Parish Registers

[newburychap]

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.

Not a bad idea - though most e-petitions get a lot less support than the road pricing one.

National government could include a clause on access to historical parish registers in their proposals for changes in civil registration (whenever they get round to re-submitting them).  Beware though - the previous proposals included the transfer of most Register Office records to the county record offices.

[newburychap]

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.

As stated elsewhere - the loss of revenue from PRs licensed to pay per view internet providers could be very significant. The Church of England is strapped for cash these days - their PRs could fund a few vicars.

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. 

Family history has become big business since the LDS did their filming and extractions - I doubt they would be allowed to do it again under today's conditions.

"...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?

I would guess that some of the IGI records come from BTs deposited in Lincoln before the Oxford Diocese was created. They could also have used printed sources (I know they have included the Oxfordshire Marriage Index that Jeremy Gibson produced).

There are no (or very few) films of Oxfordshire registers (pre 1974 Oxfordshire) - when you go the the Oxfordshire Record Office you have to work from transcripts (they are almost all transcribed) and originals as there are no films to use.

"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.

Whilst true this has little relevance to this issue - the Norfolk 1851 census film was supplied by the Public Record Office - not by the local RO. Norfolk 1891 data was also the first to be made available as it was used by Qinetiq for the testing of the 1901 census website (not that it helped much).

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 occurred.  Not just a coincidence I think.

I wouldn't disagree - believe it or not I too would love to see Berkshire PR data online for free. However, I can see why Dr Durrant has made the decision he has made - to the extent that I suspect I would make the same decision if I were in his place.

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.

You are correct in that Dr Durrant's decision is counter to this aspect of the BRO's mandate. However, he has an overriding mandate to protect the interests of the owners of documents in his care. Digitisation of the PR films is obviously something Dr Durrant believes is not in the best interests of the owners.

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

The term is Freedom of Information (FOI). An FOI claim has to be for a specific piece of information and the BRO is entitled to levy a reasonable charge for the cost of satisfying the request. They would argue that the research service they already offer constitutes a satisfactory level of access under the terms of the FOI Act. I would guess that the only argument would be over the cost as some of the BRO charges seem less than reasonable.

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.

You're wrong - although the lucky ones who live close enough to visit the BRO or an FHC may see the filmed registers there - they cannot have digitised copies of entire registers to view on their home computers (much though they might like them).

[Vicwinann]

Hello Newburychap and everyone,

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

I can assure you that they do not. As an retired Local Government employee from another Authority I know that every such decision has to be discussed at all sorts of levels before it becomes Policy.  The BRO does not run in isolation from other departments.

RE
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.

Sounds like Dr Durrant has far too much power and a definite conflict of interests.  Not only is he "in charge" of the BRO, he also advises the CofE, and from what you are saying, it is with this hat on that he is advising the CofE which trickles down to the  Unitary Authority to make the decision that we are so irate about.

RE
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.

Not only quote, but insist that this is the only way, and one has to also pay for someone of the RO Staff to be present, as well as for the photographer's time and the cost of the prints.

The muddying of the waters regarding transcriptions and there only being one copy etc. is just that, muddying. Hampshire and several other Local Authorities that I have had personal dealings with, offer fiche copies of original parish records for sale, not transcriptions. Not cheap at £3.50 a fiche if you want a lot, but at least they are available to buy for your own use.  If other Local Authorities can do it, why can't Berkshire? 

Back to Dr Durrant again!  I have no wish to make any individual a whipping boy, but it would seem from all the discussions that the key lies with him.

Regards
Vicwinann

[behindthefrogs]

One thing to remember about the BRO is that there is no longer a Berkshire County Council and it is in fact funded by the Unitary Authorities which constitute what used to be the county.  I thus suspect that Dr Durrant reports to a committee which might change the situation.

David

[Peter Hyde]

My thanks to newburychap and others for filling in the details of this issue.  I understand that some of my remarks may have been somewhat inflamatory - but it seemed to take some extreme statements to get this discussion happening, so if I have upset anyone, at least my heart was in the right place.

I think we all share a common desire to have better access to parish records, and whilst we may disagree on how decisions have been arrived at and degrees of responsibility of the various parties, the goal of better access remains forefront.  As I think I said in my first posting, all I want to do is transcribe the Thatcham and Chieveley registers, from digitised copies, in my home.  Who I then make my transcriptions available to is really of little interest as long as I know that others will be able to share them, and will share what they have done with me.

With that said, I would like to move on to the next step - a discussion of who needs to be influenced and how.

Various agencies have been suggested for pressuring - the Anglican Church (both as a corporate body, at the Diosese level and presumably as individual incumbants), the Record Office in the person of the Chief Archivist and his political overseers, the LDS in Utah, etc.

While a long term solution may be to influence the Anglican Church, I will probably be long since buried before that happens.  However I wonder how the LDS would deal with a request to them from an incumbant to provide a digitised copy of that parish's register.

We seem to be agreed that Dr. Durrant could make the decision to allow the LDS to make the LDS films available, and presumably he could also make the decision that the record office will themselves sell copies of the fiche.  There seems to be some suggestion that he is quite conservative in his approach to this.  I am still awaiting his reply to an e-mail I sent him last week on this topic.  (ARCH@reading.gov.uk)

Until/unless we know the wording of the agreement whereby the LDS did their original filming in the 1950-1990 period, we don't know how susceptable to pressure they might be, but clearly the agreement did allow for some kind of distribution of the films and all I am looking for is an extension of that distribution from the LDS reading room 80 km away from here, to my house.  Maybe I should offer one room here in my house to the LDS to be used by them as a designated reading room!

