A word of warning!!

[Redroger]

There has recently been another thread on Rootschat regarding copyright, which is well worth reading. I think it was in the Common Room.

[Nick29]

Stories and photos are your copyright, and you can demand that Ancestry remove it,  but the actual tree information isn't.  As so many people have said before..... If you don't want to share it, don't post it.

[Redroger]

But when sites have been asked to remove copyright material have they complied, or is this just another theoretical right for most of us only enforceable by thos who can afford expensive lawyers?

[Nick29]

It's hard to generalise when you don't specify which sites you are talking about.  Ancestry will remove things which contravene their posting policy, which includes copyright issues.  Other solutions are often required for other sites.  If the person administering a site won't play ball, it's not too hard to find out who actually does the hosting of the site, and put pressure on them.  When you buy web space on a web host, there's usually strict rules in place to protect the host from copyright and libel issues.

[Redroger]

Fair enough Nick, My reply was widely based in an attempt to include a variety of sites.

[maisie666]

Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.

Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.

Thanks very much
Maisie

[robbo43]

It annoys me intensely when people copy material without acknowledging the source, especially photos.  Some of it can be chased up via copyright but probably not all.  Stories/biographical information that you have written certainly are copyright, but simple birth/marriage/death places/dates are probably to be regarded as information in the public domain, no matter how long it took you to find them, and therefore not copyright.  I am not sure that you can claim copyright on pictures on which the copyright has expired simply by scanning them and putting them on line or printing them (at least in the UK), what part of that is your intellectual property?  As has been said several times, if you don't want it copied don't put it on-line.

Robert

Masie, just picked up your message as I was posting.  The old scientific definition, with a bit of tongue in cheek, was that copying from one source was plagiarism while copying from two or more sources was original research - provided you cited your sources!

[Nick29]

Nick, I have no problem whatsoever with genuine researchers using information that I release, so long as it is relevant to their tree and mine. I object most strongly to plagiarisms in family history as in any walk of life. It is inherently deceitful for anyone to pass off another's work as their own.Another thing I object to most strongly (slightly off topic) is people who do not acknowledge information when they have asked for it, and when it is freely given in response to such a request. In my experience people requesting information in magazines are the worst offenders.

Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.

Thanks very much
Maisie

I think that depends on whether you're talking ethically or legally.

Legally speaking, details about the people themselves which appear on censuses and published BMD records are in the public domain, and you can use them, but not images of records like censuses, which could well be copyright.  This also applies to images of BMD certificates, which are Crown Copyright.  If you see a story or a photo on a web site, you should obtain the copyright owner's permission before posting them on your tree or web site.  Note that copyright laws can vary from country to country, so it is a bit of a minefield.  In the UK, photographs are copyright to the owner for 50 years.

Speaking ethically, I think that if you take a lot of information from someone else, even if it is in the public domain, then you should at least acknowledge and thank them for their efforts.

[andycand]

Hi - I'm still not sure that I know where the line is between what is relevant and what is plagiarism or name-grabbing - can someone clearly define what is acceptable to use and what is not for a newbie please.

Thanks very much
Maisie

Hi

Actually who you include in your tree is entirely up to yourself. If someone doesn't wish you to include their relatives then they shouldn't give you that information. There is no right or wrong way to tackle genealogy, its entirely up to you.

Whilst there is nothing to stop you including living people, apart from the fact that on some websites you need their permission, many people do feel that you shouldn't.

Andy