RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Ringrose on Friday 17 April 09 17:52 BST (UK)
-
I am not sure whether this is the right board BUT someone has put my tree on Ancestry.About a month ago someone got in touch with me regarding my grandmothers sister. After quite a few e-mails I decided to send him some BMDs and other bits. Much to my surprise he has used my research which costs time and money and put it on Ancestry.I am so annoyed because I would have put it on myself if I had wanted to.
Is there any way this can be removed?I imagine Iam not the on ly one this has happened to. I think I could have been asked first .I have my reasons for my research not to go on Ancestry--its even on a public site so unlike Genes anyone can see it. What a shame people take things for granted --half the fun is getting in touch with people and sharing info privately and iusually I am lucky.
Comments please
Ringrose
-
Hi Ringrose....
If this person had cut and pasted your tree complete with notes and extra detail then that might be poor ettiquette....but if they have have built a tree themselves from information they have found (even if they found that info from contacting you) then some might say that it becomes their tree...
Personally, I would want to verify all the births and marriages etc myself before adding them to my tree in case the person who told me about them had made a mistake...but not everyone is as thorough as me..
If they have included info of you and your living relatives that is VERY poor ettiquette and both Ancestry and Genes ask people not to do it.
Sorry - but once the info is in the other person's head then there is not much you can do to control what they do with it.
Milly
;D
-
I personally have always asked if i could use information "gleaned" off other peoples tree's but too be honest if the information is "given" to me by someone else then i would consider it to be usable in my tree unless asked not too (which has happened) .
I would not use personal stories etc. on a public tree though unless it was written or researched by me.
-
Yes I agree with what you have said. I think I was just shocked and perhaps I am too generous with the information I give. Perhaps I have learnt a lesson
Ringrose
-
Just consider it good karma...... what goes around comes around....maybe you'll be contacted by a distant relative with lots of family photos and letters as a result of this ;D ;D ;D ;D
Milly
-
If I give anyone information I ask them not to put it up on Ancestry or Genes or any other online sites.
Mainly because of all the junk trees and rubbish connections on there. This means I do not have many online contacts, but as I want to prove EVERY link myself then that is fine for me.
Others love putting their trees online. Fair enough. But if they have definitely put YOUR data online in an unsourced way, (as is most of the rubbish on Ancestry), then you should ask the person to remove it, and then ask Ancestry.
BUT if you did not tell the person NOT to put data from you online, I think you have a much weaker case.
-
I was once contacted by a lady on GR who was in high dudgeon and wanted to know who had given me information about a certain relative of hers because she had been researching for years and it had taken her a lot of time and money to get the information.
She soon shut up when I proved I had done the research myself and was happy to give her access to my tree with loads more information than she had, and I didn't want anything for it.
As was previously said here, what goes around, comes around. Anyone can have my information if they ask me. Genealogy is mainly about the thrill of the chase for me and once I have the information, I'm happy to give it away.
-
As was previously said here, what goes around, comes around. Anyone can have my information if they ask me. Genealogy is mainly about the thrill of the chase for me and once I have the information, I'm happy to give it away.
me too :)
-
Hi Ringrose,
I don't have my tree on Genes or Ancestry either and I had a similar experience with a contact who put her tree which included a large amount of research I had given her, on to genes :(
Luckily she is a really nice person and I was able to explain my reasons and she removed it.
I am always happy to help others with research etc but I pass on my own research with caution now and I always explain my reservations about the info going online.
I am so sorry you have had a bad experience. Perhaps you could try and approach the person concerned as they may be quite understanding :-\ Worth a go :)
-
At what point though, does the information become your own? When you have verified it? Bought the certificates?
It's information that is in the public domain (in most cases) so just because you have done the research doesn't mean the information is yours.
-
An upside...
I've never had any hesitation in sharing my research with others. Yes, when very distant relatives incorporate my painstaking research into their own online trees so quickly that it's obvious they're just copying it is annoying. Correct research requires double-checking of the sources of info and that is indeed half the fun that they're missing.
