Genes Reunited

[oursutherlands]

That's my point Suttontrust ... by sharing your information you sometimes get results back. If Bill is intending to publish his findings at a later date, then he shouldn't have opened up his data. It's the price you pay for getting more results.

However, Bill has reason to be concerned because now he doesn't know who has his data, it's all very well taking your tree down so future subscribers can't access it, but the damage has been done because there is no way of really deleting electronic data. GenesReunited ( or their subsequent owners ) will have a cache storage of his tree wether he likes it or not ... so who "owns" it?

Neil

[suttontrust]

Is it the question of "ownership" that's at the heart of this concern, then?  I don't "own" my family tree.  The data - names, dates etc. - is public property.  If I fill it out with personal and background information, and put it in narrative form, I automatically have copyright on that.  I've done that, and have given it to my neares and dearest.  The only reason for my research has been so that I, and my young relatives, know about our roots.

[Su]

I am very grateful to GC as it has introduced me to so many distant relatives and friends, most of whom I have now met personally, from all over the world.

I have only shown my tree to those whom I have known for a long time and can trust.  If new contacts ask to see my tree, I firstly ask them what it is they wish to know, and answer that question.  From that I suggest they do their own research.  I had one dubious contact last week, who said that a long time ago I had sent him a lengthy email with a lot of information on it which he had lost, would I let him see my tree.  As I keep all my GC contact list, I looked for him and he wasn't on it, nor did I remember sending him such information.  I therefore ignored his request. 

My friend in the US phoned me the other day and said that someone on GC had stolen her tree and called it his own.  She knew it was her tree as she had foolishly opened it to him some time back, and there were several errors on it, that she has since corrected.

Su

[Lainys]

The only time I got unhappy was when someone found a distant connection to my own tree and I made the mistake of allowing her access.  The next time I looked she had lifted the entire thing. 

I spoke to soon in my last post  .  This has just happened to me and it doesn't feel nice, especially as I am included in the tree and my contact hasn't had the courtesy to ask my permission    

Dolly

[meles]

I must say, I am a tad surprised about the strong reactions to people "stealing" information from GenesReunited. It's a public site, and anything you publish there is pretty much fair game. Such is the internet.

My tree is on it, and if anyone copies it, good luck to them. I hope it saves them the years it took me to compile it. They might even point out some errors, or let me know about new connections.

I was astonished when a distant cousin allowed me access to his tree, and I simply added the missing parts to mine, which eventually got published by GR. He sent me a very abusive e-mail calling me a thief!  I have since deleted the offending section, but feel I have been cut off from part of my family.

That's why I prefer Rootschat - we all happily share our knowledge! 

meles

[Pels.]

My story so far..  ..  .. 

I did join on Sunday and left a message for the person I had initially spotted researching the same names as me.

Now comes the deceitful part, I only clicked onto the name of my husband's great grandfather, when in actual fact I could have gone back a further generation with all the names on offer.
This information could have been obtained from either the 1881 or 1901 census. 

So far - nothing! In all fairness, with the holiday period in full swing, my contact may be on holiday?
I don't think so - I really do think, in view of your advice the fact she doesn't think I have anything to offer is the reason for her lack of communication!

Shame really, because I hit and then bypassed a huge stumbling block in this part of the tree. Once past that particular hiccup you can sail straight back to 1700 quite easily 

Without listening to you lot, I would:

a)  Be a far nicer person - oh, alright gullible!!
b)  Feeling very let down!!

I will keep you posted, if I am wrong I will hold my hands up, instinct for some unknown reason tells me otherwise and I can't explain it?

Pels 

[Bee]

I subscribe to GR and whenever anyone contacts me and it proves to be a genuine contact (even if it's a bit distant) and they give me access to their tree, I happily give them access to mine.  My tree on GR is far from complete due to lack of time so when I give someone access to my tree I always state that I have more details available, so if they don't keep in touch and they lift my tree straight off GR then they've still got a lot of gaps.

Bee

[Lydart]

Someone further back in this topic asked what will happen to GR now they have been bought up by a TV company, and if the daft programme they are sponsoring (time warped dinosaurs, for heavens sake ... !!!!!! ) is anything to go by, I'm not sure we can be too confident they will keep our hard won info about our families as 'members only' info ... has anyone asked GR about this ??  We know that only those we give permission to see our trees, can see them ... but all that info must be stored with GR ... and now the TV company ... what then ??

Lydart

[oursutherlands]

Lydart is quite right to ask "... has anyone asked GR about this ?? " Well, take the bull by the horn, and I will do just that. I will write to GenesReunited and ask them to post the answers, here, to some of the questions being raised in an attempt to dispell any speculation.