RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: bleckie on Wednesday 24 September 25 14:18 BST (UK)
-
Hi All
I see ancestry are appealing to information commissioner about not getting access to Scottish records why should we hand them over to an American venture capital firm
Yours aye
BruceL
-
Absolutely agree. All revenue from Scottish records should come back for investment in Scotland, not go to line the pockets of the owners of the world's largest repository of genealogical disinformation.
They'd do better to get hold of records from US states where they aren't currently readily available. And/or to set up a system for getting rid of wrong information.
-
I agree.
-
I agree, they don’t seem to be very fussed about copyright either. They allow users to breach it every day.
-
I agree, they don't seem to be very fussed about copyright either. They allow users to breach it every day.
I am not here to defend Ancestry but I think you have perhaps misunderstood how the law of copyright works. Ancestry make it fairly clear in their terms and conditions where they stand on copyright with regard to material submitted by their users. You can read them here: https://www.ancestry.co.uk/c/legal/copyright-policy
As the terms mention, the website (including ancestry.co.uk) operates under the US law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This specifically removes the company from liability (ie it can't be sued) if one of its users publishes something which infringes someone else's copyright. The condition for this is that they don't exercise prior editorial control over such material. The dispute remains between the copyright owner and the alleged infringer. Ancestry are not even able to intervene or arbitrate in a dispute, but have to follow the DMCA procedure to retain immunity from liability.
As it sounds as if you think some other users have infringed your copyright you should follow the procedure laid out in the site's terms and conditions. However before doing so may I suggest that you check the provisions of section 29 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/29) of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, and make sure that you have adequate proof that, not only are you the legal owner of the copyright, but also that copyright still applies to the work in question. For example photographs taken before 1 January 1945 in the UK or by a UK citizen, are now out of copyright (see section 21 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/section/21/enacted) of the 1911 Copyright Act)
-
I think you have just made my point for me.
-
As the terms mention, the website (including ancestry.co.uk) operates under the US law
That statement on its own is quite enough to justify a refusal by UK agencies to hand over records collected and managed under UK law.
-
I must admit to be split on this. I am no fan of Ancestry and giving them access to all the Scottish records would not be ideal.
BUT
It would give us subscription based access to records.
I have many thousands of ancestors around the Newton and Inveresk parishes going back to the start of records, a lot of whom have the same names (20 Abraham Moffats, 17 Alexander Moffats). The only way to sort this lot out properly is to look at a lot of records which under the present system is prohibitively expensive.
I find it illustrative of the mindset of the NRS that their defense in this case was mostly based on the effect on their "income stream". That's us, and that's how they see us, as a cash cow to be milked.
The management of this organization has been pretty awful for a number of years now, witness leaking roof, failed software updates, glacially slow drip of new records being released, delayed census release.
My hope is that this will give them or the Scottish Government a kick up the pants to properly fulfill their mandate to "collect, preserve, AND PUBLISH" Scottish records. My expectation is somewhat different.
-
The only delayed census release that I can remember was the 1921 one and if you remember that was in the middle of COVID.
As for Scotland's people being a cash cow I find if you do your homework it is probably the cheapest and most accurate of all the records as you get to see the original.
Yours Aye
BruceL
-
I did say "release", I meant 1921, it was in COVID but by the time COVID started they should have been doing the final checks, also the English managed with 10 times the records ! They had basically as long as they liked, they knew the release date decades ago and still managed to miss it by over a year.
I would like to think that 1931 is well in hand by now, with contracts placed, work schedules planned and test transcripts approved. Want to bet it is ?
On the second point, how exactly do you "do your homework" without looking at actual records for which ScotlandsPeople hold a monopoly apart from old Victorian Transcripts of a few parishes. I spend £20 a month on ScotlandsPeople (because I impose that limit) which equates to 13 images a month. I spend about the same on Ancestry for which I can look at the entirety of Lancashire (and many other) parish records. The only alternative is a long day out in Hawick or Edinburgh looking at records there, which costs more (I've tried it).
All of this is of course only for the records they choose to release. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of further "Other Church" records where the only choice is a long visit to Edinburgh to trawl through un-indexed records. Given the cost of hotels in Edinburgh these days that's totally out of the question, I haven't been able to afford those trips since I retired.
