Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied

[Guy Etchells]

First let me state I tend to agree with Dave Dees’s suggestion that those with private trees on Ancestry be prohibited from searching and downloading any open trees on Ancestry, but I am afraid it would not be possible as in such instances the prohibition would also have to apply with those that have no tree on Ancestry.
I would rather all trees on Ancestry had to be public, in fact it could be argued the by advertising trees which are private Ancestry could be breaking current legislation by obtaining a pecuniary advantage by fraud.

On your other point (2), no, the parish register concerned was not available to me via my subscription (which has always been fully paid up). It is one which had originally been available on the superb, free Medway Cityark Parish Registers Online website, but which the powers-that-be recently had decided had to be taken down. This was on account of the making available of scans of parish marriage registers taking place within the last 75 years, and parish baptismal registers within the last 100 years being construed as being in contravention of data protection and privacy legislation, yeah, right! - as though publishing that stuff, most of which can be obtained via GRO BMD Certificates, could "offend" or "endanger" anyone. A typical, modern-day, "politically-correct" (how I hate that term!) over-reaction. Like my compadre "unknownmale" here, I'm also an old git. :-) Does it show in us?

Nuff said, before I blow my top. Live long and prosper!

Dave Dee.

I would however disagree with the above. City Ark are erring on the side of caution by imposing the current recommended embargo (note recommended, not legally required embargo). They also state on their website
http://cityark.medway.gov.uk/query/results/?Mode=Search&PathList=/Z4a_Medway_Ancestors/
“The registers are not embargoed and can be viewed in our searchroom by appointment and on production of a CARN reader's ticket.”

Questions I would ask those who do not share is do you read books or manuscripts in libraries or archives (digital or physical)?
If you find information in such a book or manuscript, do you contact the author to gain permission to re-use that information?
If not, why not?

There is no difference between such action and the person who copies details from online trees without asking.

There are more points from this thread that I would comment on but this post is too long already.
Cheers
Guy

[Dave Dee]

...Perhaps the person is reluctant to give you a copy as they don't wish to breach any such conditions...

Hi there Andy,

Thanks for your input. I'm sorry this subject has veered so much off the original topic, about the rights and wrongs of people holding private trees on the Ancestry website. I used the point of the woman who's not provided me with a copy of the document I'm seeking in order only to illustrate my original reasoning for arguing against the use of private trees. You will see that through this discussion, I've modified my thinking and have learnt to see the arguments from the other side of the fence - and have already stated so.

Andy, concerning your point about the person concerned being "reluctant to give you a copy as they don't wish to breach any such conditions...", OK, fair enough, that may well be, but my question is, why is she behaving so ignorantly, by not telling me so? I cannot put this any more plainly than I've already done.

[Dave Dee]

(1)  First let me state I tend to agree with Dave Dees’s suggestion that those with private trees on Ancestry be prohibited from searching and downloading any open trees on Ancestry, but I am afraid it would not be possible as in such instances the prohibition would also have to apply with those that have no tree on Ancestry...

(2)  City Ark are erring on the side of caution by imposing the current recommended embargo (note recommended, not legally required embargo). They also state on their website
http://cityark.medway.gov.uk/query/results/?Mode=Search&PathList=/Z4a_Medway_Ancestors/
“The registers are not embargoed and can be viewed in our searchroom by appointment and on production of a CARN reader's ticket.”...

Watcha Guy,

Thanks for your comments.

Point (1) above that you've made is a good one, concerning people on Ancestry with no trees at all. Any ruling on those people and the ones running private trees being able to take from those running public trees would probably be impossible to enforce. I think we've reached an impasse.

As regards your point (2) above, yes, I've seen that posted on the Medway Cityark website, and indeed, it was pointed out to me by one of their Archivists.

One thing I would like to ask is this: if the publishing of parish marriage registers less than 75 years old and parish baptismal registers less than 100 years old is so sensitive (and possibly open to legal action), then why are these documents nevertheless open for public viewing in the Medway searchroom? Does that not also render Cityark open to possible litigation, in like manner? - and if not, why not?

Let's now examine the details found in the two types of parish registers we are discussing (off-topic).

