RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: bridgy on Thursday 07 May 09 08:30 BST (UK)
-
>:(
Be very careful when giving access to your tree. I was contacted by someone on another FH site (paid for I might add) asking about a name in my tree. As it turned out we did have a connection so I gave him access to my tree. Being busy at the time, I didn't check his tree very closely - that was my BIG mistake!! When time permitted, I checked his tree more closely and discovered that there was a very, very remote connection so contacted him and told him that I was withdrawing my access. He wasn't pleased but accepted. Have just done a google search for one of my brick wall ancestors and what did I find?
Oodles of info from my tree published on his public viewing site!!
To say that I'm annoyed would be an understatement because I did not give him permission to use this information and neither did he ask for it. One thing that I can smile about is that I've since found out that some of the information was wrong and he's copied it to his tree.
Even though I've read warnings of this kind before I fell into the trap so, if you're new to FH and put your tree onto any site - whether paid for or not - be very careful to whom you give access. I'm going to contact this bloke and ask him, politely, to remove my information. Can't do much about it if he won't but at least he will know my feelings.
Regards
Jan
-
I have had a similar experience, bridgy, except that mine was a public tree, so fair game. However, I was shaken to see my family photos and loads of information on someone else's tree. I e-mailed the person asking about the connection, no reply, and got so cross because he/she would not respond to further e-mails. Eventually, I asked him/her to remove the information/photos, which has not been done. Looking at his/her tree, I think that it is just name grabbing.....and, like you, I see that there is now wrong information....ha!
-
We get posts like this every other week on this forum. If the person has posted detailed information (i.e. DOB, place of birth) on living people then you can demand that they remove it. However, information about those who have passed away is in the public domain, and there is nothing you can do about it. The answer to this has also been posted many times...... if you don't want others using your data, then don't share it.
-
If the person has posted detailed information (i.e. DOB, place of birth) on living people then you can demand that they remove it.
You can ask (or demand) it to be removed but if they don't there is very little you can do unless the website its uploaded to has a policy regarding living people.
Coincidently I happened to switch on the radio yesterday and the Privacy Commissioner (here in Australia) was being interviewed. Unfortunately I missed most of it but from what little I heard it would appear that the Act applies to companies, organisations etc but not individuals. I must see if there is a trnscript of the interview somewhere.
One thing I did see when doing a bit of googling about the act is that if an organisation etc has permission to publish information then they should get that permission in writing. I wonder how many people who have living relatives on their tree actually have it in writing.
Andy
-
Same happened to me. I was contacted by a very distant relation of the half brother of an uncle by marriage who had an unusual name! We exchanged some info and then I discovered he had copied my tree and joined it with his. Most of the people on there, especially those on my fathers side have no relationship to him at all. He claims to have over 10,000 names on his tree so is obviously just a name grabber. I was cross at first but then realised it was partly my fault for allowing him access. It's his loss as he doesn't have the satisfaction of researching all the individuals and most of the names must be meaningless to him. The only thing that still annoys me is that his tree keeps appearing as hints on An****ry!!
Jan
-
This is a fairly common experience and I think part of the problem is allowing someone access to your tree also implies permission for them to use (or copy) it.
I know it's frustrating, particularly if living rellies are included, but other than asking them to remove/edit such information there's little that can be done about it ::)
-
Using information in a tree is one thing but using your photos is quite another. That is absolutely outrageous and I think that you have every right to ask that they be removed :o :o
Milly
-
I also had someone use a photo I had uploaded onto my tree of my GG Grandmother on their tree.
They had also taken a gaol photo of my GGG Uncle that I had gotten from the NSW Archives and put that up also.
I was so shocked to see my photo`s in someone elses tree that I forgot to see how this person was suppose to be connected to my family tree.
Must go back and have a look. ::)
I don`t mind sharing information at all but this person could have asked my permission to use my photo`s.
Johngirl
-
This is a fairly common experience and I think part of the problem is allowing someone access to your tree also implies permission for them to use (or copy) it.
I know it's frustrating, particularly if living rellies are included, but other than asking them to remove/edit such information there's little that can be done about it ::)
Well actually there is. The Ancestry Submission Agreement (http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/pt/MultimediaSubmissionAgreement.aspx) clearly states that you should not use other people's photos without their consent. Having said that, Ancestry make it very easy to steal other people's photos ! ::)
I have used other people's photos in my tree, and others have used mine in theirs, but I should add that these people are all people that I have had contact with in the past, so they are not complete strangers. I always acknowledge and thank the original posters when I do this. If anyone objected (and nobody has yet), then I would immediately remove the photos. Again, the bottom line is - if you don't want to share, don't make it public.