But, having had a computer crash and the loss of a lot of paperwork during a house move, I am now so glad I shared. Picking over various sites I'm finding a lot of my original research in other people's trees - and I can be sure it's mine and therefore OK because they copied everything down to my "comments" on things.
Anne
-
Downside.... when people take your unverified theories on marriages etc mentioned just as possibilities and put them in their tree as fact. Then other people take their info and put it into their tree...and before you know it - next time you go to research that particular event you just come up with lots of people all saying it is a FACT that A married B - referencing each other as a source - when really it all stems from a wild unproven theory of your own....
Which is why I don't mind passing on things I know to be correct but try my best to keep my theories to myself!
Milly ;D ;D
-
Hi All,
Have you contacted the "offender" and asked them to edit their tree to a) indicate they had obtained this info from you or b) make their tree "private" and invite family members to have access to it, including you?
I shared info directly to one of my late aunt's grandsons, including a recent photo of myself outside the home that his late Dad (ie my first cousin) and I had lived in when we were both children. He uploaded it to his ancestry tree. Another first cousin spotted it and phoned me to complain as it was clearly identifying me and she was quite put out. I contacted him, he was all apologies, he had been under the mis-apprehension that his tree was private, and he removed the photo and also made sure his tree was private. All sorted, and mended without much hassles at all.
Cheers MA
-
Downside.... when people take your unverified theories on marriages etc mentioned just as possibilities and put them in their tree as fact. Then other people take their info and put it into their tree...and before you know it - next time you go to research that particular event you just come up with lots of people all saying it is a FACT that A married B - referencing each other as a source - when really it all stems from a wild unproven theory of your own....
Which is why I don't mind passing on things I know to be correct but try my best to keep my theories to myself!
Milly ;D ;D
Me too Milly because have you ever tried to argue with someone who starts off any email with 'I have been researching this family for 15 years....'
It is very hard to persuade some people that they may have got something wrong, something which I always try to be open to ::)
Kerry
-
Umm, emails from people researching a family for 15 years! My Dad researched for perhaps 60 years, and never got past one set of grandparents, but got way past on the other set. I've been at that one set of his grandparents for ummm too long! But long enough to realise that perhaps that couple told a fib or two to their children, as to even if they were formally married! Ah well, takes all types! ::) just wish that my dad's grandparents John and Mary Smith could be found somewheres! MA
-
At what point though, does the information become your own? When you have verified it? Bought the certificates?
It's information that is in the public domain (in most cases) so just because you have done the research doesn't mean the information is yours.
I couldn't agree more. You don't "own" your family tree. It's there for all to discover. If you don't want to share your research, then don't share it. Ancestry don't let casual viewers access the details of living people, and that's where their responsibility ends.
-
There have been a nuber of threads on this subject over the years.
Some years ago someone put my tree on Ancestry. He made a few mistakes. I was a bit annoyed that he hadn't put me down as a contact. A couple of years later I looked again and someone else had taken my tree but I was surprised to find that my Gggrandfather who died in 1851 had risen up and gone to America and married again and fathered several children after his death. Needless to say I don't take other peoples trees as fact and always check. I use them as a guide only.
I share my tree now with anyone who wants it as I don't think my family are very interested. It's up to them to check the details.
I've been checking my husbands family tree which is in a published book and have found a couple of mistakes and a couple of mysteries.
Sylviaann
-
I've been checking my husbands family tree which is in a published book and have found a couple of mistakes and a couple of mysteries.
Just out of interest, is it a Red book? I have one of those.
Lizzie
-
No not a red book. It was produced by a member of the family who lives in the area and could have checked all the parish registers. It was done before freebmd was on the net.
Sylviaann
-
To quote Silviaann, there have been a number of threads on this subject.
The answer is really always the same.
"Your" tree, also belongs to your siblings, your cousins, your parent's siblings, their cousins and their parent's siblings, ad infinitum.......
A tree is just that, a whole family of people who are related by birth or marriage.
Anyone who ever went to a records office or who now has access to a computer, has access to just about any person who was ever born.
I know we can never find the blighters when we want them, but if they were born, someone knew about it and 99.9% of the time it was recorded somewhere.
