RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: viddavid on Sunday 07 June 15 11:43 BST (UK)
-
Thought this might amuse you. ;D I had a public tree that I made private years ago. I was just looking through some old photographs of my great grandfather when I noticed they had been added to over twenty trees on Ancestry. All unrelated. On one tree he is depicted as William Wilson born 1620....over two hundred years before photography. Unless they meant born twenty past four.... ::)
Moderator Comment: Topic continues from: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=657263.0)
-
Ha ha! It would make you a bit ancient, too, wouldn't it? :o Seriously, though, the rubbish that some people post on their trees makes you wonder about the human condition, doesn't it? I mean, we all make mistakes, but.......?????
-
Not only on Ancestry does this occur, I had my complete tree copied word for word from the Genes site, the thing is I had made a big error and it was only when I corrected it I noticed the copying. Not only did he put it on his tree he also put it online under the family name as his work, his still has the error - shame.
-
Thought this might amuse you. ;D I had a public tree that I made private years ago. I was just looking through some old photographs of my great grandfather when I noticed they had been added to over twenty trees on Ancestry. All unrelated. On one tree he is depicted as William Wilson born 1620....over two hundred years before photography. Unless they meant born twenty past four.... ::)
Just found another one dated 1575-1615 :o
-
Not only on Ancestry does this occur, I had my complete tree copied word for word from the Genes site, the thing is I had made a big error and it was only when I corrected it I noticed the copying. Not only did he put it on his tree he also put it online under the family name as his work, his still has the error - shame.
Ok ok I'll get round to fixing it. ;D
I must admit, like most, that when I found this wonderful thing called the internet , I figured I could let other people do my work for me. Then I started to think about what I was actually putting down. I had some time away from the net and also some free time to peruse the records of my dads cousin who had done some marvellous work over 25 years.
Being kind of particular I checked everything I did , using his info as a road map. I found , mostly , his info was good and solid apart from 1 or 2 items. But that was ok because it meant I wasn't being lazy.
Coming back to the net I found Ancestry , I found Genes and I found other pages dedicated to family name gathering and I was in heaven. Once again someone had done all the work for me. Except this time I was battle hardened and understanding more that the info should not be treated as gospel but as a road map or guide to a direction I should explore.
It was when I found Rootschat that I was lucky enough to break a wall that had even defeated my dads cousin and let me go back a little further. I was contacted by someone who had wills and information that conclusively tied everything up. The only thing I was asked was to not place the information in a public forum. I have , and will , respected that wish.
I also say thank you
So I can understand that having a philosophy of sharing can help someone crash through walls...and it is something I have tried to maintain. But. My tree on Ancestry is currently on private , and will be until 2017 , as I have a project that I am doing that is close to my heart.
After 2017 when it is ready then I will change my tree to public. I guess its also about presenting something that is as complete as it can be, with all the bells and whistles etc.
I have not had anyone contact me for information but I will welcome it and as a previous post alluded I will give direction to where I found it. If they truly want it they will find it :)
I also think I promised myself I wouldn't respond to anymore of these threads ( maybe I can slip in the caveat that it was created before I made my vow)
-
"After 2017 when it is ready then I will change my tree to public. I guess its also about presenting something that is as complete as it can be, with all the bells and whistles etc."
Then, in July 2017, once my family tree is openly published, one hundred plus persons will take my information and add a multitude of data based on spurious information to it, thus rendering my original work worthless to a substantial degree. They, then having done that, will then present that work to the public, and others will follow the same route, adding more spurious data to that, ad infinitum. By 2020 I will be directly related to 93.48% of the world's population, and everyone will be happy, well maybe not everyone!!
Regards
Malky
-
I have my tree on public, I like to share my info, and I dont mind if someone actually does copy one of my photos, my 2xgreat uncle's gravestone I uploaded as his photo on his entry in my tree and someone else borrowed it. I dont mind that as they are probably related and have used my tree for inspiration. If I have my tree on Private I feel I am not sharing info.
-
I have a public tree and have just been going through it. Someone has copied a birth record for my 3x gt uncle and despite the record giving parents as John and Jane, has been attached to parents William and Rose. Rose, however, was a 'supermum' giving birth to him at 82! :o
-
I dont mind that as they are probably related and have used my tree for inspiration. If I have my tree on Private I feel I am not sharing info.
Have you contacted them to find out if your assumption is correct though? If you have your tree as private you can still share your information with others, they just need to contact you to say how they are connected.
-
I know that tree information on Ancestry being purloined has been frequently discussed on here before,
and I understand that having a tree on Public Tree setting leaves us all wide open to our research being copied willy-nilly.
But since becoming a member 6 years ago I have always had my tree on Private setting. If I ever make contact with anyone showing a link with my ancestors, I always ensure they have a strong and relevant link to my family before inviting them to view my tree, share any family photos, but always request that those photos are not included on any public trees. Nearly everyone I've been in contact with has been happy to agree.
Today (and for the third time in about as many years), Ancestry has shown that one of my photos has been copied to a public tree belonging to someone I have had no contact with. After this had happened before, I contacted the people concerned and they said they were able to access the photos.
I added a note underneath my photos, politely requesting that none were to be copied without my permission, but it has happened again. I have contacted Ancestry asking for an explanation, and await their reply.
Surely if a tree is on Private Setting, others shouldn't be able to access and copy them?
Has this happened to anyone else?
You could add a large watermark accross your private photos on ancestry. That way if anyone wants to copy them, they will have to get them with the watermark on the photo. It might put a few people off taking them.
Please see attached pic.
-
HEY thats my 4x great grandfather, where did you get that from >:( ;D
-
HEY thats my 4x great grandfather, where did you get that from >:( ;D
What! thats a picture of my great uncle "Peter Chimpus Simian" the 3rd :)
-
Nope he is definitely a cousin of the Gibbons side of my family ;)
-
While adding information to The Ancestry app I was sent a hint about one of my ancestors...a photo from a Private Tree. I am not a member of Ancestry and have not spoken to this person and yet could copy the photo by taking a screenshot of the photo and editing it. Now I am concerned that I should not have done this without the owners permission but as has been said before when you upload information to Ancestry it really is a free for all.
-
While adding information to The Ancestry app I was sent a hint about one of my ancestors...a photo from a Private Tree. I am not a member of Ancestry and have not spoken to this person and yet could copy the photo by taking a screenshot of the photo and editing it. Now I am concerned that I should not have done this without the owners permission but as has been said before when you upload information to Ancestry it really is a free for all.
Not if it's supposed to be private Jay, you shouldn't even be able to see the photo! Another failing by Ancestry it would appear. The very least you can do is to contact the person from who you have acquired the photo, explain who you are, and hope that they don't mind. In addition, don't put it out there, keep it perhaps at home, but not on the internet. No need to compound Ancestry's failures.
