RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Rena on Saturday 07 August 21 00:19 BST (UK)
-
Glasgow & West of Scotland FHS has put a notice on FB concerning the actions proposed by Blackstones Inc (the latest owners of ancestry dot com) from 1st Stpember 2021:-
" I cannot over-emphasis how important it is that Ancestry users read these altered terms and conditions relating to the contract they hold with the company. Genealogist Roberta Estes has commented "Clock is Ticking: In 28 Days, Ancestry CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT With Every Image In Your Tree". I have been looking at Ancestry's proposals and it appears that, from the beginning of September, they have the right to use all the photos and personal family information that you may have put on their site. This means that you could see your ancestral portraits appearing anywhere, without your consent or acknowledgement, for all time to come. Old family photos can be valuable and companies like Alamy, Getty Images and many others collect them and may charge for their use. It is unclear at present but you could end up paying to use your own photos! Leaving aside the legal position in the USA, this would appear to breach our own Data Protection legislation. More information on how to complain can be found at https://www.gov.uk/data-protection/make-a-complaint
-
Thank you for posting this for people Rena.
I have received an email recently re terms and conditions change. But lets face it, how many busy people might read boring terms and conditions.
What you have posted is more direct about what seems to be planned. Perhaps Ancestry needs to be likewise more transparent about what their intentions are. I fear too many people will not discover things until it is too late.
I must say, it sounds outrageous to me and like theft how they plan to take ownership of people's photos.
Thankfully, I don't have photos of people up. If I did they would be coming straight down after reading your post Rena. I must say I think what they are doing is out of order :( and will tarnish their reputation .. if they care about such things.
All they need to do is display in bold writing on their website that from September all photos and information posted will be theirs and then people can make their own minds up whether they wish to lose control over their own stuff. It could be that simple and transparent.
I will make a complaint. I think the big guns at Ancestry will have their way, money generally wins out. But at least I can register that I do not think they are being transparent enough and that I feel that this and such intentions are out of order. :(
-
Ancestry's Ts & Cs have always included such a clause!
They rely on people not reading Ts & Cs.
-
see also:
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2021/08/04/one-big-change-at-ancestry/
Ancestry has just updated its terms of service and privacy statement — again — and this time there is a change buried deep in its language that is of significance to users.
As of the change, effective yesterday (3 August 2021), a user can’t change his or her mind about any content uploaded to Ancestry: as of yesterday, you’ve just gifted the rights to that content to Ancestry, forever.
-
An update to this - apparently Ancestry has now backtracked to some extent. From The Legal Genealogist again:
According to Ancestry now, users who upload content to Ancestry still give Ancestry a perpetual and non-revocable license to use the content.
But, it says now, “perpetual and non-revocable” doesn’t mean “perpetual and non-revocable.”
Confused? - see the full article at https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2021/08/06/ancestry-retreats/
-
This is ancestry dot com.
ancestry dot co dot uk must have to abide by the UK DATA PROTECTION ACT.
Basically ,when it was introduced about a couple of decades ago, anything, any data, etc ., (name address, etc) ON A COMPUTER was not to be sold to a third party.
Up to that time local authorities would sell the information that they collected on annual electoral forms about who and what ages lived at particular addresses. Once the information was put on computer they were not supposed to be able to sell the information.
-
From a quick non-expert look, it appears that Ancestry apply the same T&Cs (with a few location-specific clauses) regardless of which site you're using.
These distinguish between Personal Information (eg your name, contact and payment details etc) and User Provided Content. Personal Information is the kind of thing that a Data Protection Act would be concerned with; I don't think User Provided Content is - unless someone potentially breached it by providing information about living people.
User Provided Content is defined as "content such as family trees, photos, videos, recordings, stories about relatives, your comments in trees, community discussions, or about records, and responses to email surveys and questionnaires available through our Services", and as far as I can tell, the changes to the T&Cs relate to this alone.
As I said, I'm not an expert, so others might like to look through the T&Cs to see if I'm on the right lines:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/legal/termsandconditions
-
This is ancestry dot com.
ancestry dot co dot uk must have to abide by the UK DATA PROTECTION ACT.