So a TREE is a tree.
Leonie.
-
Yep, and we are all just twigs on the many branches. We purchase or otherwise acquire records about other twigs on those branches, and here in rootschat we all try to help each other's information as best we can. But we never own the tree, and its up to us to look after the tree as best as we can. And thats Just Moi own opinion!
-
Hi
I have had a relative only by marriage, and the relatioship quite distant, who copied and pasted all of my tree over. At first, I thought "Wow" someone else is researching my ancestors but then after looking into it further, I found that I already had made brief contact with them on GenesReunited and they said that they had a relative who married a great, great, great, great aunty of mine.
She even copied and pasted my living relatives, including me, onto her tree.
Ben
-
I couldn't agree more. You don't "own" your family tree. It's there for all to discover. If you don't want to share your research, then don't share it. Ancestry don't let casual viewers access the details of living people, and that's where their responsibility ends.
Nick29 - that's not exactly the case. Recently I did a casual search without signing in and found a living relative on Ancestry's One World Tree, so I checked their rules "OneWorldTree never shares information about living family members born after 1930." My relative was born before 1931.
(I sent an e-mail to the tree "owners" and they were apologetic and happy to remove my relative's details).
-
Hi Ben,
So now you are on someone else's tree!, but I hope you have contacted that person and asked them to make private anyone who is living! If you have already done that and your name is still displayed, you should contact the organisation directly - its just not permitted, identity theft and personal privacy and the privacy of partners, ex-partners, etc, are just some of the issues that come to mind at this minute. I am aware of one of my immediate family members who discovered that someone had entered the 2 year old child of an inlaw, and had not renewed the subscription so was not answering messages! That 2 year old is obviously not old enough to give consent to the details that were displayed. It was fixed with an international phone call from Australia to someone in the UK.
Cheers Moi.
-
i always ask if i can ad someone to my tree but i just use the line to add them to my tree i dont copy the whole tree wheres the fun in that i have had people copying a lot of my info so now i tend to just put year of birth rather than exact date i have a tree on an old pc which is not connected to net which i put exact dates as i do buy a lot of certs people with thousands on there tree i dont look at someone let me view there tree 49 thousand that went straight into delete box besides how do you know what is correct info i have 800 on my tree most of that i have found myself with help from people on here and genes and britgen we help each other but sad some just help themselves david
-
As has already been stated my tree is shared with other descendants of my forebears and so I have learnt to live with the fact that my tree is not exclusively my tree.
However what bothers me is when you share with someone your theories that are not yet proved and they put that up on an online tree for others to copy. Still if they don't put my name to it, I can't be blamed! ::)
As I have found to my cost though every tree that I come across is not always correct and some mistakes can be populated amongst fellow researchers quite easily and readily. They are all too willing to perpetuate the mistakes without researching themselves and then can get quite hot under the collar if you try to disprove their tree ::)
Kerry
-
This topic comes up so often maybe it deserves its own board on RC. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much new to say about it.
-
At what point do you own your tree?
You own your own wording. If the person has copied your exact text- your exact wording then that can be fought against. You don't own the people and dates in your tree, but you do own your own wording/written work
Kind Regards
-
Umm, Cell,
In different countries there are variations on copyright laws, so there are instances where you do NOT own your own words, but to publish your own words, I think you need to know the applicable copyright law - for example in some instances when you put information online in a genie tree database (whether "private" or "Public") I think you may be giving ownership of your words to the owner of that domain, I think its in the fine print somewhere, but its one of the reasons for so many people getting upset about privacy issues and identity theft and the like, not just the matter of sharing genie trees without the "express" permission/"informed" consent etc of the living people mentioned in them.
I am in NSW Australia, and I understand that our copyright laws are under review at the present time, to take into consideration various aspects of ownership for professional and amateur works in the electronic media.
I do understand that this topic has been canvassed on other rootschat threads and perhaps will be a topic in future threads too.
Just an opinion, I have no legal qualifications, just age and experience!
Cheers Moi.
-
On copyright.
As an individual, it's almost impossible to excersise your rights, (from personal experience) unless you have limitless time and funds.
