Parish Registers

[newburychap]

If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it.

I am not sure that this statement is entirely correct.  As I stated previously I know that there is a problem with making material available for long periods for transcription and thus it not being available for general public use.

David

I have never heard of any restriction on the use of films (unless an FHC is particularly busy and you can only book a film reader for a limited time). Even in the BRO the principal access to PRs is via film or fiche - originals can only be seen if a) the film is illegible and b) the register is not deemed too fragile to produce. 

So the only restrictions are on access to the original registers - which FreeReg aren't that interested in - it is copies of the films they are after.

[Peter Hyde]

"If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it."

Not true.
a.  I can't go to the BRO - it is 5,000 km away.
b.  My nearest LDS centre is 80 km away, and only open in the evenings one day a week.

Yet, I can transcribe the LDS images for Norfolk parishes at home, from a CD.  That's what I want from Berkshire.  The images are provided by LDS - no cost to Berkshire RO.

The result - So far I have transcribed 6 Norfolk parishes and Norfolk now has over 300,000 parish register entries on FreeREG with 75 trancribers, Berkshire has none.

Suggestions that it is the Oxford bishop who is telling the Record Office not to give the LDS persmission to release LDS images are unsupported by any documentation that I have seen.  So until someone can produce evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that it is Dr. Durrant's decision.

I agree it may be a grey area and Dr. Durrant is acting on the side of caution in the absence of a specific ruling by the bishop or the synod.  But his caution is holding back those of us with Berkshire acestors.  Yet his mandate, taken from the BRO website, is "to preserve records relating to the county of Berkshire and its people, and to make them available for research to anyone who is interested in the county's past

Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada

[newburychap]

"If FreeReg want to transcribe they can go to the BRO or any LDS Family History Centre and get on with it."

Not true.
a.  I can't go to the BRO - it is 5,000 km away.
b.  My nearest LDS centre is 80 km away, and only open in the evenings one day a week.

1.  You are not all of FreeReg - if some transcribers cannot get to a film others can.
2.  Why not pressurise your local LDS to open their FHC more - or to allow you access for one convenient day a week so you can transcribe. If the LDS are so keen on FreeReg why can they not let you do this?

Yet, I can transcribe the LDS images for Norfolk parishes at home, from a CD.  That's what I want from Berkshire.  The images are provided by LDS - no cost to Berkshire RO.

What Dr Durrant almost certainly does not want is images of Berkshire parish registers on CD (he has also refused Berks FHS permission to work this way) - once digitised the copyright will be almost impossible to enforce. The potential cost of loss of control of copyright could be immense.

And no Bishop needs to tell Dr Durrant what to do - it is his job as a church archivist (part of the responsibility of most if not all county archivists) to make these sort of decisions. If you asked the Bishop he would probably call his local expert (Dr Durrant) for advice. He may also go to his other archivists in Oxfordshire (LDS have not even been allowed to film PRs - nothing on FreeReg) and Buckinghamshire (not sure what is happening there but only 3 or 4 parishes in FreeReg) to get alternative opinions - I doubt they would differ with Dr Durrant.

Norfolk actually appears to be an exception rather than the rule - almost a fifth of all entries in FreeReg come from there. From a quick look through the FreeReg site it seems to me from the sparcity of entries in most counties that most archivists have made the same decision as Dr Durrant.

[Vicwinann]

Hello,
Can I make some comments on this subject - or have we gone on long enough about it?

1.  No Archivist in the UK has the power on his own to make such wide ranging decisions.  These decisions/policies are made above him, but with his and his staff's advice and input.

2. As the owner of the copyright would appear to be the Berks Record Office under the control of Local Government, then Local Government Officers and Councillors are the people/body, and NOT the Church of England,  who made/make the decisons as to the how and if copyright is shared. Again with the archivist's input.  We are not just talking about Church of England records here! Other church records are equally unavailable unless one can visit Berkshire Record Office.

3. The pressures on Dr Durrant as mentioned can only be put upon him by his Local Government colleagues, who in turn are advised and dictated to by National Government.  Passing the buck and lack of accountability using financial, copyright, legal, and privacy grounds as  reasons has become a way of life with many Local Councils and Councillors, and this is just another example.

4. Which brings us back to another comment made, with which I agree, sheer greed. Berkshire RO and the Council do not want to lose the revenue  from the exorbitant charges it makes for searches from people unable to visit the record office.  I was quoted £650 last year for  an outcome of 15 peices of paper!

Regards
Vicwinann

[joboy]

Vicwinann said;
Hello,
Can I make some comments on this subject - or have we gone on long enough about it?

No Vicwinann we have not 'gone on' anywhere long enough the subject needs desparately to be ventilated and I thank both yourself and particularly Peter for his persistence.
Joe

[Peter Hyde]

Thank you joboy and Vicwinann for continuing this thread.  I am nothing if not persistant, and yes, I too am looking for the real truth.

newburychap has made a number of points which need to be addressed:

"The potential cost of loss of control of copyright could be immense" - what cost? - loss of revenue from sales of film copies? - no - Berkshire RO doesn't sell copies.  Loss of revenue from doing searches?  Norfolk RO doesn't seem to be going broke.