As I said originally I'm no fan of Ancestry and really don't want them to have the records (at least not solely them). What I really want is for ScotlandsPeople to actually be for Scotland's People.
-
Hi
Have a look here
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=562668.0
Yours Aye
BruceL
-
...There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of further "Other Church" records where the only choice is a long visit to Edinburgh to trawl through un-indexed records. Given the cost of hotels in Edinburgh these days that's totally out of the question, I haven't been able to afford those trips since I retired.
As I said originally I'm no fan of Ancestry and really don't want them to have the records (at least not solely them). What I really want is for ScotlandsPeople to actually be for Scotland's People.
There are millions of records in other archives too, the vast majority of which are not available via either Scotland's People, Ancestry, or any other commercial provider. While Ancestry might want some of these, and then get them on whatever kind of deal they make, this is a different issue which is covered in the ICO's decision.
Scotland's People is for Scotland's People, but the records are really only a tiny tiny part of what's actually out there. Not everything will ever appear online either, and not everything will ever be available via one central site. Not everything is in Edinburgh! There are records and indexes and datasets available all over the place, some for free, some you have to send away for a book, and some you have to pay to access online. There is a wider discussion to be had about paying for access to records, either in person or online, but this particular request by Ancestry was refused on a specific point regarding re-use of public sector information.
-
bleckie,
Some useful stuff in there, thanks. I'd forgotten we had to pay to search.
Archivos,
Agree with everything you say. What however is the "specific point regarding re-use of public sector information". Does the Information Commissioner want to encourage re-use or restrict re-use ? It isn't clear. The rest of the BBC article I read talked finances.
I don't want free access, I want affordable access for my needs. As far as I can see the only way to achieve that is a subscription model of access, or perhaps bulk pricing on a sliding scale.
To give an example of Other Church records, about 15 years ago I had reason to want to access Nicolson Square Methodist Church records and was told they were not microfilmed and were held off-site. I would have to preorder the volumes I wanted and spend some days in Edinburgh reading them. At that point I gave up. As far as I can see they are still not filmed and are certainly not online and what is worse there is no evidence, like a filming and release schedule, that they ever will be. Equivalent records in England were filmed in the 1950's and are available through multiple subscription sources.
I don't really want to get into specific records but I would like to think that these records were being filmed on a well considered schedule and that they would one day appear online if only to stop them being lost to an unfortunate fire or dropping to bits through age.
-
Index searching is free on Scotlands People. You can use any number of sites to hone in on the person you need.
They have also with the use of volunteers improved the indexing on mother’s maiden names, so finding families is pretty straightforward.
Even with complex ones.
There are lots of records still to be scanned and transcribed.
This either takes money, or volunteers.
Ancestry seem to be trying to monetise everything, and seem to have backed off on their assistance of scanning and indexing. There are lots of improvements they could be doing with the records they already have.
The records office have no control over making. records other than those they own available. The Scottish Catholic records used to to be available, Ancestry had a long window to make those available if they had negotiated direct with the church.
Similarly the Methodist records are the property of the Church, and as such have to give permission for them to be copied.
Apologies if this turned into a bit of a flame.
Just as a PS, most other records are not available on Ancestry and are more expensive, GRO, Australia, and elsewhere.
-
Thats ok David I don't mind you ganging up on me, it's fun, but I do notice you're all cherry picking my points. Nobody's addressed the leaking roof, failed software updates, glacially slow drip of new records being released.
All of which is besides the point I originally made, I want to do research, not find people who are nicely indexed and catalogued but to figure out how families fit together.
Any examples I give are from my head as I haven't looked at this part of my tree for a number of years and so should be taken as a type exemplar rather than a specific query I have but here we go -
I have about five Abraham Moffats born between 1780 and 1795, who between them marry five women, all born in Inveresk or Newton, all from coal mining stock, all marry about 1815 ish. As they are coal miners most don't last til 1855 so no or little death info. The way I pieced them together was to get every bit of information I could on their families and work it out. For example the Abraham Moffat who was buried in Newton in 1835 could only be the one who had a brother William, who was still alive in 1835, and who had a connection to Newton (as he didn't live there) as he ordered the burial. This was done over ten years ago when I was working and could afford to look at a whole bunch of images. Stuff like abode, occupation, and any incidental info, isn't ever indexed you just have to look. I have done similar for parishes in East Lothian as they are well represented on FreeReg.