Just realised that you said you aren't a subscriber to Ancestry, which is a shame as you won't be able to contact the person who is. But it makes it even worse that Ancestry are putting it out there! :o
-
Hi ,Yes just hate it when a private tree owner copies info or photo's and you can't see the connection.I normally end up messaging them to ask how what and why.
-
Private tree!
I put on Ancestry information which I want to share and do not mind other serious members benefiting from my research but do resent the selfish members who have private trees being able to pilfer that information, I would like Ancestry to have a system where only public tree holders have access to my public site and other public sites, after all fairs fair.
I know this has happened as I published information that has taken hours at records offices to collate and know it is definitely unique, to see it gathered up into private sites is very, very disappointing.
-
Speaking as a 'selfish' private tree owner I rather resent the implication that we all just pilfer information from others who keep their trees open. Had I not had all my paternal family, complete with photos, copied by someone with no connection to anyone in my tree, it would still be public.
We all have to pay to access the collection of records on Ancestry, but anyone with a shred of decency will contact another tree owner to ask permission to use a piece of their own work, and if refused they should accept the decision.
Public or private, it doesn't really make a difference, it is the individual who makes the decision on how to behave. I was naive enough to believe that respect for others was paramount when I first subscribed to Ancestry, unfortunately I was soon proved wrong.
-
I would like Ancestry to have a system where only public tree holders have access to my public site and other public sites, after all fairs fair.
Restricting access to public trees for private tree owners or those, like me, who keep their research on their PC, isn't really going to work. There would be nothing to stop anyone creating a tree with only a few people included and that would then give them access under your rules to all other public trees.
I agree with msr, its a bit rich suggesting that private tree owners only pilfer information from public trees and don't give anything back. What needs to be remembered is that everyone pays for access to the records NOT for the free tree hosting facility which Ancestry uses to entice people to subscribe with their offer of free help through the hints system.
While I appreciate in an ideal world people would always ask permission to save items from public trees, in reality that isn't really going to happen and to be honest from talking to others, many don't seem to think that they need to anyway since the tree owner has made all the information available on a public tree for anyone to view. Yes perhaps people should, but if you really are that bothered, don't make the information and media public in the first place.
Unfortunately the hard sell by Ancestry to create your tree on their site is partly to blame, as is the fact that by default every tree is public unless you actively change the setting.
-
"I know this has happened as I published information that has taken hours at records offices to collate and know it is definitely unique, to see it gathered up into private sites is very, very disappointing."
How do you define "definitely unique" ? It is available to anyone who has spent hours in a record office, as most serious or older researches have done. I started in 1974 and that was one of the only available resource's at the time.
I do not class my information as unique, or come to that my family tree, I share ancestors with many many people. yes I have started to put my tree online- for the first time- it is private, and as an experiment I have only used info I have garnered from Ancestry,( not other peoples trees) needless to say I have not gotten as far back as my exclusive to me tree, on my home comp and tons of paperwork as lots of the older info came from other sources than Ancestry. 8)
-
Private tree!
I put on Ancestry information which I want to share and do not mind other serious members benefiting from my research but do resent the selfish members who have private trees being able to pilfer that information, I would like Ancestry to have a system where only public tree holders have access to my public site and other public sites, after all fairs fair.
I know this has happened as I published information that has taken hours at records offices to collate and know it is definitely unique, to see it gathered up into private sites is very, very disappointing.
Sorry, I think you're being very, very harsh. There are numerous of reasons why people like to keep their own trees private. I have been a member of ancestry for years and do not have a tree on there, or anywhere online - BUT, and it is a big but.. my primary school aged son has his on line with ancestry, his own research (on my account of course) - and it is private. Are you calling me selfish for not making a young child's tree/work public ?
If you would like to see a certain person's (or people) private tree, why don't you send them a nice *polite message asking them can you have access(*ie DO NOT call them selfish in your message whilst asking them for access)
My opinion is that I think it's a an extremely selfish attitude to not to respect other peoples own choices.
Kind regards
Ps I have the same photo in my family album that was handed down and I can tell you that's my gggg grandfather Pan Troglodytes! He was lovingly known as just Pan to us family - although he went by Sam on one census just so that he could hide from us and on another he went by Dave!( He was always monkeying about like that, he probably thought it was funny)
-
;D I don't worry over whoever copies my photos. I just don't like it when a photo which was originally mine, one I have maybe tidied up myself, added names to etc, or had tidied up in here, shows up on Ancestry about being " orginally shared by ""NOT ME ANYWAY"!
Anyone's name that's on the net will appear in a Google search anyway! In fact, somebody looking in Rootschat could find out any number of things about our families, not just photographs. Think about photo restorations, posts about crimes, families, convicts, criminals, anything!! Remember that we all divulge some pretty serious stuff on here!
Modified to add - I just put my RC user name into Google images! So many results, and loads of photos from other members on here. I only typed the one word "Jaybelnz" - and man, soo many photo's some up, most of them not mine!
Take a look, and Google your user name or your real name - you never know what you might find in there ;D ;D
Just modified to add - a big number of Rootchatters photos came up!!
-
Some of you will hate me. I standardise all my family photos in my Ancestry user tree by cropping them into a 200x200 image of their face and converting them into a greyscale image. If I find a photo shared by another user, I will download the photo and reupload it in the way that I described. My avatar is an example of this.
-
I wonder if Ancestry's continuing actions of allowing access to private trees in any way shape or form, including photographs, is now in breach of the 25th May 2018 General Data Protection Regulations. After all, there site states (.co.uk)
Malky
-
I wonder if Ancestry's continuing actions of allowing access to private trees in any way shape or form, including photographs, is now in breach of the 25th May 2018 General Data Protection Regulations. After all, there site states (.co.uk)
Malky
But they are not allowing it "in any way shape or form" because my understanding is the error relates to access via searching through FTM and that is only a small subset of subscribers who use that software. It is not possible to access through the website or Roots Magic. The access through FTM is not good and I'm surprised they've not temporarily turned off the search facility in FTM to stop it happening.
-
;D I don't worry over whoever copies my photos. I just don't like it when a photo which was originally mine, one I have maybe tidied up myself, added names to etc, or had tidied up in here, shows up on Ancestry about being " orginally shared by ""NOT ME ANYWAY"!
If you own the copyright of a picture that has been uploaded by someone else and they have not asked your permission (I think this is what you are saying), then you can request Ancestry to remove it (evidence of copyright supplied of course) as detailed in their terms and conditions.
Simon
-
If I find a photo shared by another user, I will download the photo and reupload it in the way that I described. My avatar is an example of this.
Any photo uploaded by another User to their Public Tree or shared in any other way, can be used by any other User in their online Ancestry tree. This being the case, what do you actually acheive by doing this, the original is still available elsewhere. Strictly speaking, as you don't own the copyright, you shouldn't be uploading it anyway.