-
As far as I can see, you either put your tree on GR, Ancestry etc and assume it is fair game for people to take/add to their own trees, or just do not put the tree online at all. Another option is to put it up on your own site, in your own format, with your own security controls.
Personally I cannot see why people use Ancestry if they do not want the data taken. It is obvious that it is a hotbed of name grabbers; also that a huge amount of the tree data is rubbish and/or unsourced so useless to serious family historians. I just need to see the odd distant relatives of ours who are on various trees. 90% wrong! They have looked at one census, and made assumptions. My husband has a rare surname, and it was often mistranscribed - but 90% Ancestry trees with this name have ignored this possibility and not searched properly.
I would never post photos there - why would you, if you do not want them to be in the public domain?
I keep all my info on my own computer. I have had three cousins of various degrees contact me via rootschat - I am happy to send data I have on the relevant rellies. But really I want to prove all of myself, with proper souces.
-
Personally I cannot see why people use Ancestry if they do not want the data taken. It is obvious that it is a hotbed of name grabbers; also that a huge amount of the tree data is rubbish and/or unsourced so useless to serious family historians.
I'm sure that serious family historians thoroughly check data, no matter what the source. Even "official" documents can be wrong.
It's perfectly possible to use Ancestry without storing a tree at all, or you can make your tree private if you want. It is still the best online resource for those searching both UK and American records IMHO.
-
Of course I use Ancestry for data, as they still have the most databases, even although they seem intent on hiding some of them!
I meant I could not understand using Ancestry to store trees, photos etc!
Sorry if I was unclear.
-
Hosting photos on the Ancestry site is good if (like me) you have a lot of family members interested in the tree. However, these people are viewing by invitation only :)
-
Hi Jan
I'm new to FH and have used info from other people's trees as a starting point for some of my research (although I prefer to confirm things myself where I can). I had assumed that if people left their trees open to the public (or gave you access) it was ok........ this is the first time I've heard it suggested it might not be. It might well be a dim question, but why would you be unhappy about people using info from your tree (I understand if it is about living relatives)?
Thanks
Maisie
-
I too was caught out by the same thing about 18 months ago when contacted by someone with a very remote link. Next thing I knew...large segments of my tree were posted on their public site amongst the other 18,000 or so relatives they'd amassed. As I'd unwittingly given them access via Genes there was nothing I could do really.
Most frustrating. However, at the time I was treating the tree in question as something as a 'framework tree' storing posibles on it etc, so their tree now contains many dates etc which I have now discounted. Good. ;D They're clearly name-grabbers as mentioned earlier on and if that's all they're interested in, then whatever... ::)
They've now passed those segment on to another mass-collector, so there's a load of incorrect data out there to mislead others...
I now just update my private tree as and when, and generally just impart the relvevant peices of information to those who I establish a genuine link with.
-
Hi Jan
I'm new to FH and have used info from other people's trees as a starting point for some of my research (although I prefer to confirm things myself where I can). I had assumed that if people left their trees open to the public (or gave you access) it was ok........ this is the first time I've heard it suggested it might not be. It might well be a dim question, but why would you be unhappy about people using info from your tree (I understand if it is about living relatives)?
Thanks
Maisie
Good question...... some people seem to think that they have some sort of copyright over their ancestors ::)
-
I got fed up with my information and certificate information appearing on trees were I can see no connections,in particular my dads info so I put a bogus photo on and lo and behold it now appears on about 7 different trees.The photo is from my sister inlaws tree and absolutely no connection to mine.
It certainly made me feel better.
Isy ;D ;D
-
I agree with Issy. I have no objection to people using information from my tree where it is relivant and there is a connection, but I do object when they copy people who are no relation to them at all eg my father's sister-in-law's brother's wife etc. I can't see what satisfaction it gives them apart from being able to boast about how many people they have on their tree. I'm happy with my smaller tree where I know I have researched and confirmed everyone and and certain they are a part of my family. This is why I started this hobby, to find out where I came from, not to see how many names I could collect.
Jan
-
I agree with Issy. I have no objection to people using information from my tree where it is relivant and there is a connection, but I do object when they copy people who are no relation to them at all eg my father's sister-in-law's brother's wife etc. I can't see what satisfaction it gives them apart from being able to boast about how many people they have on their tree. I'm happy with my smaller tree where I know I have researched and confirmed everyone and and certain they are a part of my family. This is why I started this hobby, to find out where I came from, not to see how many names I could collect.
