Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied

[Maggiemae]

I've followed this discussion with interest, forgive me if I'm mistaken but I don't believe I've seen a comment relating to people's research/photos/family stories being used without consent or credit given from anything other than online public/private trees. The purpose of my post is not offer a comment on online trees public or private (I don't have either), but to offer up my experience of sharing my research which for want of a better expression ended in disappointment/tears, mine rather than the person I shared my research with.

I gave an RFT file of my research to someone who visited in my home, I had the file printed out and we discussed it over lunch. I also showed this person treasured family photographs and he asked if I would email him copies of the photograths and I agreed to this, at no point did I think to ask if he would use them or my RFT file on his public tree nor did he indicate he would, if anything he suggested the opposite but within days both the information from the RFT file and the photographs started to appear in his tree. No sources for his 'research' and no credits for the photographs were give. I requested that he remove the photographs and the names of living relatives and he refused, many emails went back and forth but I got nowhere except to have the living relatives removed and so his small tree expanded with little effort or expensive on his part, when I last looked a couple of years ago his tree had expanded to about 36,000 names. I guess he's had few more free lunches!

I shared freely and willingly, I did not expect it to appear online as someone else's research and I certainly did not expect it to go on to appear in many other online trees along with my photographs. I was extremely disappointed by the experience and hope my fifth cousin removed is comfortable with his actions. My last comment is I dearly wish people would show respect for the time, effort and expense others go to in their reseach and realise that just taking, no matter by what means is not showing respect.

Respectively
MM
 

[msr]

Hi Maggiemae

In those words you have summed up exactly why those of us who do have private trees on Ancestry have decided to make them so. 
That site is specifically mentioned as that is where we have subscriptions.

Experiences such as yours are unfortunately too common.  Respect is exactly what we should all aim for, for others and ourselves.

You have mine.   

[Dave Dee]

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.

Yes, msr, you're right, and I apologise for my error. In no way had I ever intended to hijack your topic. My issue was on a peripheral theme.

Best wishes.

Dave.

[msr]

No Dave Dee, you didn't hijack a topic started by me.  If anyone required an apology it would be mrs.tenacious, the originator.  I believe she raised the subject subsequent to problems encountered, although I did join in the discussion having had similar experiences.
I think you have received so much response because all who had posted previously would be notified that another comment had been made.

Perhaps it would have been better to start a thread on your own subject, negating the need for anyone from the original to reply, unless you prompted them into action of course.

[Guy Etchells]

…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?

I would suggest the reason is fear of litigation.
The problem is UK law is developed over time the legislation is enacted by Parliament then interpreted by court rulings. Each new ruling develops the law.
Current registers both civil and parish are open to public inspection, but does the legislation requiring access by the public cover any copies of the registers made to ease the workload of the archivists or clerks or are such registers exempt from that legislation?
If the copies are exempt the archivists could be open to litigation.

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?

It has!
When I became interested in family history a person could walk into a Superintendent Registrar’s Office and browse the BMD registers held there. This access was stopped by order of the Registrar General in 1975.
The only access to BMD registers (apart from those held by registrars which the law requires to be open to public inspection) is by purchasing a copy of the certificate.

(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?[\quote]

There is a slight chance that action could be taken regarding the personal information regarding the officiating minister, i.e. his/her name in addition the same for the name of the child (identifiable information).

(c) 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.

I totally agree it is over-reaction and that is one of the reasons I fight against such stances. I understand that making such office policies avoids legal complications and feel that the best way to counter such policies is to make them counter productive by mounting legal challenges against such policies.
Unless we fight against such policies we lose the rights our ancestors enshrined in law.
Cheers
Guy

[Guy Etchells]

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.

First my apologies to Dave Dee for adding an extra s in his name.

The reason I wrote what I did was to balance the argument that those who take information do not contribute information.

People in threads like these seem to portray the idea that plagiarism and copyright infringement began with the internet.
It in fact has been going on since man first put down their thoughts in a tangible form.
It only seems to concern people when they are the subject of the breach.