The problem I have is that there are probably another twenty or more similar problems I would like to sort out. Once you are deep in parish records then it gets very difficult to say that the person getting married is a specific person born 21 years or so earlier, there is no linking record. Naming patterns of children will only take you so far if they're all 1st, 2nd or 3rd cousins and have less than twenty given names between them, and you don't really know if all the children were baptised, or where.
I hope from all this blather you see my problem, I need subscription access so that I can look at whole families without it costing me a fortune. I wish ScotlandsPeople would give me this, but they won't, Ancestry will.
Also why won't they give me a subscription, the marginal cost of a download is about zero, the costs are all up front, it would be simple for them to calculate the subscription cost to balance out the loss of one-off purchases and if they get it wrong it can be adjusted at any point.
-
Hi Steve
Prior to statutory registration in 1855 it was down to the church to record births marriages etc. It cost the families and not everyone could afford the expense and not all church officers were diligent in recording events therefore not all events were recorded so there will be gaps in records. If you look at Scotland's people it tells you what OPRs are available
Yours Aye
Bruce
-
Steve,
I wasn’t ganging up on you specifically. It was about the general assumption there seems to be that the Scottish approach is bad.
I have exactly the same issue as you with Mid and East Lothian mining families.
However, you can put together pretty certain families in Scottish Records as depending a bit on the parish most have mothers maiden names.
There will be oddballs out there, but that is like any research.
My parents did a pretty good job of untangling them just with the IGI on microfiche. Most of what i have done since has been to confirm and add the odd additional person / marriage as later records become available.
They also spent a lot of volunteer time indexing the SP records, SP was way ahead of the world in making records available. When my parents started you still had to go to individual parishes or County record offices to see English records.
As far as I can see apart from volunteer efforts, England is still harder or more expensive.
Looks like you are fortunate, most of them lived past statutory registration. So you get their mothers for free.
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/record-results/82378028068d59d47c5a73?sort=asc&order=Year#main_search_results
PS if we are talking about Moffats and Gordons or Moffats and Prides we are probably related!
PPS I would love it if they gave a bulk discount rather than subscription.
-
Moffats by the hundred, a handful of Prides and the odd Gordon. Starting with James Moffat and Janet Kaidgley m. 1661 in Lasswade
Your PPS is what my main point of complaint is, why can't they offer a subscription ?
Also why do you see bulk discount as preferable, I see the opposite. Since I just want to read the records before I download. My downloads would probably decrease compared to now since I wouldn't have to fish in the dark, I'd only download the record I was looking for.
-
Steve,
Well it’s a business model, it costs money to buy rent scanners, transcribe etc. This number can be calculated. Hence a cost per certificate, they also provide a fantastic rescan / support desk. Usually same day I find for poor images, I don’t see Ancestry doing that.
If they offered subscriptions they would have to pitch it at a price point that might put people off, especially if they only have a few ancestors from Scotland. Currently all indexing searches are free, Ancestry seem to add remove features costs at a whim.
Currently if I bought an image from SP I can see it again for free, all held on their servers 25 years after I first looked. Indeed as long as the account is live, you can see the records.
They have now also added bulk download of viewed certificates, so you don’t have to do it one at a time.
Have you suggested subscription or other option to them, they seem to be responsive to suggestions.
As I said before if you have an Ancestry or FindMyPast subscription you can be 95% certain you have the right person.
With Ancestry I am paying for thousands of records I am completely uninterested in, every year, so you win some, you lose some.
Personally I prefer the SP approach, and going back to the original point, I dislike SP being taken to court by a company owned by a hedge fund.
PS since you are paying for a page, not an entry, you quite often get results for free as well!
-
The BBC article I read
The BBC article https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy50gn5353zo is rather brief
Whodoyouthinkyou are gives a better idea https://whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/news/ancestry-nrs-records
Ancestry are after everything digital images and associated transcripts of census, wills and civil records and want free reign to use any way they wish under Open Government Licence - on a “royalty-free” basis. They argue that as FamilySearch have [microfilm] data then they are being discriminated against. They were & are open to discussing a licencing agreement and payment but NRS sees it as opening the floodgates to requests/demands from other Companies for the same images and metadata transcript and having ramifications on their ability to perform their public functions and on future work.
