Providing links to paysite pages

[Gwil]

FAO Mods

This thread is meant as an attempt to seek clarification and not an attack on you Moderating work.

In a thread yesterday I provided links to various pages on the paysite Ancstry rather than laboriously write everything out. I did this knowing that the enquirer had access to that paysite (or rather assumed so from context of previous replies)

Those links were deleted and I believe it may be a copyright issue.

I have looked up the Terms & Conditions for this forum to seek clarification and cannot really see anything in secton 6 Copyright Material where this sort of practice is not allowed

It might be
6.6 You must ensure that your Content or information does not break any licence agreements, or terms of use set by Third Parties.

but I cannot really see where a paysite would think their terms etc are broken where one member provides a link to another member on a third party website. The link would be useless without the recipient being able to read it by virtue of being a paid up member and, for those who click through who are not then I assume they get a default page of that paysite explaining its virtues and why they should take a look around! Maybe that is regarded (by Mods) as a Commercial post contrary to
13. Make commercial posts or comment spam or attempt to disguise such spam as Content. Commercial posts are only permitted on the 'For Sale Wanted Events' board for a maximum of one commercial post per week, and only for the purpose of a family history (or closely associated) product or service.

but surely this covers owners of commercial websites trying to lure people on to their site not long established Rootschat members.
 
There is, in Specific Forum Rules:
12. Load or provide access to Content on the Forum or link to other content from the Forum, which infringes the trademark, patent, trade secret or any other proprietary right of a third party or infringes any intellectual property law. (my bold)

but again I cannot see where said paysites would think it infringes any of those matters raised.

Could I please ask you or Rootschat to explain to me where I'm going wrong. Sorry to come over all barrack room lawyery but it would make things much easier all round in being able to knock off a reply with providing a brief summary and a link to back it up.

Gwil

[Keith]

Gwil

The subscription sites simply own the copyright on their own transcriptions/indexing, they don't own the copyright on the actual information contained in any document. The National/Regional/Local Archives, or any other record repository, own the copyright on the actual documents, i.e. the images themselves, not the information contained in them.

You, and me, and everyone else, on the other hand, own the copyright on any information we extract from these original documents, as long as we don't use anybody else's transcription/indexing, it has to be our own work.

The powers that be on here still haven't answered one very pertinent question - if this censorship is correct, then why is information from the other, pre 1911, census returns allowed to be freely posted?

[*Sandra*]

Could those links have been to the 1911 census - due to RootsChat copyright policy we are not allowed to transcribe from the 1911 census. A couple of links that mentions this.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,492718.0.html

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=697661.0

We are allowed to show small pieces of images but not the whole -  this is why you see small pieces of documents on the handwriting deciphering & recognition boards for example.

Quote :- If the image you need to be deciphered is subject to copyright, or to terms and conditions from its source which prohibit its reproduction, then you may only post a small portion of it on Rootschat.  Whole pages or documents from such sources will be removed.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=377049.0

 
Regards
Sandra

[andycand]

Hi

I would have thought that giving a link to an image on a website is not breaching copyright as to access the image you have to have a subscription to that site (if it is a subscription site), and when you view it you use your own login. Hopefully Trystan or Sarah can clarify this.

Andy

[Gwil]

Keith

Cytuno/Agreed.



Sandra

There were a couple of links to the 1911 census. However, I was not providing an image. My issue is with providing a link to the required information. As for those two topics that you have linked to, the purpose of my opener here is to challenge the premise contained in them (and therefore 'the rules' and/or their interpretation by Mods) insofar as linking to a paysite is concerned.


Andy

Thanks. I'll use your reply to reiterate that this is not an attack on any Mods, erm, mod-ding. It's a voluntary position for them and it'd be  quite unfair to give too much grief. Nonetheless, awkward 'flare-ups' do occur every now and then to test their patience. Hopefully any response will not be a mere cut and paste of 'the rules' but an explanation of how they apply to this particular query. A situation which clearly baffles some of us.