Simon
-
I don't have a subscription to Ancestry but my cousin's son does, he has a private tree.
I got a gift of a DNA test so I put a very very basic tree on Ancestry.
Ancestry was giving me loads of hints to improve my very basic tree so I turned off hints.
Than they sent me an load of photograph hints.
Every one of the original photographs are sitting in an album in my house, I'm the person who scanned them and gave copies to family there are even one or two which I took.
I doubt he, the cousins son, realizes they turn up as hints.
It is sort of disconcerting to see your own photos coming back at you.
-
Photographs aren't necessarily unique. Families that went in for studio photographs often had multiple prints made to send to other family members. So descendants of various branches of a family may have a copy of the same photograph.
-
Photographs aren't necessarily unique. Families that went in for studio photographs often had multiple prints made to send to other family members. So descendants of various branches of a family may have a copy of the same photograph.
I've downloaded 3 from public trees, of my grandma, aunt and uncle. 2 are more than 100 years old so copyright, if any, should be expired. They are all studio portraits. The 2 older photos would have been paid for by my grandparents. None of them were among photos we inherited from the grandparents.
I did try to contact tree owner. I was unsure about protocol re photos.
-
Lots of the photo's on Ancestry tree's are not of who they are said to be. Many have been copied several times and not all have checked that they are of the correct person, some are even of people with similar but different names :-\
-
I've downloaded 3 from public trees, of my grandma, aunt and uncle. 2 are more than 100 years old so copyright, if any, should be expired.
Copyright is an awkward area.
In the UK, the rights on a photo expire 70 years after the death of the originator, not the date the photo was taken.
If you take a scan of a family photo which is out of copyright, the rights on that computer file expire 70 years after YOUR death. There are agencies such as Francis Frith and Getty Images which produce prints from very old negatives. The period on one of these starts when they issue the print.
Because of this, and the fact that the rules are different in other countries, the likes of Ancestry put clauses in their terms and conditions which in effect mean that if you upload anything, you give your rights over to them, and they can reuse those images for whatever purpose they like. If you don't actually have legal rights to an image, it becomes your fault if you upload to their website.
Images are so easily copied in this internet age that many organisations place "watermarks" on their images. Sometimes the marks are obvious, sometimes they are hidden as "noise" inside the image data. In the latter case it can be organised such that the offender can be traced.
-
Lots of the photo's on Ancestry tree's are not of who they are said to be. Many have been copied several times and not all have checked that they are of the correct person, some are even of people with similar but different names :-\
I instantly recognised Grandma and uncle as toddler and youth. Photo of aunt as young girl was new to me. Her only sister was 20 years younger so it's not likely to be anyone else. It was probably taken to send copies to her aunt in U.S. and her grandfather in Ireland. She emigrated herself not long afterwards. Stamp of photographer's studio in my home town was on back of each picture. One photograph was a postcard sent to my aunt by name and signed. I'm confident about provenance. Tree is fairly accurate. Tree owner is some relation of my aunt. Photo of my uncle is also on a tree belonging to his grandson.
I noticed several photos of an aunt-by-marriage. I recognised her straightaway too. A hint for a tree was a woman with the same name, correct date and place of death and correct name of spouse. However this spouse apparently died in Oman whereas my uncle died at his home in England.
-
That's interesting Andrew.
Is the originator of a photograph the person who commissioned it, in my case my grandparents? They died 80 years ago.
A presumed descendent of theirs, probably a resident of U.S.A. scanned the photographs and put them on a computer file. Copyright of this version now belongs to this person. They were uploaded to Ancestry which now has rights over them.
My grandparents had another professional photograph taken. That one was professionally restored more than 20 years ago and several copies made. Has copyright on that one expired?
-
That's interesting Andrew.
Is the originator of a photograph the person who commissioned it, in my case my grandparents?
Copyright is not held by the person who commisions a photograph. The Copyright is held by the person who took the photograph. For example if you "commission" someone be it a proffessional photographer or just your neighbour, they will hold the copyright not you.
Simon
-
I may be in a minority, but I have never had a problem with other people having my family photos. I currently have a tiny family and if those people who are long gone can live on due to other people having their photos on their trees I don’t mind at all. However, I always ask permission to copy or share other peoples photos.
-
Speaking as a 'selfish' private tree owner I rather resent the implication that we all just pilfer information from others who keep their trees open. Had I not had all my paternal family, complete with photos, copied by someone with no connection to anyone in my tree, it would still be public.
We all have to pay to access the collection of records on Ancestry, but anyone with a shred of decency will contact another tree owner to ask permission to use a piece of their own work, and if refused they should accept the decision.
Public or private, it doesn't really make a difference, it is the individual who makes the decision on how to behave. I was naive enough to believe that respect for others was paramount when I first subscribed to Ancestry, unfortunately I was soon proved wrong.
Me too. In fact I'm quite upset at the suggestion that I am a selfish pilferer. I have a private tree on Ancestry, it is also selected to be unsearchable. My reason for having a tree on Ancestry is to have an off-site back of my research should the worse happen. Like you I do not take from other trees. I HAVE read other trees from time to time but that is not to take their data. It is when I have been considering messaging someone regarding a DNA match and I use what I have read to word my message to them not to plump up my tree. eg "I see you have <name> in your tree from <place>. My 4x Grt Grandfather was <name> born in<place> in <year> does this sound familiar as I think this is where the connection may be."
I have than one reason for having my tree private. 1. It contains sensitive information including illegitimacy, a murder and suicide. I do not know how much other relatives may or may not know and I do not want to be responsible for them accidentally finding out and being upset. 2. There always a chance I have made a mistake somewhere and I don't want to be responsible for someone else making a mistake on their tree should they blindly copy it. 3. I was given information for my tree on the condition I did not openly publish it and I try and keep my promises. 4. Other family members have asked that I keep details private of the more recently deceased to preserve the privacy of those still living and again I try and keep my promises.
This does not mean that I selfishly hoard information, never share and never help people. 1. If I am asked outright about the sensitive information by someone I will not lie, in fact if asked about that section of the tree I will not lie either. I will warn them there is some sensitive information and check they really want to hear it. If they say they do I will share all info I have. I private tree does not allow for these checks. 2. If I share information via discussion with another researcher then it reduces the chance of automatic copying of any mistake and I could also spot errors myself. Please note I am not saying I have not taken care with my research I always work on the idea that there is no such thing as too much evidence I just recognise that I am human and humans make mistakes. 3. The info I was given I was told I COULD share with definite relatives, I can only do this via conversation. 4. By sharing in other ways I can edit info to keep it to earlier relatives. 5. I have also done look ups at SP centres for people who are not relatives or for the other side of relatives trees. 6. I have taken location photos for people too.