(a)  Correct me if I am wrong, but the parish marriage registers contain no more and no less information than is found in the marriage certificates obtainable from the GRO (General Register Office). Why, then, pray tell, does the GRO not similarly withdraw access to marriage certificates of events held less than 75 years ago, lest legal action be taken against the Office?

(b)  Concerning parish baptismal registers, these will contain material additional to that found in official birth certificates. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but the extra material would be: {1} the name of the church where the baptism took place; {2} the name of the officiating minister; {3} the date of the baptism. Have I left anything out? Can somebody please kindly explain to me upon which grounds any possible legal action could be taken against Medway Cityark for publishing scans of such documents of less than 100 years of age?

As stated by me before in this thread, and to a Cityark Archivist, this is a typical, modern-day over-reaction, effected by people scared of their own shadows.

This is all I am going to say on the subject to support my reasonings. My feelings should now be abundantly clear to everyone viewing this entire topic. Case closed.

Best wishes to everyone. Continue to enjoy your wranglings and janglings.

Dave.

[Dave Dee]

...Questions I would ask those who do not share is do you read books or manuscripts in libraries or archives (digital or physical)?
If you find information in such a book or manuscript, do you contact the author to gain permission to re-use that information?
If not, why not?

There is no difference between such action and the person who copies details from online trees without asking....

Guy, I like this point you've made, very well thought-out, excellent. Perceived double-standards can exist in both camps.

ATB, Dave.

[Treetotal]

I wonder how many people have downloaded a photo of their ancestors' previous homes to use for their tree.....without gaining permission from the owner...I'm afraid if it's in the Public Domain...It's up for grabs and open to property theft...something we all have to live with in this technologically advanced world we live in.
Carol

[anne_p]

Treetotal,
My irritation with transfer of documents all started with one man that made contact with me some time ago
I won't go into detail
However, he has added a beautiful photo of  a house for our common relative.
Taken from an Estate Agent's webpage

It  is very pretty house, and even has roses round the door.
It  has been shared with dozens of unsuspecting ( or rather foolish) individuals.
He states that this is not the actual property but is a typical version of the home that they would have lived in.

The ancestor in question died in 1866.
The house he added dates from 1930

[thetowers]

You can take a photo of any house you like, if you are standing in the public street when you do it.

[msr]

I'm sorry this subject has veered so much off the original topic, about the rights and wrongs of people holding private trees on the Ancestry website.

I rather think Dave Dee that you are mistaken in what the original topic was.   You have come into it after it had lain dormant for some time and certainly attained some mileage out of it.
If you were to read again from the start you will find that the rights and wrongs were in connection with photos in private trees being accessed and copied by persons with whom the OP had no connection. 
Here I will insert from the original post, hoping that Mrs.tenacious doesn't mind:

If I ever make contact with anyone showing a link with my ancestors, I always ensure they have a strong and relevant link to my family before inviting them to view my tree, share any family photos, but always request that those photos are not included on any public trees.  Nearly everyone I've been in contact with has been happy to agree. 

You see, none of us has an issue with people behaving in the correct manner, and contrary to what some comments have hinted at, not everyone with a private tree is raiding public ones.   Why on earth would I want your  photos for heavens sake?  If a hint came from Ancestry that we may be researching the same people I would simply contact you.

Another quote from Ancestry's T&Cs (changing again) Ancestry offers an online archival platform and service where users can discover, research, and archive their family history by searching our extensive databases of records, create and search family trees, collaborate and exchange related information with relatives and users of the Ancestry Community

As for Guy's agreement with you - "let me state I tend to agree with Dave Dees’s suggestion that those with private trees on Ancestry be prohibited from searching and downloading any open trees on Ancestry" - I say why limit it in that way.   If there be prohibition, let it be complete.  No-one being able to take an image from another tree.   Contact; discuss; ask or be offered something relative to both parties, and always remember the two important words - please and thank you.

[msr]

You can take a photo of any house you like, if you are standing in the public street when you do it.

Perhaps so, but I don't think, and Annep can correct me, that there was any suggestion otherwise.

The point seems to be that someone has uploaded a photograph of a 20th century house to someone who died in the 19th century.   
Not too drastic, but it would have perhaps been a little more circumspect to find a house of the correct period.