Basically ,when it was introduced about a couple of decades ago, anything, any data, etc ., (name address, etc) ON A COMPUTER was not to be sold to a third party.
Up to that time local authorities would sell the information that they collected on annual electoral forms about who and what ages lived at particular addresses. Once the information was put on computer they were not supposed to be able to sell the information.
Sorry but you are wrong, if you submit your information to a dataset or website that is available to the public the owner of the dataset has the legal authority to sell it.
That is exactly why the Electoral Register is available in two forms the full register which cannot be sold and the open register which may and is sold to whoever wishes to buy it.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've started pruning my tree, which has grown far more twigs than I intended. The extra twigs are my grandparents kith and kin, who died due to conflict and I collected quite a bit of information, photos of ships they served in, etc. as I thought I should give them recognition for their bravery. One example being my paternal grandmother's brother-in-law who is mentioned in the merchant ship's log as having died of heart failure in Valetta harbour aged 62 in 1916.
I must say that I've been rather pleased that my dad's direct ancestors weren't part of the rich tea merchant branches with all the connotations of who worked on tea plantations.
Having said that - I've been rather peeved that 13 people on ancestry have taken the early 20th century family group image that I posted; but didn't bother to leave any explanation. Today I accidentally came across the name and image of one American person who had taken the family portrait image. Horror of horrors he must think my branch was part of the rich tea merchant families.
-
This is ancestry dot com.
ancestry dot co dot uk must have to abide by the UK DATA PROTECTION ACT.
Basically ,when it was introduced about a couple of decades ago, anything, any data, etc ., (name address, etc) ON A COMPUTER was not to be sold to a third party.
Up to that time local authorities would sell the information that they collected on annual electoral forms about who and what ages lived at particular addresses. Once the information was put on computer they were not supposed to be able to sell the information.
Sorry but you are wrong, if you submit your information to a dataset or website that is available to the public the owner of the dataset has the legal authority to sell it.
That is exactly why the Electoral Register is available in two forms the full register which cannot be sold and the open register which may and is sold to whoever wishes to buy it.
Cheers
Guy
Guy, I recognise the latest situation, but I was alluding to earlier years when I had a manufacturing company and was one of the very many recipients of government documentation that fully explained what we could and could not do with the information on our company computers. I read it very closely. Was there a clause where I could hand over the computerised names/addresses of clients and suppliers if I chose to sell the firm, etc.?
At that time ordinary people were finding the disadvantages of this new data protection act. It meant that wives of husbands who were suffering from PTSD and who contacted the help line could not obtain help. The reason quoted by the voice on the telephone was that according to the Data Protection Act only the PTSD person could ask for help, but as is now commonly known they are the people who think they can help themselves
-
Would it stop Ancestry being able to sell photos, tree content, if they were copyrighted before being uploaded to the site? I just looked at this firm:
https://www.protectmywork.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjwgb6IBhAREiwAgMYKRnQHt9CI0RBNrY1uyV-pgIsJA0JQHRweELZq7cDOSvEiVG2bgTOm3RoCvwkQAvD_BwE
-
Guy, I recognise the latest situation, but I was alluding to earlier years when I had a manufacturing company and was one of the very many recipients of government documentation that fully explained what we could and could not do with the information on our company computers. I read it very closely. Was there a clause where I could hand over the computerised names/addresses of clients and suppliers if I chose to sell the firm, etc.?
Yes DPA 1998 Schedule 7, 6, (3)
At that time ordinary people were finding the disadvantages of this new data protection act. It meant that wives of husbands who were suffering from PTSD and who contacted the help line could not obtain help. The reason quoted by the voice on the telephone was that according to the Data Protection Act only the PTSD person could ask for help, but as is now commonly known they are the people who think they can help themselves
It could have been possible under section 17, 3 though that would not automatically apply, it would depend on the decision of the Secretary of State, that sort of thing put people off and instead say it was prohibited by the DPA 1998.