I am bit upset though that my Dad's photo is attached to a guy who died in New York in 2015 because my Dad died in Scotland in 1999 and had never set foot in New York. However it is that it is attributed to the wrong person I find upsetting rather than someone else having it that upsets me.
-
my feelings are slowly changing
as I realise if I dont share it soooon it will be too late.. and all my work will end up like my poor wonderful friend Margaret - 'LOST' - as one day she was just NOT on anymore and when I tried to trace her... dinada.. :(
so I am now- on - slow release.. in case I wake up 'gone'
xin
-
Photographs aren't necessarily unique. Families that went in for studio photographs often had multiple prints made to send to other family members. So descendants of various branches of a family may have a copy of the same photograph.
I have a perfect example of this. My uncle has 7 photo albums from the mid-lat 1800s of our ancestors and you will find the same photos in nearly every album.
-
I have my tree set to private as I have information on it that I have been asked not to share. I had one person contact me on Ancestry asking to get access to my tree because she/he was also descended from X and Y. When I looked for a tree under their username I couldn't find anything. I did, however, respond to the person by saying I couldn't share the tree because I have information I have been asked not share but if they emailed me (and I gave my email address) then I would be happy to share what I could share. I never heard back from them.
If I find a photo/story/document on Ancestry that someone else posted and I see where to get it then I will go get that piece of family history myself and save it with the information on where I got it.
Even though I have a private tree, I also mark any photo or document that I have been asked not to share as private.
-
Copyright is an awkward area. In the UK, the rights on a photo expire 70 years after the death of the originator, not the date the photo was taken.
That may well be the legal position, but I suspect that owners of most ancient photos will have no idea who originated them, or any way to find out; also that the originator (or his/her successor in title) is probably extinct anyway.
-
Not often I post lately but do keep an eye on the forum.
Like others I have many photos from other family I don’t feel I have the right to openly put them on the internet, plus many certificates , another reason I made my tree private people don’t tend to contact you if the info is just there, now don’t get me wrong if someone contacts me and has a genuine connection I will give them all the info and records I can.
I have often spent at least half an hour replying to an enquiry from someone asking me about a person and often don’t even receive an acknowledgement, so you just know if your tree was “out there” you would never hear from that person, on the other hand I have had and still do have contact with some for many years.
So we all have our reasons none are right or wrong, just an aside as I said I rarely post nowadays but keep up to date with subjects that at of interest, but I notice how many of our long time posters are “gone” and have only noticed when looking through old threads deceased on their profiles, would it not be possible to have separate part of the forum remembering those people? We seem to have a part for everything else and those very people contributed so much to the forum in the past 😉
-
I have an ancestry tree 3 people once there was more but I quickly took it all down same on genes. however that is still out there.
I will share what I have if people are honest about it but not othewise.
I experienced copying of information found on here I do not think someone took it, I think another search site did that and added it to the trees on their's, mostly accurately.
I checked as it also showed up very quickly on Ancestry, the person concerned was amazed and also upset as it looked like they had done it. I am now quite careful everywhere I search.
On MH someone private on one page can be totally seen on another page. it makes no sense.
My main tree is not on my computer it is on a external hard drive. Safer there. Also Rootschat can be searched through google. As has already been said.
There is no real solution.
Essnell
-
Copyright is not held by the person who commisions a photograph. The Copyright is held by the person who took the photograph. For example if you "commission" someone be it a proffessional photographer or just your neighbour, they will hold the copyright not you.
Simon
Simon, your reply only relates to automatic copyright, it is very possible in the contract for a commissioned work for the copyright be passed to the person who commissioned the photographer.
It is also very possible for the photographer to grant a licence to use and distribute copies of the photograph if that is what they require.
Blanket statements cannot be made when it comes to copyright for commissioned works as the details of the commission change the rights involved.
Cheers
Guy
-
I experienced copying of information found on here I do not think someone took it, I think another search site did that and added it to the trees on their's, mostly accurately.
I can't get worked up about 'information' being lifted - provided it is only the fundamentals of how historical people were connected, and what they looked like. Our basic searches depend on public records which we (hopefully) manage to assemble into a coherent whole. If we can illustrate our findings with suitable photos, so much the better. Of course if we feel embarrassed about skeletons in cupboards, or unsure of our facts, that may be different. But I have no qualms about upsetting the sensibilities of anyone long dead :-[
-
I experienced copying of information found on here I do not think someone took it, I think another search site did that and added it to the trees on their's, mostly accurately.
I can't get worked up about 'information' being lifted - provided it is only the fundamentals of how historical people were connected, and what they looked like. Our basic searches depend on public records which we (hopefully) manage to assemble into a coherent whole. If we can illustrate our findings with suitable photos, so much the better. Of course if we feel embarrassed about skeletons in cupboards, or unsure of our facts, that may be different. But I have no qualms about upsetting the sensibilities of anyone long dead :-[
I'm not embarrassed by the skeletons in my tree. I worry about the reactions of the living who may be angry at the facts presented. If I am completely honest I cannot handle the abuse I may get. I have already had abuse for things I have discovered so don't want to invite more.
-
Copyright is not held by the person who commisions a photograph. The Copyright is held by the person who took the photograph. For example if you "commission" someone be it a proffessional photographer or just your neighbour, they will hold the copyright not you.
Simon
Simon, your reply only relates to automatic copyright, it is very possible in the contract for a commissioned work for the copyright be passed to the person who commissioned the photographer.
It is also very possible for the photographer to grant a licence to use and distribute copies of the photograph if that is what they require.
Blanket statements cannot be made when it comes to copyright for commissioned works as the details of the commission change the rights involved.
Cheers
Guy
Yes you are quite right there is not enough room here to explain all the nuances of copyright, and of course the granting of a licence is what people who upload their photos to Ancestry either don't understand or refuse to accept as the Ancestry T&Cs are quite clear. You either have to own the copyright or you have the copyright owners permission, before you upload photos and make them publically available on a tree. You have then automatically granted Ancestry a licence for them to make them available as they wish. This includes making them available as records which other subsribers can attach to their own trees, but also Ancestry can use them for their own purpose (eg on other sites they own, or publicity media etc). If they appear on another subsribers tree, they haven't been 'stolen' or 'lifted' lifted without the permission of the owner, they have been legitimately attached as just another Ancestry record. If someone starts using them outside of Ancestry then you have a different ball game altogether.
I suspect a large number of Ancestry subscribers have no idea who owns the copyright of photos that they upload.
Simon
-
"I have no qualms about upsetting the sensibilities of anyone long dead"
That's an interesting thought and one I tend to agree with but it really isn't as simple as that some times. One of my paternal great grandfathers died in 1899 but before doing so he was jailed at least twice including a conviction for a serious assault on one of his sons. Much of his middle life was spent apparently trying to escape retribution either from private sources or from the police (or both). None of my generation of cousins, all born from around 1935-50 were aware of any of this until I unearthed it. I have no idea whether my own father knew but his father, my grandfather, must have known something because he was forced to live under an alias name for many years until his father died.
