Author Topic: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)  (Read 35696 times)

Offline CarolA3

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,126
  • My adopted home
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #63 on: Monday 27 May 19 08:03 BST (UK) »
Guy, two points:

 (1) I wasn't addressing you;

 (2) I used a 'shorthand' term to avoid having to write an essay.  It's clearly hit a nerve with you which wasn't my intention.

I agree that you obviously have seniority over me in terms of research years, and you're right - I haven't ever had to argue with an archivist.  Good on you for doing all that for the benefit of all of us.

IMHO, Lubana has strongly-held opinions and is unlikely to be persuaded to accept another point of view.  I object to seeing other RCers being badgered, so I've said my piece but don't intend to waste any more time on what is turning out to be a futile argument.

All the best,
Carol
OXFORDSHIRE / BERKSHIRE
Bullock, Cooper, Boler/Bowler, Wright, Robinson, Lee, Prior, Trinder, Newman, Walklin, Louch

guest189040

  • Guest
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #64 on: Monday 27 May 19 08:46 BST (UK) »
If anyone has a Tree on Ancestry or any other site that has unrestricted viewing then it is very naive not to expect your information/data/images etc to be used by others.

The sad fact is that today manners have gone out of the window with so many only thinking about themselves so expecting more of these people than they are capable of providing is a bit of a waste of your efforts.

Keep your Tree private if you want to keep things to yourself.

One could argue that you are inconsiderate putting family images and data on a Tree in the Public Domain if you have not sought and received acceptance from all family members.  Whilst the documents and data may be yours the family they relate to is shared.

Offline Albufera32

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #65 on: Monday 27 May 19 18:59 BST (UK) »
I am relatively new to Roots Chat, and I confess I find threads such as this rather disturbing - mainly because it appears I am a pretty despicable person.

I am selfish (my tree is private) ill-mannered (I have copied material from other trees without asking the owner's permission) lazy (I have, occasionally copied what appears to be correct info for distant relatives of mine from trees belonging to near relatives of them) disrespectful (not everyone in my tree is dead yet, and I don't actually have written permission in triplicate from all of them to include them) and worst of all, I have almost 8000 people in my tree, so I am not a proper genealogist at all but merely a **** *********.

Before I go off and delete my tree I would, however, like to offer some defence.

First of all, I point everyone to the Terms of Service of Ancestry, particularly this bit

"Any User Provided Content that you have made public or shared (e.g. by including such User Provided Content in a public Ancestry family tree, as part of your public profile in one of the Services or in a public posting on one of our Services) may be used by other users as part of, or in conjunction with, the Services. We will not be required to remove any information or User Provided Content that you have made public or has otherwise been shared from the family trees or public profiles of other users."

Nothing on my tree is from a private tree, so actually, whether they know it or not, the people whose trees I have copied pictures, stories or anything else from have already given me permission to do so. Items posted to a public tree are SHARED with other users. It is not merely naive to believe others will not use that info, it is actually mistaken to believe they have to ask "permission" to do so. You gave them permission to use it when you shared it to a public tree.

As for my including living people being disrespectful, first of that is one of the reasons my tree is private, and secondly all the info I have comes from information already on the internet, so it isn't as if I am publishing private info about them (and even without the tree being private, as living people they don't show for anyone else anyway).

As for the number of people on my tree as long as I believe they belong there, that's all that matters. Distant relatives, in laws, or even relations of the in laws, if I consider them part of my family's story, then that is my decision.

The lazy one I'll accept.

I appreciate this may appear somewhat "defensive" to some, and if so I apologise, that was not my intent. What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.
Howie (Riccarton Ayrshire)
McNeil/ McNeill (Argyll)
Main (Airdrie Lanarkshire)
Grant (Lanarkshire and Bo'ness)
More (Lanarkshire)
Ure (Polmont)
Colligan (Lanarkshire)
Drinnan (New Zealand)

Offline Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,776
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #66 on: Monday 27 May 19 19:27 BST (UK) »
What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.
Good points, well made.


Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #67 on: Monday 27 May 19 21:07 BST (UK) »
Albufera, I'm also selfish, ill-mannered and lazy. We should form a group - SIL.  I know that 2 people don't constitute a group but there are sure to be more people who fit membership criteria.  :) :)
Cowban

Offline Jill Eaton

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #68 on: Tuesday 28 May 19 12:48 BST (UK) »

Before I go off and delete my tree I would, however, like to offer some defence.

First of all, I point everyone to the Terms of Service of Ancestry, particularly this bit

"Any User Provided Content that you have made public or shared (e.g. by including such User Provided Content in a public Ancestry family tree, as part of your public profile in one of the Services or in a public posting on one of our Services) may be used by other users as part of, or in conjunction with, the Services. We will not be required to remove any information or User Provided Content that you have made public or has otherwise been shared from the family trees or public profiles of other users."

