Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied

[msr]

I tried that a few times Groom, using the form on the site.  Never heard from them but photos of my daughters with my grandmother did disappear.   If only the ones of me and parents would too.

[smudwhisk]

Smudwhisk: I think the copyright for the newly enhanced image would be for that image only and wouldn't apply to the original you scanned and digitally enhanced.

Yes I believe it is, but if the original photograph is out of copyright I think the very act of scanning and manipulating it could then provide the person who has done this with the copyright in that new image if there is no copyright in the original.   If the original is still subject to copyright laws, then the act of scanning and manipulating it would I suspect be a breach of the original copyright. 

However, assuming the original is out of copyright, if someone then uses the new "image" of the photograph without the copyright holders permission, they would most likely be in breach of copyright but the "copyright holder" in the new image would have to prove that the other individual didn't have a copy of the original photograph or a scan of it from someone else who had given them permission to use the image.   For most people this would be too costly and, as you've said, there is not guarantee there is only one copy of the original photograph about anyway. 

I studied intellectual property law at university many years ago and, while I don't remember much of it, I do remember how much of a minefield it was.

Unfortunately, the only safe way of avoiding this is not to share photographs with people or post them on any online trees, whether private or public.  It may defeat the object of sharing with others, of which most of us will have benefitted at some point, but there is probably no other way of avoiding this happening as some people don't respect other's privacy or wishes.   And I suspect while ancestry posts the rules regarding this on their website, in reality they probably wouldn't want to get involved in any disputes.  And where someone doesn't have an online tree, as has already been said, it's more difficult for them to prove to ancestry, or any other provider, that they were the person who originally had the photograph.  All ancestry can see is who had originally posted the images on their site.

[Dave Dee]

Personally, I don't mind if any photos or information is copied from my tree, which is public. If people enter it wrongly into their own trees, that's up to them. It's their responsibility to make sure that it's entered correctly, and for others to make sure they're not copying a load of ol' rubbish, as is commonly seen in many online trees...as long as nobody defames any of my ancestors.

I object to people with private trees being able to take stuff from those of us willing to share our findings openly, but not offering their own in the same manner. It's one-sided, and I put it to all of you private tree owners that you're not entering into the spirit of the genealogy community. I wish Ancestry would put measures into their website to prevent people with private trees being able to chore stuff from public trees.

Recently, I requested politely (almost on bended knee, as though I should have to crawl) a useful image someone had in their private tree. It was a parish register of the marriage of a certain lady to a certain gentleman, both in my public tree. All I got in response to my request, from the woman who owned the tree, was, "This lady was my aunt." Well, very interesting, yes, truly, but where's the image I asked for? Despite several polite, webmailed, correspondences via Ancestry, I'm still waiting.

[Regorian]

My family tree is on Ancestry. All my own work over 20 years or more. I sent it to a member of my extended family after making contact on another FH Site. I don't suppose I have been given credit.

[unknownmale]

I think it is one of the finest brotherhoods there is the family tree family, willing to share and help fellow seekers. I have to say I agree totally abt. private trees and their ability to glean information form our public trees, yet it is as previously stated a one way street. 

Unknownmale

[msr]

Here I go again, not being able to resist the gauntlet thrust down. 

I think the majority involved in family history research are perfectly willing to share knowledge of their findings with others, if asked politely.

Many private trees started off open to everyone, so if you see one where you need to make contact rather than just take something there is probably a very good reason for it. 
Whether Private or Public you should always make contact first, it is only polite, not to mention that somewhere in the small print Ancestry suggests the same!

Rather disparaging of Dave Dee and unknownmale to infer that only people with private trees plunder others' work.   Some, but by no means all, of the immense public trees have grown simply by hi-jacking whole families, and here I speak from personal experience, having fallen foul of hunter-gatherers.

Simply send a message and await a reply.   There will always be a chance that you won't receive one, but more often than not you may. 

Unknownmale.   Brotherhoods?  really? 

Dave Dee, wasn't the parish record you wanted available to you though your subscription? 

Which reminds me of a post saw on Facebook a few weeks ago.  Someone who had a tree, but not a current subscription, was rather peeved that he/she couldn't access trees to acquire information.   

[IgorStrav]

Yes, msr, I agree.

I am a private tree holder on Ancestry.  I always respond to enquirers when it turns out that they are linked to my tree, and after information I can share.

I always request permission to put on my tree anything from another tree, whether private or not, and am very careful to attribute and thank donors.

I like to be asked if items on my tree can be posted on other trees, especially if I have a) paid for the information or b) if the stories/comments about my ancestors are personal to me, i.e. have come from my personal experience of the ancestor in question.

I don't think it's helpful to paint everyone with the same brush - someone's aunt can feel very personal to them, and that is perhaps why Dave has not as yet had a response.

I've also had responses from some people - and found cousins as a result - and sought information from others and received no reply.  It takes all sorts.

[msr]

It does indeed take all sorts Ivor.

I object to people with private trees being able to take stuff from those of us willing to share our findings openly, but not offering their own in the same manner. It's one-sided, and I put it to all of you private tree owners that you're not entering into the spirit of the genealogy community. I wish Ancestry would put measures into their website to prevent people with private trees being able to chore stuff from public trees.

If you want that sort of measure Dave Dee, wouldn't it be better if it were a universal requirement whereby everyone had to make contact, and gain permission prior to using media that someone else had placed on their tree?   If the records are already available on-line, ie censuses, parish records, military etc, they are there to be discovered, of course that requires a current subscription and time taken to search, which some may wish to bypass.   

[unknownmale]

Yes msr, A brotherhood. Really !! I think I made it clear that I felt there was a great deal of help and sharing out there.. Nowhere did I use the word plunder. As far as I am concerned I can only speak of the experience I have. To date, that being, I have encountered one private tree, the owner of which did not wish to share information. Indeed it was akin to something from MI5 even trying to communicate with the tree owner concerned. That of course was/is his right. It is frustrating that information regarding a family member can be "withheld" in that manner. However I feel these instances are far outweighed by the  vast majority of people willing to help and share, this I feel constitutes a brotherhood.
Unknownmale.