So while the person concerned is "long dead" i.e. 120 years ago, and I certainly have no qualms on his behalf about letting people in my family know about him, or even for that matter sharing it online in order to obtain more information about this black sheep, I do sometimes wonder whether ancestors just 2 generations away, most of whom are still alive today, would prefer that his disgraceful life had not been discovered.
For my part my main wish is that I had known as much as I do now before my own father died so that I could have asked him what he knew, carefully of course. My guess is that he knew a much watered down version of the truth. Obviously it all depends on how long is "long dead".
Tony
-
I don't have time to read all the previous responses, so forgive me for any duplication. Many people would be surprised to learn that they own no rights to their family photos--unless they took them, themselves, or are the copyright heirs of those who did. We are so accustomed to institutions that house old photos acting like they own the rights to them and can tell anyone exactly what they can and cannot do with them that we think we are in the same position--because the photos are in our custody. Yet there is a vast difference between stewardship [housing and caring for the photos] and owning any rights to them. As with any other creative effort, the rights to the photos belong only to the photographers--unless they entered into a specific legal agreement that the photos were a work for hire. In the US and in England, the copyright to anything lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. That means, within those 70 years, the photographer might have a copyright heir that now controls it. But, after those 70 years have lapsed--that's it, finito, done. The work enters into the Public Domain.
Unless you can truthfully say that you have never, ever, used something that was in the Public Domain, whether a photograph or an ebook--don't make an exception for yourself and your family photos. If they are from the 19th Century, they are in the Public Domain and you can't prevent anyone from appropriating them. You own them, they are in your care--but you have no rights over them whatsoever. So share them freely and for God's sake don't spoil the creation and the view of the creator by putting an ugly watermark or something on them. They are somebody's best work, the result of their talent and expertise and you really don't have the right to change them in any way. It's no different from writing your name or logo--whatever--on a painting in a museum. Think about it. But, if it really bothers you so much to share the old photos, then take them offline or don't put them on in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
-
snip
Unless you can truthfully say that you have never, ever, used something that was in the Public Domain, whether a photograph or an ebook--don't make an exception for yourself and your family photos. If they are from the 19th Century, they are in the Public Domain and you can't prevent anyone from appropriating them. You own them, they are in your care--but you have no rights over them whatsoever. So share them freely and for God's sake don't spoil the creation and the view of the creator by putting an ugly watermark or something on them. They are somebody's best work, the result of their talent and expertise and you really don't have the right to change them in any way. It's no different from writing your name or logo--whatever--on a painting in a museum. Think about it. But, if it really bothers you so much to share the old photos, then take them offline or don't put them on in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
Not totally accurate copyright can extend beyond 70 years under certain circumstances.
For example if a photograph is scanned and additional work done to the scan such as removing "dust specs", altering the contrast or even colourising the image it is now a new work and as such is now a copyright entity in its own right.
Even written lists can gain copyright after 70 years by becoming part of a database and entitled to database rights which extend the copyright period.
In addition here in the UK there is Crown Copyright :
(3)Crown copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist—
(a)until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
(b)if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published.
The subject of copyright is very complex and cannot be dismissed in blanket statements
Cheers
Guy
-
snip
Unless you can truthfully say that you have never, ever, used something that was in the Public Domain, whether a photograph or an ebook--don't make an exception for yourself and your family photos. If they are from the 19th Century, they are in the Public Domain and you can't prevent anyone from appropriating them. You own them, they are in your care--but you have no rights over them whatsoever. So share them freely and for God's sake don't spoil the creation and the view of the creator by putting an ugly watermark or something on them. They are somebody's best work, the result of their talent and expertise and you really don't have the right to change them in any way. It's no different from writing your name or logo--whatever--on a painting in a museum. Think about it. But, if it really bothers you so much to share the old photos, then take them offline or don't put them on in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
Not totally accurate copyright can extend beyond 70 years under certain circumstances.
For example if a photograph is scanned and additional work done to the scan such as removing "dust specs", altering the contrast or even colourising the image it is now a new work and as such is now a copyright entity in its own right.
Even written lists can gain copyright after 70 years by becoming part of a database and entitled to database rights which extend the copyright period.
In addition here in the UK there is Crown Copyright :
(3)Crown copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist—
(a)until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
(b)if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published.
The subject of copyright is very complex and cannot be dismissed in blanket statements
Cheers
Guy
It all depends on the controlling cases, the precedents. Under US caselaw, removing dust specks or altering the contrast is not going to suffice but colorization might. Databases I know nothing about. All I do know it's not easy to defeat the concept of the Public Domain. With your last point--aren't we wandering a bit far afield from the discussion about family photos? How many of them have ever been "published commercially"? But here's something about that. In the US, photos being part of a book, say, isn't going to extend their individual copyrights. One is merely prohibited from reproducing the book in its entirety. Do you know of a UK case that says differently?
-
I've not written on here before so forgive me for being long-winded but I just came across this thread which I found really interesting.
I’m going to take off any photos I either didn’t scan in myself or ask permission for. I had no idea that if it was shown as an Ancestry hint it wasn’t necessarily freely available to use. I have several private trees I use to work on before posting to my main tree once I have checked to my satisfaction that it’s correct. I have a message on the Overview of them saying so but I’m not sure if that message gets seen if it’s private.
Am considering removing the last 2 generations off my main tree and keeping them private. I have one uncomfortable secret I will only divulge if someone contacts me. There are lots of other family skeletons but, to be honest, unless you write them up as facts or notes, they’re not immediately obvious to someone who doesn’t take their genealogy seriously, ie making a tree from Ancestry hints only. I also never add a person just because it appears on someone else’s tree. I might take it as a suggestion but then I follow up on the sources myself. I have learned from experience! If I find an error I will sometimes message the other person (politely and in a friendly manner) with evidence of where I believe there is an error and ask them to let me know if/why they think I’m wrong!
At the end of the day we have all benefitted from other people’s research and I’m more than happy to share mine. I keep my own database in a private PC program and all the juicy stuff is there if I need it!
I have recently found a really good podcast called Ancestors Alive - from paper to people by Carolyn ni Lochlainn. It’s US focused but she gives good information and tips and her “hygienealogy” episodes are great. She’s like the Marie Kondo of genealogy!