One wonders if Ancestry were also testing the water as if ultimately successful then they might consider further requests and challenges with other UK bodies and County Archives. Similar vital BMD images and indexes in their home country have greater public access restrictions and costs. They seem content to let Reclaim the Records chase those from State Archives via FOI, put online free, and then copy and put behind a paywall.
NRS is funded by the Scottish Government and by the income generated from ScotlandsPeople, the latter intended to be reinvested in the delivery of public services. The fees they charge approved by the Scottish Parliament.
Ancestry used The General Regulatory Chamber, a First-tier Tribunal to appeal against the Information Commissioner's Office and NRS' rejection of their data request. The Tribumal has ruled in Ancestry's favour on one aspect but against in several.
The full arguments, evaluations and decisions can be read via the National Archives
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/2025/1088
Some excerpts are below but others might pick other bits.
Ancestry’s "Mr Atkinson accepted that the Request is for a valuable resource, unique to NRS, providing significant revenue to NRS, so that Ancestry might exploit it commercially"
"The effect of Ancestry’s submission is to deny an archive its threshold discretion and to make permission to re-use mandatory,"
268. In reality, Ancestry is asking us [the Tribunal] to examine and determine the limits of reasonableness in the exercise by a public sector body of a discretion which, if exercised so as to permit the requested re-use, would, as NRS would have it, mean it having to divest itself of, or at least potentially significantly diminish in its hands the value of, a unique asset which is currently fundamental to the performance of the public sector body’s public task, and to expose itself to additional, and potentially very substantial, ongoing costs, at an ultimate cost to the public purse.
269. It seems to us that that significantly exceeds the bounds of what the Commissioner and the Tribunal are set up to do under FOIA as modified for the purposes of RPSI. [Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations]
Decision: The Appeal is Allowed in part and Dismissed in part.
278. The Tribunal finds that the Request was a request for re-use within the meaning of RPSI. To that extent, the Decision Notice is not in accordance with the law, and to that extent the Appeal must be allowed.
279. The Tribunal finds that NRS’s exercise of its discretion to refuse the Request was not in breach of any requirement of RPSI. To that extent the Decision Notice is in accordance with the law, and the Appeal must be dismissed.
-
...
I don't want free access, I want affordable access for my needs. As far as I can see the only way to achieve that is a subscription model of access, or perhaps bulk pricing on a sliding scale.
To give an example of Other Church records, about 15 years ago I had reason to want to access Nicolson Square Methodist Church records and was told they were not microfilmed and were held off-site. I would have to preorder the volumes I wanted and spend some days in Edinburgh reading them. At that point I gave up. As far as I can see they are still not filmed and are certainly not online and what is worse there is no evidence, like a filming and release schedule, that they ever will be. Equivalent records in England were filmed in the 1950's and are available through multiple subscription sources.
I don't really want to get into specific records but I would like to think that these records were being filmed on a well considered schedule and that they would one day appear online if only to stop them being lost to an unfortunate fire or dropping to bits through age.
This is the crux, what affordable means to different people. I don't have a subscription to Ancestry, as I don't use it enough. I don't mind the credit system on Scotland's People as a result, as it allows me to dip in and out, find information from the free indexes, look at some church records for free, and then decide if I want to part with any money.
Ordering records to look at which are held offsite is really common, and while the issue of access when not in the same country or can't get to where they are held is the same as it ever was, it does seem more frustrating now as there is other information online. A subscription service for Scotland's People isn't going to solve this though.
And thanks to Jon_ni for the fuller explanation of the tribunal outcome, much appreciated!
-
Thank you, Jon_ni.
As I see it, if NRS is forced to make all its material including indexes available to Ancestry, it will be obliged to do the same if approached by any other commercial organisation with a similar purpose. The tribunal document says there are 10-15 such, but does not name them, but they would include FindMyPast and MyHeritage.
