involved cost for them. It will be interesting to see how copyright law evolves in the "cut and paste" era - but I'd not want to be the test case!

Many thanks, Ron.

Following this thread with interest........ just wondered how then the local libraries with ancestry access will allow you to print out absolutelt anything from the site, and charge you 10p or 20p a sheet............ obviously understand that they are all run by County Councils, and would not have the same sort of membership as us individuals, but isn`t the principal the same, as far as I know, no one on here has ever received any payment for information given, we all do so in our capacity to help others researching their family tree.......... that said this is a very good thread Ron, and thanks for bringing our attention to the pontential problems copying and pasting may cause.


Nicky

Libraries as probably know are owned by Local Government, who "owns" local Government, Central Govenment, who owns the National Archives, Cenral Government.

As part of the licensing conditions when companies apply and pay for a license to copy and use as an online databse the data a condition can be written into that license that local liraries have free access.

The same conditions are written into the contract and apply in America where the same conditions apply as regards ownership of the data and selling licenses, the American libraries also have free access.

The printing off of census images is allowed becaused it's for personal research only as stated in the T&C's.

Ron
www.genealogyprinters.com

Thanks Ron for clarifying that.


Nicky

n

Two separate issues have been raised here.
Firstly, there's the issue of the T&Cs of the info providing site (Ancestry, FMP, etc) and of the posting site (GR say).
Secondly, there's the issue of copyright. Mostly, we're talking about Crown copyright, although I suppose there might be a question of whether Ancestry, say, had any copyright with respect to their added content of transcriptions (I'm inclined to think not, noting that Ancestry don't put any copyright notice on their transcriptions page.)

There is a document on Crown copyright, really relating to BMDs, but I think it has applications for the census, and excerpts are given below.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/copying-of-birth-death-and-marriage-certificates-and-marriage-registers.htm

This Guidance Note has been produced in consultation with the Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland and the General Register Office for Northern Ireland.

8. Government policy is not to authorise the copying of completed certificates except in the following circumstances:

b) by individuals or organisations for their own record keeping purposes, provided that the copies are not passed to others as evidence of birth, death or marriage;

d) within works of genealogical research undertaken by or on behalf of the family concerned where the work in question will be given limited distribution only. For the avoidance of doubt, a work will NOT be regarded as being given limited distribution if it is placed on the Internet;

f) by the transcribing and copying of the information contained in a certificate. The copyright does not subsist in the information on the certificate, but in the presentation of the information.


9. The copying of certificates that contain personal details, and the use of information taken from such certificates, may, in addition, be subject to:

b) further legal protection for an individual’s rights to be afforded under the Human Rights Act 1998.

c) the Data Protection Act 1998.


Note the key phrase in 8f): "The copyright does not subsist in the information on the certificate, but in the presentation of the information."

This means, e.g., that you can remind your spouse when the kids' birthdays are coming up, even after you've registered the births.

Actually, I think what I've seen as the typical practice here, where say I've has posted some census details (which is actually in a different form, even if it wasn't covered by one of the allowed exceptions), and then maybe I get a pm from *Mint Julep in Weardale* or whomever, and send them an image by regular email, falls under the allowed exceptions - 8d here. I never work on living people, so I don't worry about the privacy issues in 9b/c.

So, to summarize, I think the real issue here is with the sites' T&Cs, and copyright isn't a worry.