Jan
For the life of me, I can't understand why people are so bothered by this. Why should it bother you at all what gives genealogical satisfaction to someone else? If someone enjoys collecting names, so what?
I am presently communicating with someone about the daughter of my ggg uncle's wife's brother. She is unrelated to me [biologically speaking] but she is buried in the grave site of my family and so she is someone of interest to me even though she is not a blood relative. I would like to know how it is that she came to live withh my ggg uncle's wife as an unofficially adopted daughter.
-
It's a hobby and it's supposed to be fun...if you don't want your info copying then don't put it out there...you only have to google a name and you can grab loads of info off the net so it cuts both ways...I have taken photos from a well known site of people who are in my tree...if it's in the public domain then people will take it if it's relevant to them..look how many photos are put up on the restoration board...who knows where they might end up ???
The pay off for me has been the info and knowledge I've gained and the friends I've made from sharing.
Just my take on the matter...for what it's worth
Carol
-
I agree with you Carol,but when you havent put it up there,and I hadnt,thats what annoys some people,I know its a fun hobby its also very expensive when done properly.
Isy ::)
-
A couple of years ago someone very distantly related to me through a marriage in the early 1800's took data without asking from my own family history website of every person linked through that one marriage which amounted to half of my complete family tree, 25 years of research.
I wouldn't have minded so much if she'd been related more closely or had just copied the data for the line she was interested in but she saw fit to copy the line down to the present day and then back up all the other branches on the other side of my tree as well.
What really annoyed me is that she copied two photos from my website, people not related to her and put the whole tree and the photos on public access on ancestry. The original photos may be out of copyright but the scanned images I produced of the said photos are copyrighted to me and ancestry made her remove them when I pointed this out and complained to them.
-
There is a program called GEDMARK which enables publishers to ensure that their work is permanently and indelibly marked as to its original origins.
-
Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.
-
I agree with you on that one...I sent some photos of gravestones taken in St. John's Nfld that I learned were not my family....I posted them to a fellow researcher who requested copies and never had a reply..I know they recieved them as it was discussed online.
Bad Manners are unsual in this game thankfully ::)
Carol
-
I too had a public tree on Ancestry which worked well and attracted the many cousins that I now treasure as email contacts all over the world.
One day I found that matches were being thrown up for a private tree, for about 20 of my relatives across lines. I was quite excited, expecting to knock down some brick walls, so I contacted the owner and got no answer on any query. On further investigation I found all my photos and the stories I'd written on various relatives were copied as well. The thing is, as much as you know that people can copy the contents of a public tree, you can't be prepared for the kick in the gut you feel when that happens and despite contacting thems everal times, there is no reply or acknowledment. My tree is now private and like others corrections made which won't be shared. This person also has 12,000 names in his tree.
Last week however I found my photos on another tree, this time with 14,000 or so in it. I emailed, expecting no reply and actually got one. This person explained that my relatives were not in his direct line, but came up in an indirect way. He said he likes to collect everything he finds a match for to help out any others that might be searching. He asked me if I would mind checking that what he had was accurate, which I did and he made the corrections I suggested. Not my preferred way of doing my tree, but I was immediately more at ease because he had the courtesy to reply and explain.
At the end of the day, any way that makes sure our relatives are remembered and their details accessible for those searching for their ancestors is a good thing, no matter what!
Jill
-
I found all my photos and the stories I'd written on various relatives were copied as well.
I believe that stories written by you are your copyright and if you can't contact the person who has put them online, contact the website. This may also apply to photos you have uploaded.
Andy
-
There has recently been another thread on Rootschat regarding copyright, which is well worth reading. I think it was in the Common Room.
-
Stories and photos are your copyright, and you can demand that Ancestry remove it, but the actual tree information isn't. As so many people have said before..... If you don't want to share it, don't post it.
-
But when sites have been asked to remove copyright material have they complied, or is this just another theoretical right for most of us only enforceable by thos who can afford expensive lawyers?
-
It's hard to generalise when you don't specify which sites you are talking about. Ancestry will remove things which contravene their posting policy, which includes copyright issues. Other solutions are often required for other sites. If the person administering a site won't play ball, it's not too hard to find out who actually does the hosting of the site, and put pressure on them. When you buy web space on a web host, there's usually strict rules in place to protect the host from copyright and libel issues.