Lynne
-
Not sure what you mean by "not freely available for use". Once again, using the words of Wiki "Every work first published before 1923 has been in the American public domain since 1998. Since January 1, 2019, works from 1923 have also lost their copyright protection." And that includes photographs, published or not. Public domain means no permission is required. Other countries follow the same time table. The fact that some people don't like to share is irrelevant. If they object to others using their old family photos, they need not put them on Ancestry. I cannot see the point of private trees. If there are living people who might object to being part of a tree, that is easily handled. Name them "Private" or omit them. Why did people with private trees ever put them on Ancestry in the first place? Don't get it. The whole point of Ancestry.com should be pretty obvious. It's not just about DNA and ethnicity--it's about "ancestry", who and where we came from. Most of us have over a thousand DNA relatives spread over the globe. I like to know how we are related, but in many cases it's impossible to tell--mostly because they have no trees. I recently found some close cousins and am happy to be able to communicate with them--but nobody is forcing one to communicate with anybody. However, if you have a tree, why not make it public so that others can see how they are related to you? Yes, it can be important. In the search for my biological father, I never would have been able to learn what I know about who he was if it weren't for my DNA relatives and their trees.
-
My tree is private, and it's not just about living people but I am sick and tired of apologising and explaining myself as to why I put it on ancestry and why it is private (clue not so that people cannot 'steal' information).
If someone is a DNA match to me and they contact me I will send them any information they may need (providing I have it).
-
My tree is private, and it's not just about living people but I am sick and tired of apologising and explaining myself as to why I put it on ancestry and why it is private (clue not so that people cannot 'steal' information).
If someone is a DNA match to me and they contact me I will send them any information they may need (providing I have it).
It seems to me you want to be "in control" of what people can get from you. Who would want anything from your tree unless they were a match to you? So ask yourself why you just can't give it freely and how it's going to hurt you if you do.
-
I think that people research their family history for their own purposes primarily, and people spend a lot of time and effort (and money) doing so. If someone chooses not to share the results of that research with the world.... possibly because of promises made to the person from whom thy got it, then surely that is up to them. It doesn't fall to anybody else to criticise that choice!
My tree isn't online by the way, and if it was, I would certainly mark it "private"! but again that would be my choice.... I am, however, aware that others feel differently and I respect their choice.. I only ask that they respect mine and that of others who choose differently.
.
-
It seems to me you want to be "in control" of what people can get from you. Who would want anything from your tree unless they were a match to you? So ask yourself why you just can't give it freely and how it's going to hurt you if you do.
What's wrong with having some say in who gets to use my work? Have you never heard of 'name collectors'? Have you not seen any of the bizarre and frankly stupid 'trees' that these characters throw together? They copy from anyone's tree, if they can get at it, and I won't give them mine.
If anyone can prove a link, I'll gladly share with them. What I won't do is argue about my right to be selective.
Carol
-
My tree is private, and it's not just about living people but I am sick and tired of apologising and explaining myself as to why I put it on ancestry and why it is private (clue not so that people cannot 'steal' information).
If someone is a DNA match to me and they contact me I will send them any information they may need (providing I have it).
It seems to me you want to be "in control" of what people can get from you. Who would want anything from your tree unless they were a match to you? So ask yourself why you just can't give it freely and how it's going to hurt you if you do.
I said in my post that I was sick and tired of apologising and explaining myself and yet you post expecting an explanation. I alsosaid in my post, that it was NOT to stop people taking my information, at least that is not the main reason. It is mainly to avoid upsetting a lot of people.
So since you insist, here are my reasons, that I have explained several times:
1. My grt grt grandfather was illegitimate and I have no idea if the legitimate line know so I do not know if the ligitimate line know about this nor do I know how they'd take it. I do not want to end up in a shoot the messenger type situation or be the cause of upset to my 3x grt grandfather's legitimate descendants. Both my grt grt grandfather and 3x grt grandfather died in the 1880s so not recent deaths.
2. Another great great grandfather (died 1890) spent time in a debtor's prison. My first cousin once removed is furious about this and wants the evidence buried. That goes against what is important to me about my hobby which is to strive to accurately record all that I find. It means it's better to record it but keep it private then my cousin doesn't get too mad.
3. My grt grt grandmother on another line (died 1890s) went to prison for stealing food. For the same reason as above I want to record it but there are 4 cousins who would be angry at me publishing this.
4. I previously had my tree searchable I had a woman message me and demand I stop researching her 3 times great grandparents, "or else". Keep my tree private means that I can continue to research this couple who are also my3 x grt grandparents without encountering the wrath of this woman.
5. I was given documents for my tree regarding a 4th, 5th and 6th grt parents on one line. It was given on the condition I did not publish it. I try and keep my promises,seems mean to do otherwise. Is it really selfish to try and keep promises?
6. I have another relative, a 4th cousin who does not want our MRCA to appear on my tree as he does not want anyone to know that he is realated to "someone like me". At this point i refer you back to what I said about wanting to accurately record all that I have discovered about my tree and remind you that these people are my direct ancestors. If I keep my tree private I can have these ancestors on my tree without announcing that I have the same ancestor as he does and keep him content.
7. I have had it drummed into me since I did my undergrad year that you donot publish something which is a work in progress. I consider my tree to be very much a work in progress. It does not feel comfortable to go against all you've been taught.
8. I prefer to share information by communicating with people. Not so much that want to control who gets information or what information they get but as part of my persuit of accuracy. I would feel incredibly guilty if someone indavertantly copied a mistake I had made. If we were in comunication I am going to be forced to relook at that section of my tree and am more likely to spot a mistake or they would spot it therby allowing both of us to have the correct information.
You me see all that as selfish, your posts certainly suggest you will but maybe it's OK to be selfish occasionally. I am not actively hurting anyone by having a private tree. Conversely if I make it public I would be upsetting a lot of people, some of whom I have known all my life and have to spend time with. I usually try and avoid deliberately upsetting people.
This is my only hobby,it is important to me to accurately record all I find and to strive to find all records available for each individual in my tree. Having a private online tree allows me to ahve an off-site back-up of all my reasearch (20 years worth) without upsetting people. If I followed your advice and "just left these people off" that it would leave massive gaps in the 19th century section of my tree (applying to people referred to above).
-
Well said - and no you do not have to explain yourself and neither do I.
It seems that sometimes people just want to argue about matters that aren't their business.
Carol
-
I share when asked - but mainly my tree is private
xin
-
Posts: 19
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #52 on: Today at 14:12 »
Quote
Not sure what you mean by "not freely available for use".
I was referring to an earlier post by someone who said their photos had been used despite being private. What I was trying to say was that I wouldn’t want to offend anyone by using a photo in this way. Nothing to do with copyright, just being respectful. I don’t mind sharing but I fully respect that others have their reasons for not doing so. Personally I keep private what I’m not sure is correct then post it on a public tree when I am.
-
I was referring to an earlier post by someone who said their photos had been used despite being private. What I was trying to say was that I wouldn’t want to offend anyone by using a photo in this way. Nothing to do with copyright, just being respectful. I don’t mind sharing but I fully respect that others have their reasons for not doing so. Personally I keep private what I’m not sure is correct then post it on a public tree when I am.