I suspect it is the loss of control which bothers them more.  Yet, LDS were allowed to film the registers, transcribe some of them, and put the results on the net. 

"...other archivists in Oxfordshire (LDS have not even been allowed to film PRs.." then how did LDS IGI get 129 Oxford parishes at least partly transcribed?

"Norfolk actually appears to be an exception rather than the rule "  Yes - and Norfolk was the exception in having it's 1851 census transcribed by LDS and put on CD, years before most other counties.

And, talking of censuses - several years ago this site and others were swamped with lookup requests.  Since the National Archives made their films available a huge surge in genealogy interest has occured.  Not just a coincidence I think.

And I still go back to one of my original points that by restricting access the Record Office is going against its mandate to "make them available for research to anyone who is interested in the county's past."  I am interested, and they are not making the records available to me in a reasonable manner, in a way that is technologically possible, and no expense to tax-payers.  Allowing LDS to digitise and release the images would go along way to achieving that part of the mandate.

I wonder if an access-to-information claim by someoe in a remote part of the UK, or by a house-bound individual in Berkshire, would be effective?

What is being asked for is really no more than is already being given to the priviledged/lucky ones who live within easy travelling of the Record Office or a LDS reading room.

Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada

[griz]

I too would like to have access to these records and I live further away than Peter Hyde.  Well said, Peter.

How can we  persuade  Dr Durrant to allow these records to be available to all who would like to see them. They certainly are not now.

 Despite the protestations there must be a way to do this.

The excuses sound like something from "Yes Minister." The programme that pointed out that silly decisions are often all about a desire for power, and greed.
 
Has anyone written letters to the local newspaper?
 What about groups of angry genealogists waving placards outside the office? 

What about a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury?  maybe he has an interest in genealogy.

[Lesanne]

My word, you have all been busy..  Hmmmm...
               How would we go about making an e-petition?

Just like the one that was used for the 'extra car tax' a few weeks ago...
Then, those in the big 'ouse would get to see and perhaps understand our disgust at their power and greed.

[newburychap]

1.  No Archivist in the UK has the power on his own to make such wide ranging decisions.  These decisions/policies are made above him, but with his and his staff's advice and input.

Every County Archivist has the power to make the decision Dr Durrant has made - and the decision the Norfolk archivist has made.

There are those 'above' him who could override him or influence him to change his mind - the Church of England authorities.

2. As the owner of the copyright would appear to be the Berks Record Office under the control of Local Government, then Local Government Officers and Councillors are the people/body, and NOT the Church of England,  who made/make the decisons as to the how and if copyright is shared. Again with the archivist's input.  We are not just talking about Church of England records here! Other church records are equally unavailable unless one can visit Berkshire Record Office.

When we are talking about Church of England parish records the owner of the copyright and of the original registers is the parish that the registers came from - in the person of the incumbent. Parish registers are deposited in record offices to ensure they are kept in the best possible condtions (and to save individiual parishes the expense of providing suitable storage). They are not the property of the BRO or any part of local government. The County Archivist is employed by local government (in Dr Durrant's case a complicated structure involving 5 or 6 unitary authorities). However, he is also the archivist for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire (inlcudng parts of Oxfordshire) - his local government bosses will have little power over this decision.

Once filmed there is another party to the copyright of the filmed image - I don't know what agreement was reached between the LDS and BRO when the LDS filming was done but LDS are obviously prepared to leave the decisions to the BRO.

Records from other churches and organisations have variable ownership - it depends on the terms under which they were placed in the BRO (ignoring Berks records in other hands). When someone decides to put somthing in the BRO they have the option of keeping ownership (depositing) or passing ownership to the BRO (donating). PRs are all deposited - other records vary. The person putting the record in the BRO can also set conditions which can include a closure (not to be seen by the public). I would hope that such closure can only be for a limited period but I am not sure that is the case. The BRO will also make decision as to closure periods to be applied to sensitive records. They have recently received the records of Broadmoor Hospital - the suggestion is that the patient records will never be made public (anyone want to challenge that with a FOI application?). I have also come across a case where the donor stipulated that his papers should not be copied - I could see them but could not get a photocopy or take a picture of them.

3. The pressures on Dr Durrant as mentioned can only be put upon him by his Local Government colleagues, who in turn are advised and dictated to by National Government.  Passing the buck and lack of accountability using financial, copyright, legal, and privacy grounds as  reasons has become a way of life with many Local Councils and Councillors, and this is just another example.

As explained above - it is the Church who have the decision to make, not local government.

4. Which brings us back to another comment made, with which I agree, sheer greed. Berkshire RO and the Council do not want to lose the revenue  from the exorbitant charges it makes for searches from people unable to visit the record office.  I was quoted £650 last year for  an outcome of 15 peices of paper!

BRO charges are often OTT. One aspect is that they often quote to bring in a professional photographer to take beautiful pictures (very expensive) when all you want is a quick snap with a digital camera.

As to the revenue from the PRs - the potential revenue I had in mind would go to the owners (the Church of England) if they agreed to licence their PRs to Ancestry or some other pay to view provider (like the National Archives have done with the censuses).

The piecemeal and varied decisions of County Archivists illustrate to me the need for the C of E to make a policy decision and to stop leaving it in the hands of the Archivists.