As for anything in the electronic media, in the imortal words of our very own Bob, " If it's not something you'd want to see on the side of a London bus, DON'T put it on the internet." (This may not be an exact quote, my memory aint what it used to be, but it's close.)
Leonie.
-
Ther is a solution: A small facility called GEDMARK which indelibly marks any trees or information that you post. I have it, but have not yet had occassion to use it. I would suggest anyone experiencing "copyright problems" give it a try, if it works it will certainly flummox the pirates!
-
Hi moi
quote button is working sorry so I had to copy and paste" Umm, Cell,
In different countries there are variations on copyright laws, so there are instances where you do NOT own your own words, but to publish your own words, I think you need to know the applicable copyright law - for example in some instances when you put information online in a genie tree database (whether "private" or "Public") I think you may be giving ownership of your words to the owner of that domain, I think its in the fine print somewhere, but its one of the reasons for so many people getting upset about privacy issues and identity theft and the like, not just the matter of sharing genie trees without the "express" permission/"informed" consent etc of the living people mentioned in them.
I am in NSW Australia, and I understand that our copyright laws are under review at the present time, to take into consideration various aspects of ownership for professional and amateur works in the electronic media.
I do understand that this topic has been canvassed on other rootschat threads and perhaps will be a topic in future threads too.
Just an opinion, I have no legal qualifications, just age and experience!
Cheers Moi.
"
I'm in Queensland and have dealt with copyright solicitors (p.s they cost a bomb ! I was out of pocket for a few $$$- but they were worth it)_, nothing to do with genealogy. It was to do with a design on a product ( won't go into it - but basically you do own anything you have written, and designed - you do not need to take out a copyright here in Australia)
I think you will find most civilized countries have the same laws ( allthough they differ a wee bit) - If you Can prove it is your work, it does not matter it is on so and so site - it still belongs to you .
Kind regards:)
-
I took my own data off the 'net years ago because of a similar experience. The person concerned started a postal list and shared everything that anyone had sent her. I am still getting contacted by people who have my INCORRECT data which I have long since corrected. I do not trust any of the data she sent me, and wonder whether the other people involved were similarly irritated about it all.
In any case, the research is half the fun and I have little desire to be handed it all on a plate. Unless someone has inside information on those mysterious illegitimacies now ;)
April
-
I thought that in the UK at least, a copyright only lasted 50 years, i.e. a photo taken in 1951 would now be free of copyright, yet at least one British Museum still claims copyright over such items. What is the position please?
-
Crown copyright of published literary, dramatic or musical works expires 50 years after publication. Crown copyright of unpublished works expires the later of 125 years from creation or 31 December 2039. The latter provision is a transitional measure from the 1988 Act because that Act abolished perpetual copyright protection for unpublished materials. It is 50 years after the commencement of the 1988 Act plus the usual for expiration extension to the end of the year.
Crown copyright for artistic works is more complicated and is entangled in special treatment given to engravings and photographs. For artistic works made after the commencement of the 1988 Act, the rule is the same as for other works, 50 years after publication or 125 years after creation. An engraving created before commencement and published after commencement is in copyright for 50 years after publication. Copyright of an engraving created before commencement and unpublished expires at the end of 2039. Photographs taken between 1 June 1957 and commencement and published expire 50 years after publication. Photographs taken between 1 June 1957 and commencement and unpublished expire at the end of 2039. Photographs taken before 1 June 1957 expire 50 years after creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom
-
I'm in Queensland and have dealt with copyright solicitors (p.s they cost a bomb ! I was out of pocket for a few $$$- but they were worth it)_, nothing to do with genealogy. It was to do with a design on a product ( won't go into it - but basically you do own anything you have written, and designed - you do not need to take out a copyright here in Australia)
I think you will find most civilized countries have the same laws ( allthough they differ a wee bit) - If you Can prove it is your work, it does not matter it is on so and so site - it still belongs to you
The majority of data within a tree is not subject to copyright as it consists of public available material but additional information may be. For example if you added a story about the life of great uncle Charlie who ran away to sea then that story would be your copyright because you wrote it. The problem is if someone did breach your copyright what do you do about it?