If these commercial companies run true to form, they will, like Ancestry, take the indexes and put the full versions thereof behind their paywall, though they may make redacted versions available free of charge.
The end result will inevitably be the collapse of Scotland's People as we know it, because its revenue stream will simply dry up. There will be no income to invest in making additional documents available, and instead of the revenue from our national records coming to Scotland and benefiting everyone, it will go as profits into the pockets of a foreign hedge fund.
Therefore, irrespective of the fine legal points on which the legal proceedings appear to turn, we will all (except the hedge fund owners) ultimately lose out, even though it might cost us less in the short term.
-
Perhaps I am being naïve but it seems to me that the obvious solution is for NRS to agree to give access but on a pay per view basis? NRS get a fee from Anc every time a record is viewed. If Anc agree than NRS will get a huge increase in income while retaining income from the many who do not have an Anc subsciption. If Anc consider that too expensive then job done – NRS have offered to give access but Anc have walked away. Surely no court can dictate terms of a commercial contract?
-
Perhaps I am being naïve but it seems to me that the obvious solution is for NRS to agree to give access but on a pay per view basis? NRS get a fee from Anc every time a record is viewed. If Anc agree than NRS will get a huge increase in income while retaining income from the many who do not have an Anc subsciption. If Anc consider that too expensive then job done – NRS have offered to give access but Anc have walked away. Surely no court can dictate terms of a commercial contract?
The 'request' by Ancestry was made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/13/contents). The Act says that any fee charged by the public authority must be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for the [Scottish] Cabinet Office. In other words the NRS cannot set its own scale of fees. The actual Regulations (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2004/467/made) set the upper threshold beyond which the cost is deemed excessive at £600 (see Regulation 5). From the WDYTYA article cited in Jon_ni's reply 19 above, the NRS say that the cost of complying would be "over £560,000", and take between 12 to 18 months to achieve. On its face this would seem to make the NRS's refusal to comply lawful. However it appears that Ancestry have countered this by saying that their staff should be granted direct access to the NRS information in order to carry out the transfer and any scanning etc of the data, so that NRS would not face this cost. This would be a similar arrangement to what happened with the England and Wales 1921 Census contract between FindMyPast and the National Archives. However that contract had nothing to do with FoI,
-
My recollection of the pdf was as the request stood that Ancestry suggested disaggregation would be achievable without third-party technical assistance & the obligation was on NRS to supply the data under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1415 . Apparently those allow appropriate charges to cover a reasonable return on investment, direct, indirect and overhead costs. The said their experience with other archives was nothing was insurmountable and they would be flexible with the data format. Neither NRS nor Ancestry had IT experts there.
Ancestry had modified their request from Open Governemt Licence to under RPSI on 14 Jan 2025 ie at the Tribunal, after it had been conisdered twice by NRS & then the Commissioner.
The £560,000 was what it cost NRS last year
It would likely take 12–18 months to put in place the requisite technical and commercial arrangements; a recent migration from internal storage on premises to cloud storage using the same underlying data structure but which did not involve changing, correcting or re-ordering the data structure (which, as we understand it, would be required in this case) took 11 months to plan and execute, involving considerable NRS and external resources, at a cost of in excess of £560,000
When it was put to Ms Sinclair that NRS’s concerns might fall away in the face of a charging structure which held NRS harmless, she explained that scoping that issue in itself would be a complex piece, requiring full planning with consideration of a 20-40 year period ahead to address sustainability.
Potential loss of income to NRS, is estimated up to £3.7m per year, based on an average over the last 6 financial years.
Ancestry had already added to their initial 2022 request for the addition of the 1921 census.
NRS is concerned that if it were to accede to the Request, NRS may then have to repeat the exercise, either upon each annual release by NRS of new records [and rolling years of BMD], or, bearing in mind the requirement of Regulation 13 (non-discrimination), that once NRS has granted re-use, it must then treat economic operators equally and without discrimination and act in a transparent and proportionate manner in response to requests by other, similar businesses, entailing the construction of an ongoing [secure] transfer service at significant cost to itself and the public purse.
[above from NRS replies pdf pages 25-27]
How long did they estimate it would take to recoup in £1.50's the cost of the 1921. Should NRS, Scottish Parliament and taxpayers pay for the digitisation and transcription of the 1931 census, for it to be demanded by one or more commercial genealogy companies. Anything NRS digitise/host has potential to be requested.