That seems reasonable and polite.
Welcome to RootsChat. :) :)
-
What's wrong with having some say in who gets to use my work? Have you never heard of 'name collectors'?
I have heard of 'name collectors' it is the extremely insulting and degrading word archivists use to describe those annoying individuals that come to "their archive" and actually expect to be able to view the records as if they are genuine researchers.
You may be too young (in years or research experience) to remember when such archivists made family historians and genealogist wait until the serious researchers had the documents they required before supplying family historians with the documents they required, you may not have had to stand your ground when the archivist even attempted to turn you away, but I do.
That was one of the reasons why I fought to get documents released to the public in the first place and why I take that phrase to be a disgusting insult that should never cross the lips of any genealogist or family historian.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy, two points:
(1) I wasn't addressing you;
(2) I used a 'shorthand' term to avoid having to write an essay. It's clearly hit a nerve with you which wasn't my intention.
I agree that you obviously have seniority over me in terms of research years, and you're right - I haven't ever had to argue with an archivist. Good on you for doing all that for the benefit of all of us.
IMHO, Lubana has strongly-held opinions and is unlikely to be persuaded to accept another point of view. I object to seeing other RCers being badgered, so I've said my piece but don't intend to waste any more time on what is turning out to be a futile argument.
All the best,
Carol
-
If anyone has a Tree on Ancestry or any other site that has unrestricted viewing then it is very naive not to expect your information/data/images etc to be used by others.
The sad fact is that today manners have gone out of the window with so many only thinking about themselves so expecting more of these people than they are capable of providing is a bit of a waste of your efforts.
Keep your Tree private if you want to keep things to yourself.
One could argue that you are inconsiderate putting family images and data on a Tree in the Public Domain if you have not sought and received acceptance from all family members. Whilst the documents and data may be yours the family they relate to is shared.
-
I am relatively new to Roots Chat, and I confess I find threads such as this rather disturbing - mainly because it appears I am a pretty despicable person.
I am selfish (my tree is private) ill-mannered (I have copied material from other trees without asking the owner's permission) lazy (I have, occasionally copied what appears to be correct info for distant relatives of mine from trees belonging to near relatives of them) disrespectful (not everyone in my tree is dead yet, and I don't actually have written permission in triplicate from all of them to include them) and worst of all, I have almost 8000 people in my tree, so I am not a proper genealogist at all but merely a **** *********.
Before I go off and delete my tree I would, however, like to offer some defence.
First of all, I point everyone to the Terms of Service of Ancestry, particularly this bit
"Any User Provided Content that you have made public or shared (e.g. by including such User Provided Content in a public Ancestry family tree, as part of your public profile in one of the Services or in a public posting on one of our Services) may be used by other users as part of, or in conjunction with, the Services. We will not be required to remove any information or User Provided Content that you have made public or has otherwise been shared from the family trees or public profiles of other users."
Nothing on my tree is from a private tree, so actually, whether they know it or not, the people whose trees I have copied pictures, stories or anything else from have already given me permission to do so. Items posted to a public tree are SHARED with other users. It is not merely naive to believe others will not use that info, it is actually mistaken to believe they have to ask "permission" to do so. You gave them permission to use it when you shared it to a public tree.
As for my including living people being disrespectful, first of that is one of the reasons my tree is private, and secondly all the info I have comes from information already on the internet, so it isn't as if I am publishing private info about them (and even without the tree being private, as living people they don't show for anyone else anyway).
As for the number of people on my tree as long as I believe they belong there, that's all that matters. Distant relatives, in laws, or even relations of the in laws, if I consider them part of my family's story, then that is my decision.
The lazy one I'll accept.
I appreciate this may appear somewhat "defensive" to some, and if so I apologise, that was not my intent. What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.
-
What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.
Good points, well made.
-
Albufera, I'm also selfish, ill-mannered and lazy. We should form a group - SIL. I know that 2 people don't constitute a group but there are sure to be more people who fit membership criteria. :) :)
-
Before I go off and delete my tree I would, however, like to offer some defence.
First of all, I point everyone to the Terms of Service of Ancestry, particularly this bit
"Any User Provided Content that you have made public or shared (e.g. by including such User Provided Content in a public Ancestry family tree, as part of your public profile in one of the Services or in a public posting on one of our Services) may be used by other users as part of, or in conjunction with, the Services. We will not be required to remove any information or User Provided Content that you have made public or has otherwise been shared from the family trees or public profiles of other users."
Nothing on my tree is from a private tree, so actually, whether they know it or not, the people whose trees I have copied pictures, stories or anything else from have already given me permission to do so. Items posted to a public tree are SHARED with other users. It is not merely naive to believe others will not use that info, it is actually mistaken to believe they have to ask "permission" to do so. You gave them permission to use it when you shared it to a public tree.
As for my including living people being disrespectful, first of that is one of the reasons my tree is private, and secondly all the info I have comes from information already on the internet, so it isn't as if I am publishing private info about them (and even without the tree being private, as living people they don't show for anyone else anyway).
As for the number of people on my tree as long as I believe they belong there, that's all that matters. Distant relatives, in laws, or even relations of the in laws, if I consider them part of my family's story, then that is my decision.
The lazy one I'll accept.
I appreciate this may appear somewhat "defensive" to some, and if so I apologise, that was not my intent. What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.
Very well said. If your tree is private then it is wrong (In my opinion) to publish it without permission. However, if it's public it's in the public domain and it will therefore not only be viewed but quite probably used by other people. If it contains mistakes then so be it. My tree is public. I don't mind other people using it. It's up to anyone using it to decide if my research is
a) correct
b) anything to do with their family
I don't "own" my ancestors. I share them with thousands of other people.
-
Some very interesting points here.
My tree is Private on Ancestry (although it appears in searches).
I have invited many people who are connected to me over the years in order to help both their research and mine.
I noticed that I was upset by other users on three occasions:
once when someone very peripherally connected to me copied my entire tree, including my husband's relatives (who were not in any way connected to him) and also living people. I requested that he remove living people and he did, and since he does not appear to carry out any further research, his tree has not been updated by any mistake corrections I've made over the years. It still does pop up in hints though, and quite possibly other people are copying the errors.
secondly when a relative invited to see my tree again copied everything from the tree. When I mentioned this, he said that once something was published on line (even in a private setting) he regarded it as free to use. As he is a relative, I felt I should be happy with this (even though all the research effort had been mine!) and we have subsequently kept in touch and exchanged information.
thirdly when I found a personal reminiscence of mine concerning a close relative attached to that relative on another - much less closely connected - tree. The copier had been invited to see my tree, but I did feel more upset by the reminiscence somehow being 'taken away' from me, and without any request to do so.
In summary
- I think it's interesting that we do all feel our ancestors are 'ours' in a personal way, and I had to let go of that and realise they are the aunts and great aunts (etc etc etc) of other people too.