There is clearly no blanket prohibition on transcribing records, and then making those transcriptions available.  It is just being made difficult.

I think my next step will be an e-mail to the LDS asking to see their agreement with the Church and/or record office, to see if any loopholes exist there.

Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada

[Peter Hyde]

Hi All

I have recieved a rapid, if incomplete, response from the LDS regarding digitising of parish records, which may have an influence on the discussion:

"Dear Peter Hyde,

Yes, we are digitizing most of our films, but we do not have a specific knowledge of which , if any, parish registers are being digitized at this time. When they are finally digitized, we plan to have them online and accessible from our website for free viewing by our patrons. This may not happen for a few years since we are still in the process of digitizing our over 2 million film collection.

Sincerely,

Family History Research Support
familyhistory@support.familysearch.org

FCH/vla"

No answer to my question to them regarding the nature of their agreement with the Church or the Record Offices.  I will follow-up with them.

Regards
Peter Hyde
Alberta, Canada

[griz]

Peter, that's great you got a partial answer. It could have been a form letter answer.  I got one of those from them on a different subject. It did not quite answer my question either, maybe 25% of it. When I wrote back I got an unhelpful and defensive answer. I saw there was no point in going any further. I hope you are more successful.

[newburychap]

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

I can assure you that they do not. As an retired Local Government employee from another Authority I know that every such decision has to be discussed at all sorts of levels before it becomes Policy.  The BRO does not run in isolation from other departments.

Dr Durrant's situation is rare - he is employed by Reading UA (who employ all the BRO staff) but the funding comes from the 5 UAs that signed up to the BRO system (Reading, West Berkshire, Bracknell Forest, Wokingham, Windsor & Maidenhead).

So the political will is represented by 5 different councillors or committees - none of which will have much interest in old records (apart from wanting to see their own mistakes buried for as long as possible and their opponents exposed asap).

And none of them have any significant input into the fate of records not owned by the UAs (which include records owned by the BRO). There may be ROs where the County Archivist is subservient to corporate policy on this sort of issue - but I suspect they are very rare.

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.

Sounds like Dr Durrant has far too much power and a definite conflict of interests.  Not only is he "in charge" of the BRO, he also advises the CofE, and from what you are saying, it is with this hat on that he is advising the CofE which trickles down to the  Unitary Authority to make the decision that we are so irate about.

Of course he would advise the Bishop of Oxford - he is one of the Bishop's archivists - who else would he ask for advice?

What I am saying is that I suspect (I have no inside knowledge on this) is that Dr Durrant made this decision without reference to anyone else (apart from colleagues in the BRO perhaps). I also suspect that he did so because it is within his delegated powers to do so. In fact I suspect that if he follows the book he has little choice but to make the decision he has made without consulting all the individual owners of the PRs.

The muddying of the waters regarding transcriptions and there only being one copy etc. is just that, muddying. Hampshire and several other Local Authorities that I have had personal dealings with, offer fiche copies of original parish records for sale, not transcriptions. Not cheap at £3.50 a fiche if you want a lot, but at least they are available to buy for your own use.  If other Local Authorities can do it, why can't Berkshire? 

The answer is simple - because they choose not to. The motivation is less obvious - I have heard it said that the cost of doing it makes it not worthwhile (obviously other ROs think otherwise). A lot depends on how they would manufacture the fiche. Where the PR is alread on fiche it is simple to take a copy, where they are on 35mm film (as many/most of the BRO's are) there would be a significant set up cost. Then fiche is not a popular medium these days so sales would be low (especially at £3.50 or more a fiche). There is also staff time to factor in.

In reality it would be much easier to digitise them on demand and sell them on CD - or put them on a pay per view website.

However, all this ignores the copyright issue - Dr Durrant is not the copyright owner so he could be used for breach of copyright by any PR owner (obviously other archivists don't feel this is a threat - so they probably have the Church's agreement).

I still think that the interests of historians would be best served by a national level decision to take the ownership of the copyright (not necessarily the original books) from the incumbent and into central CofE or Crown ownership. Exploitation of the images could then take place under a common set of rules for all counties.

Back to Dr Durrant again!  I have no wish to make any individual a whipping boy, but it would seem from all the discussions that the key lies with him.

He is not alone - I suspect most County Archivists have made the same decision - and that those selling PRs on fiche or allowing FreeReg to use digitised images from LDS are in the minority.

[griz]

Newburychap,     I agree with you as will, I am sure,  most of the people reading this thread: 

...the interests of historians would be best served by a national level decision to take the ownership of the copyright (not necessarily the original books) from the incumbent and into central CofE or Crown ownership. Exploitation of the images could then take place under a common set of rules for all counties.

I also think that Peter is right when he says,

While a long term solution may be to influence the Anglican Church, I will probably be long since buried before that happens.

The CofE is very indecisive, it seems to me, on other matters, so how long will it take for them to take ownership of the copyright.  The answer must be
Crown ownership.

We need a champion for this cause.