Findmypast did the English 1921 but bore the full cost of that, hence the 3 year exclusivity licence and the initial additional charges. TNA curators but FindMyPast digitisitation staff, working under tight security clearence as was before the 100 years was up, then batch transferred and transcribed in strips in India (as the 1939 was) so no one there had names, ages, occupations and address on a single image. FindMyPast then returned to TNA a full set of archival standard tiff images from FindMyPast servers. As an aside the transcriptions were/are riddled with errors and some misalign horizontally if the head used 3 lines instead of two for his occupation, or there is a blank. The NRS COVID delay was probably of benefit as the data was then open by law so transcription was unconstrained.
Three years later Ancestry agreed terns with TNA for their images and terms with FindMyPast for FindMyPast's transcripts so Ancestry could get it online immediately & not have to re-do. 1911 & older census were transcribed by both & so differ; the 1921's will diverge based on corrections submitted to FindMyPast and user additions to Ancestry.
-
Thanks for the more complete reply.
-
TNA, Kew don't host census on their public servers. They tried the 1901 https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/unlocking-the-past-the-1901-census-online/ thereafter put the 1911, 1939 & 1921 to tender, all initially under a micropayment structure before they became part & parcel of a UK subscription. The [2nd] report contrasts the scale and experience of putting the English and Scottish 1901 census data online.
Similarly a lot of Army records have been licenced to Ancestry or Findmypast for access on their respective servers only. TNA planning and accounts have been based on this.
NRS went a different route, they had created a website 2001 for the 1891 and released all subsequent census on it, outsourcing the digitisation and transcription but hosting the data themselves and charging. That has been their gameplan since 1997.
The whole thing is complex legally and financially, we can sympathise with one side or the other but we are not going to resolve nor do we have all the facts & info.
My interest is in the end product, I doubt many of us will read the NRS's Annual Report & accounts https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts/ nor TNA's https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/annual-report-and-accounts-2024-25
-
Jon_ni, slow down man, I'm still working my way through all the legal stuff you linked above trying to get my head around the implications. So far my take is that the Tribunal totally sat on the fence, it's a legal Re-Use and it's a legal Refusal so the Appeal must be both allowed and dismissed. Ain't our legal system great !
Scanning the annual report the highlight has to be somebody registered an "AI Tartan"
-
Steve
Even the Tribunal seemed to struggle with copious quotes and explainations of their interpretations. My take was the NRS's apparently have a legal right to simply deny data because they don't want to release it, by using the discresion which they have under RPSI (they have no discression under FOI).
If Ancestry want to pursue further they could make a Public Law challenge but that is outside the Tribunal's remit and juristiction. Ancestry submitted that none of its grounds was a pure public law challenge, but then go on to talk about other legal cases which might apply in part; beyond my man in the street grasp, sorry.
My take was it was more of a win for NRS really, but Ancestry could challenge further.
Grounds of Appeal dated 28 May 2024 requests Tribunal to substitute a Decision Notice. On 24 October 2024, the parties had agreed the principal issues. Tribubal heard at Field House, London on 13 and 14 January 2025. Deliberation on 14 January 2025, 21 March 2025 and 6 June 2025. Decision on 11 Sept 2025.
-
Jon_ni
Thanks for that makes interesting reading, for all that it is mostly blurb.
Scotlands seems to be doing more for records than England, bigger per head spend, and that is reflected in the service I see, NLS has a fantastic old map resource that I see no equivalent for in England, may have missed it, but …
One wonders what England could be doing if they were getting the full benefit of the profits Ancestry are making from English records.
On a wider note Ancestry are not the only places to do research, and not everyone has an Ancestry account, I also feel that their ethos has changed since they were bought over. They are making a lot of money from all our research. Their licensing fees to there subsidiaries are eye watering.
-
Chris Paton's evaluation on his Scottish Genes Blog.
https://scottishgenes.blogspot.com/2025/09/more-on-legal-proceedings-by-ancestry.html
Facebook http://rootschat.com/links/01u1c/ and http://rootschat.com/links/01u1d/