- if I have photographs or other documents (including stories) which I have searched for, copied and attached, I think it is only polite to ask the tree owner if I may use them for my own tree. If I do that, I always mention that it is 'courtesy of x' on the details of the document. I do this even if the source tree is a public one.
-
What is the difference?
1 You post a Family Tree online and somebody copies it and uses it as their own
2 You post an image you have taken on Instagram or Facebook and somebody copies it and uses it as their own.
-
What is the difference?
1 You post a Family Tree online and somebody copies it and uses it as their own
2 You post an image you have taken on Instagram or Facebook and somebody copies it and uses it as their own.
Is that addressed to me, Colin?
If so, I was pointing out that I was interested that I initially felt a personal and possessive relationship with my ancestors and had to realise that they were other people's ancestors too
and
I always request to use an image which someone has put on a tree, out of courtesy.
I'm not claiming any similarity or difference to Facebook or Instagram, so am not at all sure of the relevance of your point. What are you trying to say?
-
I'm not claiming any similarity or difference to Facebook or Instagram, so am not at all sure of the relevance of your point. What are you trying to say?
I'm not sure either, but there is quite a difference between the two cases.
-
The past couple of days I've been thinking about this thread and comments on and contemplating if I need to give up my hobby and just delete my tree. I know everyone will find this hard to beleive but it really distresses me when I upset people and I never set out to upset people. It pains me that I manage to do so so often.
So keeping a private tree isn't an option as it has become apparent that this not just upsets people but makes them very angry. However just changing it to public isn't really an option either as that would upset the people I refer to in my post from a couple of days ago. These are people whom I know personally, some my whole life.
I haven't done it yet because I am selfish and it is my only hobby, I don't really go out unless it's for work, school run or messages. I hope people appreciate how difficult it is to scrub 20 years of work.
I'd like to put forward one piece of defence, not to try and convince people I shouldn't delete my tree but maybe diffuse some of the ire towards me. I can honestly say that of all my sources not oe of them is another ancestry tree. All my documents I have fall into one of the following categories: They were in my possession before I started researching, they were given to me (orscans of same) were given to me by people with whom I am in contact and who knew they'd be used for my tree or I sourced them myself from the local archives/GRO/GROS/NAS/TNA etc. I have given copies of the documents and photos in my possession to family, have sourced documents for non-related people who live far fromthe archives I was visiting and I have taught others how to use the archives I am familiar with.
My sources are:
birth, death and marriage certificates. I have been lucky in many ways that a significant proportion of my family are Scottish so I have easy access to these via NRH and they format makes cross referencing easier ie birth certs have parents date and place of marriage if applicable, marriage certs have mothers and fathers names and death certificates have spouse(s)where applicable aswell as both parents names.
parish records baptism, marriage and burial Scotland's People, NRH
census returns again many accessed via NRH
newspaper BDM announcements accessed via clippings already in possession, local archives and British Newspaper archive
newspapers articles that reference ancestors or events they were involved in acessed as above
probate calender entries Ancestry records collection not trees
wills mixture of Ancestry records collection and Scotland's People New Register house
monumental inscriptions and memorial plaques from visiting cemeteries, churches and Find a Grave.
Family bible in family possession
family letters in family possession and TNA
University records matricualtion and graduation, dissertations from individual University archives
HEIC staff records TNA
Burke's and debretts the local library
bookseg have an ancestor referred to in a book about Robert Burns referenced Harvard style in tree.Books about local history eg another ancestor was victim of a mining disaster
CWGC entries on their own site
WW1 medal cards and pension records accessed via Ancestry records collection
I think I may have missed something but hopefully it gives you the idea.
-
What an enormous over-reaction!
I can't see a single post in this thread that has been directed at you.
Where is the "ire" that you talk about?
Who on earth has suggested that you delete your tree and give up your hobby? Absolutely nobody.
Why do you feel you need to "convince people" of anything or offer anything in your "defence"? Nobody has attacked or criticised you.
-
Please do not delete your tree - no one has any right to tell you what to do in terms of your own personal tree. You are not doing anything wrong by having a private tree, and you are not doing anything to upset others by having a private tree. It is the people who criticise others for they way they choose to carry out their hobby who are doing that.
And on purely practical grounds, there will still be many other people who have private trees, so the people who are silly enough to get angry about that will still get angry whether your particular tree is private or not, so you will have spoiled your own enjoyment for nothing.
What you could perhaps do is a compromise similar to what I have now done - although my main tree remains private (and will always do so) I have now created a much smaller public tree of one branch of my family, and am considering adding more similar trees. Instead of starting from myself, the tree starts from one of my great great ancestors, and I actually left out the line that leads to me. So I am sharing info, whilst avoiding any of the issues with close family who might be upset by anything posted (and everything on the tree was gathered from internet sources anyway, so I am not publishing any secrets that weren't "out there" already).
-
No body said delete my tree it just seems the only way to not be upsetting people. Unfortunately just starting a tree with my get grts doesn't solve my individual problem as some of the stuff family are adamant must not be public refers to my grt get and 3x grt grandparents. Hence me spending 2 days trying to work out how I can carry on without upsetting anyone.
-
What you're doing is absolutely fine. I know that because I'm doing it the same way, as are many many others. Don't stop! (PM sent)
Carol
-
You can't please everyone all the time.
If people you don't even know, and who don't know you are stupid enough to get upset by the fact that your tree is private, that is THEIR problem not yours.
If the people you know who might be upset by your making your tree public are happy enough so long as you keep the tree private, then that is all that matters. You are able to continue your hobby, and no one you care about is upset.
I fully understand how you feel - on first reading SOME of the posts on this and other threads, my first reaction was to feel really bad that apparently I was doing everything wrong. Indeed, I felt so bad that I did delete some stuff from my above mentioned public tree and did not post anything on here for several weeks, but since I happen to be blessed with a certain natural arrogance, I soon realised I am not the one at fault - the busy bodies trying to tell me how to follow MY HOBBY are.
-
Your Tree is YOUR tree - Your Hobby -- enjoy --- rest of world... go run
xin
-
I would like to point out that the opening post on this thread begins "Thought this might amuse you …". Reply # begins "Ha ha!". Isn't this thread on 'The Lighter Side' ? In that case, lighten-up, everyone. There are real problems in the world. One's hobby should be a chance to switch off from them, not create new reasons for stress and fallings-out. :) :)
-
I'm going to close this thread now.
There have been several threads on this topic before - and no doubt will be again in the future ;D Many of the contributors have also expressed similar thoughts and vented their frustrations before. There is never going to be a way where everyone will agree. It is what makes us human.
While it may be a particularly dreich evening in my neck of the woods, may I encourage you all to enjoy the spring weather, your hobby of family history/genealogy - and not get too hung up on what opinions others might express.
Nell