(1) First let me state I tend to agree with Dave Dees’s suggestion that those with private trees on Ancestry be prohibited from searching and downloading any open trees on Ancestry, but I am afraid it would not be possible as in such instances the prohibition would also have to apply with those that have no tree on Ancestry...
(2) City Ark are erring on the side of caution by imposing the current recommended embargo (note recommended, not legally required embargo). They also state on their website
http://cityark.medway.gov.uk/query/results/?Mode=Search&PathList=/Z4a_Medway_Ancestors/
“The registers are not embargoed and can be viewed in our searchroom by appointment and on production of a CARN reader's ticket.”...
Watcha Guy,
Thanks for your comments.
Point (1) above that you've made is a good one, concerning people on Ancestry with no trees at all. Any ruling on those people and the ones running private trees being able to take from those running public trees would probably be impossible to enforce. I think we've reached an impasse.
As regards your point (2) above, yes, I've seen that posted on the Medway Cityark website, and indeed, it was pointed out to me by one of their Archivists.
One thing I would like to ask is this: if the publishing of parish marriage registers less than 75 years old and parish baptismal registers less than 100 years old is so sensitive (and possibly open to legal action), then why are these documents nevertheless open for public viewing in the Medway searchroom? Does that not also render Cityark open to possible litigation, in like manner? - and if not, why not?
Let's now examine the details found in the two types of parish registers we are discussing (off-topic).
(a) Correct me if I am wrong, but the parish marriage registers contain no more and no less information than is found in the marriage certificates obtainable from the GRO (General Register Office). Why, then, pray tell, does the GRO not similarly withdraw access to marriage certificates of events held less than 75 years ago, lest legal action be taken against the Office?
(b) Concerning parish baptismal registers, these will contain material additional to that found in official birth certificates. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but the extra material would be: {1} the name of the church where the baptism took place; {2} the name of the officiating minister; {3} the date of the baptism. Have I left anything out? Can somebody please kindly explain to me upon which grounds any possible legal action could be taken against Medway Cityark for publishing scans of such documents of less than 100 years of age?
As stated by me before in this thread, and to a Cityark Archivist, this is a typical, modern-day over-reaction, effected by people scared of their own shadows.
This is all I am going to say on the subject to support my reasonings. My feelings should now be abundantly clear to everyone viewing this entire topic. Case closed.
Best wishes to everyone. Continue to enjoy your wranglings and janglings.
Dave.
Show Posts
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.......
??