-
Fair enough Nick, My reply was widely based in an attempt to include a variety of sites.
-
Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.
Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.
Thanks very much
Maisie
-
It annoys me intensely when people copy material without acknowledging the source, especially photos. Some of it can be chased up via copyright but probably not all. Stories/biographical information that you have written certainly are copyright, but simple birth/marriage/death places/dates are probably to be regarded as information in the public domain, no matter how long it took you to find them, and therefore not copyright. I am not sure that you can claim copyright on pictures on which the copyright has expired simply by scanning them and putting them on line or printing them (at least in the UK), what part of that is your intellectual property? As has been said several times, if you don't want it copied don't put it on-line.
Robert
Masie, just picked up your message as I was posting. The old scientific definition, with a bit of tongue in cheek, was that copying from one source was plagiarism while copying from two or more sources was original research - provided you cited your sources!
-
Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.
Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.
Thanks very much
Maisie
I think that depends on whether you're talking ethically or legally.
Legally speaking, details about the people themselves which appear on censuses and published BMD records are in the public domain, and you can use them, but not images of records like censuses, which could well be copyright. This also applies to images of BMD certificates, which are Crown Copyright. If you see a story or a photo on a web site, you should obtain the copyright owner's permission before posting them on your tree or web site. Note that copyright laws can vary from country to country, so it is a bit of a minefield. In the UK, photographs are copyright to the owner for 50 years.
Speaking ethically, I think that if you take a lot of information from someone else, even if it is in the public domain, then you should at least acknowledge and thank them for their efforts.
-
Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.
Thanks very much
Maisie
Hi
Actually who you include in your tree is entirely up to yourself. If someone doesn't wish you to include their relatives then they shouldn't give you that information. There is no right or wrong way to tackle genealogy, its entirely up to you.
Whilst there is nothing to stop you including living people, apart from the fact that on some websites you need their permission, many people do feel that you shouldn't.
Andy
-
There is a program called GEDMARK which enables publishers to ensure that their work is permanently and indelibly marked as to its original origins.
I was interested to see how GEDMARK would achieve this, so I visited their website to find out. As I understand it, it works by adding a new source (the publisher of the tree) as a source for all individuals in a GEDCOM file. While this is a useful feature, in that it encourages correct attribution, it isn't actually permanent or indelible. If someone wanted to steal a tree marked with GEDMARK and claim it was their own work, it would be relatively easy to remove the source.
-
I think if you take information from an online source you should have the courtesy to include the source in your tree if you cannot contact them for their permission..I would never claim other peoples' work as my own as I wouldn't like it to be done to me...but we must all be mindful of the fact that if we put it out there...it's open to abuse..a fact we amatuer genealogists have to accept...and if you do put family photos online...just include a thumbnail shot.
Carol
-
For the life of me, I can't understand why people are so bothered by this. Why should it bother you at all what gives genealogical satisfaction to someone else? If someone enjoys collecting names, so what?
Hear hear.
I am presently communicating with someone about the daughter of my ggg uncle's wife's brother. She is unrelated to me [biologically speaking] but she is buried in the grave site of my family and so she is someone of interest to me even though she is not a blood relative. I would like to know how it is that she came to live withh my ggg uncle's wife as an unofficially adopted daughter.
A good example. And distant family connections can sometimes prove to be valuable clues at some other point in research, so it can be worth keeping notes of them.
-
I got GEDMARK from a fairly recent cover disk with Family History Monthly. My understanding was that it protected your work by indelibly adding unremoveable information as to its source.If I am wrong, would it be technically feasible to produce such a program at a reasonable cost?
-
I got GEDMARK from a fairly recent cover disk with Family History Monthly. My understanding was that it protected your work by indelibly adding unremoveable information as to its source.If I am wrong, would it be technically feasible to produce such a program at a reasonable cost?
Since a GEDCOM file is a text file, there is nothing you can do to it which can't easily be removed with a "Search and Replace" tool.
Even the authors of the program admit that if you go the forum on their site.
http://progeny.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=221
-
Thanks Nick, so that's it then, really we are legless when it comes to defending ourselves against plagiarism etc.
-
Surely it is all down to individual risk assessment regarding putting data on the internet?
If it is out there, then people will nick it and possibly use it in ways you do not like. But really, there is not much to be done about it in many cases.
If you find the thought of other people "adopting" your relatives and their photos etc abhorrent, then just do not put your tree on the internet.