Andy
-
Thanks Nick, So as I understand it then, a photograph taken in 1951 by the British Railways Publicity department is now free of copyright restrictions. Am I correct?
-
It does look that way, but I'm not an expert in that area - I just cut & pasted what Wikipedia said. Since British Railways don't actually exist any more, I'd assume that you're pretty safe, but please don't take that as anything else than a guess.
-
I think it would depend on whether British Railways material was counted as "Crown Copyright" or not. (Crown Copyright following different rules). If it is then yes that would seem right - but if not - and it is just ordinary copyright then it would follow ordinary rules - and be either 70 years from creation or 70 years from being made public...I think... there are some great flow charts on the bottom of that wikipedia link which show the rules very simply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom
Milly
;D
-
Thanks for that Milly, I will check some of their photos and proceed accordingly.
-
And don't forget that regardless of copyright - if you access something from an archive, collection, museum or anywhere that they may have "access" rules of their own.... You may sign an agreement not to use material other than for personal use even though technically it is out of copyright.
Milly
;D
-
Thanks for that very timely reminder Milly.
-
Another thing to think about;
People often leave the rights to their material to their heirs.
Plus; when it comes to music, art and other money making material, speculators haunt patent offices waiting for the copyright to end, then purchase that copyright.
This applies especially to music.
Leonie.
-
In the UK, copyright on published music expires after 50 years, so you can't leave the rights to anyone unless you die young.
Cliff Richard is now trying to persuade the government to change the law, because much of his early music is now over 50 years old, and he is losing royalties on it.
This is only in the UK, though. The US Copyright Extension Act means that the song "Happy Birthday To You" written in 1898, will carry on attracting royalties until 2030 in th US, and 2016 in the EU.
-
I think the Copyright will now be extended to 70 years.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0661
Sandy
-
As a holiday home provider for the former PM Cliff Richard will probably succeed!
-
I'm in Queensland and have dealt with copyright solicitors (p.s they cost a bomb ! I was out of pocket for a few $$$- but they were worth it)_, nothing to do with genealogy. It was to do with a design on a product ( won't go into it - but basically you do own anything you have written, and designed - you do not need to take out a copyright here in Australia)
The problem is if someone did breach your copyright what do you do about it?
Andy
/quote]
...................................................................................
You get a copyright solicitor ( who only deal with copright issues and nothing else) . there is good one here in Brisbane which I have used . You can stop the person immediately. If they do not abide by the letter, you can sue in a court of law ( please beware this does cost heaps - you pay for the judge, the court fees - if you win that person will have to pay all your out of pocket costs of course).
There is not much that you can do about it if you are not prepared to take it to court and pay for the expenses of initially taking it to court, plus the huge expense of the solicitors
Kind regards:)
-
As usual stay out of the way of solicitors at all costs if at all possible.
-
I don't usually bother to look at the trees on Ancestry, but did yesterday and found one where the person had his grandmother as one of my ancestors. He had the correct parents for my ancestor but apart from that his information was wrong. He had the wrong grandparents for my ancestor and the wrong husband.
I wrote to him thinking he wouldn't reply and that even if he did, he'd be annoyed that I'd pointed out that basically his whole tree apart from his parents was wrong. Instead, this morning I received an lovely e-mail from him thanking me for giving him the information and saying
The information I have picked up in my tree has been from accepting links from other trees and I was aware that there were some discrepancies but couldn't figure out what the actual facts were.
I've written back stating that as my ancestor and his grandmother had a very common Lincolnshire name, that he just needs to research further and find out his grandmother's real background.
It seems that even WDYTYA programmes have not shown people that they need to get BMD certs and follow the various census etc. before they can sort out their trees.
Lizzie
-
I sent some family history information to a lady who was running a newsletter connected to my mother's family. She didn't read or use it carefully, and lo and behold, according to her I had a half brother, 20 years older than me who was not my half brother at all, and whose son was as surprised as I was at the suposed relationship. Now corrected with apologies.