Nothing on my tree is from a private tree, so actually, whether they know it or not, the people whose trees I have copied pictures, stories or anything else from have already given me permission to do so. Items posted to a public tree are SHARED with other users. It is not merely naive to believe others will not use that info, it is actually mistaken to believe they have to ask "permission" to do so. You gave them permission to use it when you shared it to a public tree.

As for my including living people being disrespectful, first of that is one of the reasons my tree is private, and secondly all the info I have comes from information already on the internet, so it isn't as if I am publishing private info about them (and even without the tree being private, as living people they don't show for anyone else anyway).

As for the number of people on my tree as long as I believe they belong there, that's all that matters. Distant relatives, in laws, or even relations of the in laws, if I consider them part of my family's story, then that is my decision.

The lazy one I'll accept.

I appreciate this may appear somewhat "defensive" to some, and if so I apologise, that was not my intent. What is my intent is to suggest maybe we should be more tolerant of what other people choose to do with their hobby, and stop criticising others for just doing things differently from how we do them ourselves.

Very well said. If your tree is private then it is wrong (In my opinion) to publish it without permission. However, if it's public it's in the public domain and it will therefore not only be viewed but quite probably used by other people. If it contains mistakes then so be it. My tree is public. I don't mind other people using it. It's up to anyone using it to decide if my research is
a) correct
b) anything to do with their family
I don't "own" my ancestors. I share them with thousands of other people.
Davis - Berkshire & London
Sutcliffe - Yorkshire & London
Harrington - Ireland and London
Fuller - Cambridgeshire and Essex
Waldron/Waldren - Devon & London
Frisby and Lee - Leicestershire
Hollingsworth - Essex
Williams - Ireland? and London
Ellis, Reed & Temple - London
Lane - ?
Surplice/Surplus - Cambridgeshire
Elwood - Cambridgeshire

Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,957
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #69 on: Tuesday 28 May 19 15:18 BST (UK) »
Some very interesting points here.

My tree is Private on Ancestry (although it appears in searches).
I have invited many people who are connected to me over the years in order to help both their research and mine.

I noticed that I was upset by other users on three occasions:

once when someone very peripherally connected to me copied my entire tree, including my husband's relatives (who were not in any way connected to him) and also living people.  I requested that he remove living people and he did, and since he does not appear to carry out any further research, his tree has not been updated by any mistake corrections I've made over the years.  It still does pop up in hints though, and quite possibly other people are copying the errors.

secondly when a relative invited to see my tree again copied everything from the tree.  When I mentioned this, he said that once something was published on line (even in a private setting) he regarded it as free to use.  As he is a relative, I felt I should be happy with this (even though all the research effort had been mine!) and we have subsequently kept in touch and exchanged information.

thirdly when I found a personal reminiscence of mine concerning a close relative attached to that relative on another - much less closely connected - tree.  The copier had been invited to see my tree, but I did feel more upset by the reminiscence somehow being 'taken away' from me, and without any request to do so.


In summary
 - I think it's interesting that we do all feel our ancestors are 'ours' in a personal way, and I had to let go of that and realise they are the aunts and great aunts (etc etc etc) of other people too.
 - if I have photographs or other documents (including stories) which I have searched for, copied and attached, I think it is only polite to ask the tree owner if I may use them for my own tree.  If I do that, I always mention that it is 'courtesy of x' on the details of the document.  I do this even if the source tree is a public one.






Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Nord Brabant/Belgium/East London.
Kesneer Belgium/East London
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.
Thorpe, Brightlingsea, Essex

guest189040

  • Guest
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #70 on: Tuesday 28 May 19 16:55 BST (UK) »
What is the difference?

1 You post a Family Tree online and somebody copies it and uses it as their own

2 You post an image you have taken on Instagram or Facebook and somebody copies it and uses it as their own.


Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,957
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« Reply #71 on: Tuesday 28 May 19 17:11 BST (UK) »
What is the difference?

1 You post a Family Tree online and somebody copies it and uses it as their own

2 You post an image you have taken on Instagram or Facebook and somebody copies it and uses it as their own.

Is that addressed to me, Colin?

If so, I was pointing out that I was interested that I initially felt a personal and possessive relationship with my ancestors and had to realise that they were other people's ancestors too
and
I always request to use an image which someone has put on a tree, out of courtesy.

I'm not claiming any similarity or difference to Facebook or Instagram, so am not at all sure of the relevance of your point.  What are you trying to say?

Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Nord Brabant/Belgium/East London.
Kesneer Belgium/East London
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.
Thorpe, Brightlingsea, Essex