If you think the contacts are worth it the risk, then you have to put up with the data being purloined in ways you cannot control.
I do not have my tree(s) on the web, but might if I ever get them organised enough. But it would be on my own website, not Ancestry or Genes.
The thing that irks me is that newbies start off an Ancestry tree, without realising the full implications. I did 5 years ago but soon got the online tree offline.
But I am not all that interested in finding long lost cousins, although three have turned up via rootschat and good old snail mail.
-
The thing that irks me is that newbies start off an Ancestry tree, without realising the full implications. I did 5 years ago but soon got the online tree offline.
Ahh, but can I still look at it ?
"The Wayback Machine" (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) ;D
I've just been looking at RootsChat pages from 2003 ! ;) :)
-
Every time I post it seems that Nick (who I often agree with) and one other rooter HAVE to post something to show they are better/more net savvy/more generally wonderful than me.
Yes Nick, I know about that site. You are much cleverer and more wonderful than I.
Goodbye Rootschat. For a while, anyway
-
I have been reading this topic with interest about people stealing from another persons tree.I don't know anything about putting trees on the net.Because its something i would never do.Isn't it possible to put watermarks on photos that you put on a tree? this is my favorite website for little things if i want them.They have a photo and text/watermark you can download free
http://www.freesoftware4all.co.uk/graphics_misc.htm
Celia
-
I too have had this sort of thing happen and am now very wary. However it is worth considering that when a tree has thousands of names on it, it is very difficult to navigate so the likelihood of anyone making sense of the data is fairly small.
jana
-
Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.
Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.
Thanks very much
Maisie
I think that depends on whether you're talking ethically or legally.
Legally speaking, details about the people themselves which appear on censuses and published BMD records are in the public domain, and you can use them, but not images of records like censuses, which could well be copyright. This also applies to images of BMD certificates, which are Crown Copyright. If you see a story or a photo on a web site, you should obtain the copyright owner's permission before posting them on your tree or web site. Note that copyright laws can vary from country to country, so it is a bit of a minefield. In the UK, photographs are copyright to the owner for 50 years.
Speaking ethically, I think that if you take a lot of information from someone else, even if it is in the public domain, then you should at least acknowledge and thank them for their efforts.
Not quite as clear cut as you think Nick.
In Europe we have database right which gives protection to a collection of facts for 15 years.
This can mean that taking even two facts from a site may be unlawful.
If the site owner would prosecute is another question but ethically nothing should be taken from any website until permission has been granted.
Cheers
Guy
-
Every time I post it seems that Nick (who I often agree with) and one other rooter HAVE to post something to show they are better/more net savvy/more generally wonderful than me.
Yes Nick, I know about that site. You are much cleverer and more wonderful than I.
Goodbye Rootschat. For a while, anyway
Oh, I'm sorry ! It was only meant in jest :)
-
Quite right Guy, Perhaps if the onus to prosecute was with the CPS on receipt of a complaint it might make things happen. I think they are too often reluctant to prosecute, but I believe it would only take one successful prosecution with exemplary punishment of the offender to sort the problem out for the foreseeable future. I thought I had an answer with GEDMARK but it seems this can be circumvented.
-
When I first started on another site I made contact with several people who had information about my family and I readily allowed them to see my tree (as I was seeing their's), and when some of the things correlated I asked them if I could put it on my tree, (some even sent copies of certificates) but after a while one particular person seemed to have 96 matches with my tree and so they should! They had put all the particulars of my side of the family right down to a mis-spelling of a name.
I just fill in my own private tree now and haven't put anything onto the other for ages and when it is time to renew - no more!
Bev
-
I have no problem with people using my info providing they're willing to share theirs too. I've been in contact with lovely people who have sent me photos and other info, I always ask if I can add their info to my tree and is it ok if I pass it along to others, its just common courtesy. What I do object to is people using your info and making out that its their own >:( and not sharing what they have. We all know how expensive and time-consuming genealogy is and an acknowledgement from people that have used your info would go a long way.
-
I've made this comment on other threads where this has been discussed, but I make no apology for repeating it.....
None of us could have a family tree at all, if it were not for work done by lots of other people (often unpaid).
So, your family tree is not all your own work.
If we all let one bad experience make us withdraw our knowledge from the public domain, then what's the point of sites like GR and Ancestry ?
I've recently had to pull my tree out of public view, because of a legal action that I'm taking over an inheritance, but I feel very guilty about it, when I see all the information that others are happy to share with me.