A second problem with the DPA 1998 was that many advisers sent out literature that was more oppressive than the actual legislation.
Cheers
Guy
-
Would it stop Ancestry being able to sell photos, tree content, if they were copyrighted before being uploaded to the site? I just looked at this firm:
https://www.protectmywork.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjwgb6IBhAREiwAgMYKRnQHt9CI0RBNrY1uyV-pgIsJA0JQHRweELZq7cDOSvEiVG2bgTOm3RoCvwkQAvD_BwE
In the UK all works are copyright of the author as soon as they are put down in a tangible form, the copyright does not need to be registered. Back in the 60s songwriters & poets used to prove copyright existence by posting a letter to themselves containing the lyrics and music of the song they had written. When the postmarked letter arrived it was filed away unopened in case it was needed in a later dispute.
Allowing public access to a work does not put that work in the public domain, that is a different legal process.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks, Guy. So that would work if the photo were on one's own site, but as it has been reproduced on Ancestry's site does that copy become the copyright property of Ancestry? (Legal stuff does my head in!)
-
Thanks, Guy. So that would work if the photo were on one's own site, but as it has been reproduced on Ancestry's site does that copy become the copyright property of Ancestry? (Legal stuff does my head in!)
Susie,
People who live in the UK and use the website www.ancestry.co.uk are governed by UK law, which states the owner has copywrite.
The people who do not have say over who owns the images are on the dot com website.
This could lead to other family members possibly, in the future, having to buy copies of their own family images.
I live in England and am not particularly impressed by large companies that push their interests before the interests of others. I'm removing all my images and have also started to "prune" my family trees until there isn't a root left on their site.
-
Thanks, Guy. So that would work if the photo were on one's own site, but as it has been reproduced on Ancestry's site does that copy become the copyright property of Ancestry? (Legal stuff does my head in!)
Guy may well have more to add, but I think I can partly answer this.
The first post about this on The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2021/08/04/one-big-change-at-ancestry/) generated a lot of discussion, including this exchange:
xxx on August 4, 2021 at 1:38 pm
.... How does this affect copyrighted images, text, etc. people have attached to their trees?
Judy G. Russell (The Legal Genealogist) on August 4, 2021 at 1:47 pm
.... As for copyright, understand that any copyright owner can license any copyrighted item, and under these TOS uploading the item constitutes a forever license to Ancestry. You still own the copyright, but effectively you give Ancestry permission to use the item forever.
In other words, there's a difference between copyright and permission to use an image etc - which raises an interesting point:
According to Ancestry's T&Cs, you agree that "you have all the necessary legal rights to upload or post your User Provided Content". If you own the copyright, then it's up to you who you permit to use the image etc. But if you don't own the copyright, and are merely using it under licence (ie with permission) from someone else, then depending on the terms of that licence/permission, you might not have had the right to upload it in the first place.
-
Thanks, Guy. So that would work if the photo were on one's own site, but as it has been reproduced on Ancestry's site does that copy become the copyright property of Ancestry? (Legal stuff does my head in!)
No that is exactly what copyright protects the copyholder from.
Ancestry would have a licence to use the work but they would not hold the copyright, for to happen the copyright holder would have to assign their copyright to Ancestry. If Ancestry was the copyright holder then they would not have to go to such lengths to stop copyright holders rescinding Ancestry's licence to use the work.
Look at it another way, if you buy a book you then hold a licence to read that book as often as you want, but you are not allowed to reproduce that book.
Cheers
Guy
-
A calm, and precise, blog here:
https://thednageek.com/the-molehill-and-the-mountain/?fbclid=IwAR2OUzVYgj_d9vDrU9xUbiava1VJufqZV_p3080IS7P7NdT-PBqrZ-Be-WE
-
A calm, and precise, blog here:
https://thednageek.com/the-molehill-and-the-mountain/?fbclid=IwAR2OUzVYgj_d9vDrU9xUbiava1VJufqZV_p3080IS7P7NdT-PBqrZ-Be-WE
This article is well written out, it is clear and concise. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.