Even though I strongly agree that any such copying should only be done after the author has been contacted for permission I find it churlish to deprive society of knowledge simply because a few have not learned the manners of a five year old.
I suggest that rather than reacting in a similar way by taking ones ball home it would show more strength of character to ignore the breach and add more information to ones site or tree.
Cheers
Guy

[Dave Dee]

First my apologies to Dave Dee for adding an extra s in his name....
...
Cheers
Guy

That's quite OK, brother, I didn't even notice it. We all make typos, even "perfect" me!   

Thanks for everything you've been posting, all very relevant and positive.  Altogether, this stuff is a bit thorny, isn't it?  In the end, I think we just have to do what we can, maybe fight sometimes, yes, but ultimately, just get on with living, and do our best to live peaceably with all men and women.  However, I'd like to append what the late, great Spike Milligan was reported as saying, "Be kind to children and be kind to animals."

Best wishes.

Dave.

[Dave Dee]

No Dave Dee, you didn't hijack a topic started by me.  If anyone required an apology it would be mrs.tenacious, the originator.  I believe she raised the subject subsequent to problems encountered...

...Perhaps it would have been better to start a thread on your own subject, negating the need for anyone from the original to reply, unless you prompted them into action of course.

Then in that case, msr, my apologies to mrs.tenacious, and hope she's reading this. Thanks for pointing this out.  I agree starting my own thread would have been a better choice.  I'm fairly new to this forum lark in here, but should have taken the time to discover how to start a new thread.  Again, thanks for pointing it out.  I'm learnin'.   

Best wishes.

Dave.

[mrs.tenacious]

No Dave Dee, you didn't hijack a topic started by me.  If anyone required an apology it would be mrs.tenacious, the originator.  I believe she raised the subject subsequent to problems encountered...

...Perhaps it would have been better to start a thread on your own subject, negating the need for anyone from the original to reply, unless you prompted them into action of course.

Then in that case, msr, my apologies to mrs.tenacious, and hope she's reading this. Thanks for pointing this out.  I agree starting my own thread would have been a better choice.  I'm fairly new to this forum lark in here, but should have taken the time to discover how to start a new thread.  Again, thanks for pointing it out.  I'm learnin'.   

Best wishes.

Dave.

Well, I only realised yesterday that this original topic of mine had resurfaced, and I confess it has taken me quite a while to skim through the posts of the past few days.  It has certainly proved to be an emotive subject (and not a new one, either)!

Dave, I assure you no apology is needed.

When I started this topic last year I'd just had some more photos copied, but the problems I'd had began a few years previously when I was still really new to family history research and rather green about the gills. At the time I didn't have a specific FH software program & was pleased to form my private  tree on Ancestry for my own recording and to share with my family. I am not embarrassed to admit that I felt quite 'precious' and possessive about a few photos of close family members no longer with us, and when a second cousin I had sent some photos to inadvertently added them to her public tree it gave others the opportunity to 'pilfer' them without even asking permission.   I think that rankled me as much as anything, because some of those people had rather tenuous links to my tree. At the time of first posting, I didn't understand how this had happened.

However, I am older and wiser now.  I have learnt to relax a little and enjoy the benefits of sharing information and photos (I am eternally grateful for all the help I have been given on my research including Rootschatters of course!) - I still keep my tree on private setting, and if someone contacts me I can usually suss out if they are nothing more than number-gatherers.  I always request that any photos I share not be put onto a public tree and have had no arguments about this. Of course it works both ways - if I make contact with someone and ask for a copy of photos I always confirm I will add them only to my FH program, not to my Ancestry tree even though it is private.  I found a way to make it work for me, by lightening up a little and accepting that sometimes you find some people in life who don't always share the same manners or ethics as you do - and there ain't nothing you can do about it!

There is no black and white, right or wrong to this subject.  We all have differing feelings and opinions.  Thankfully we live in a country where we have the right to freedom of speech - lots of the content of these posts have been interesting and thought-provoking even if I haven't always totally agreed with everything said. 

But I certainly didn't expect it to run to 19 pages when I started it 

Happy hunting everyone - let's just enjoy this fascinating hobby without getting too wound up about it (says an older and more mellow Mrs. Tenacious) 

Mrs. T x

Just modified my reply slightly as 3rd para needed clarification!