[Rosinish]

Interesting query as I always understood that ANY links were allowed 

Considering all links are accessible by anyone wether given or stumbled upon 

Annie

[dawnsh]

Hi Gwil

I'm sorry but I don't know who in the team edited your topic.

The 1911 census situation hasn't changed, the full details of any schedule are uniquely only available by subscription and all those sites have 'personal use' only clauses.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=355486.0

I suppose it could be claimed that by providing the link, you had used your subscription to look at an image that was not of your family which breaches your agreement with your census supplier, decided the details were right for the topic in question and posted the link.

As to the other censuses, they are available in multiple formats: cds, book form & online transcriptions, and from multiple suppliers/sources so tracking down where you have obtained the information from is very difficult.

At the end of the day, the forum is privately owned and despite what happens elsewhere on other sites and forums, the owners can impose their own rules and regulations here.

I've reported this topic to the rest of the moderating team.

Dawn

[Keith]

......The 1911 census situation hasn't changed, the full details of any schedule are uniquely only available by subscription and all those sites have 'personal use' only clauses.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=355486.0

Dawn,

That link is for a posting from 2009 - 6 years ago. Things have changed since then.

Ancestry has never had a 'personal use only' clause in their T&Cs, and while FindMyPast did at the time the 1911 census was first made available through them, they changed their T&Cs three or four years ago to allow professional genealogists to use their databases and make the data available to interested parties. ***I should know, I am one myself so had a vested interest in the matter.*** So, by extension, there is no restriction on the use of 1911 census data.

In light of this the rules you linked to above are no longer valid and should be redrawn to allow 1911 census information on here.

[Gwil]

Thanks Dawn

I'm sorry but I don't know who in the team edited your topic.

 No problem with me as to who might have done it. That's academic. It has provided a vehicle to air this issue.

The 1911 census situation hasn't changed, the full details of any schedule are uniquely only available by subscription and all those sites have 'personal use' only clauses.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=355486.0 

You'll see that Keith has addressed this issue and I bow to his experience with regards to what paysites regard as 'personal use' clauses.

I suppose it could be claimed that by providing the link, you had used your subscription to look at an image that was not of your family which breaches your agreement with your census supplier, decided the details were right for the topic in question and posted the link.

Claimed by who though. Keith provides info where in his capacity as a proffessional researcher his experience is that the two main paysites, Ancstry and FindMyPast do not have T&Cs forbidding such use by me. Therefore, no breach of their T&Cs = no breach of Copyright rules here especially that Special Forum Rules No 12 down at the bottom of my opener.

As to the other censuses, they are available in multiple formats: cds, book form & online transcriptions, and from multiple suppliers/sources so tracking down where you have obtained the information from is very difficult.

Agreed to a certain degree. If the paysites were really concerned about such issues then their compliance teams, should they have such animals, when scouring various forums for breaches could easily match what was being said etc on said forums with a search of their database by their members in the preceeding minutes. They could tackle their subscriber about it (if they thought it was commercially viable to do so. I'd imagine that they would lose a hell of a lot of trade.)

At the end of the day, the forum is privately owned and despite what happens elsewhere on other sites and forums, the owners can impose their own rules and regulations here.

Yes, their site, their rules. These Rootschat Forums are an absolute goldmine for anyone researching be they old hands or someone just starting out and finding links to others who already have done the research. Considering how much such stuff gets lost e.g  on the various Facebook pages, never to be found again, these type of searchable Forums are an absolute necessity. I'm just interested in making it a little bit easier for users. Main thing to take away here is that not only  I/we cannot see which, if any, of the rules are being broken but that a review of the rules might be in order to bring them up to date in light of what Keith says.

I've reported this topic to the rest of the moderating team.
Dawn

Noted. From this I deduce that your reply was a 'holding' one and that a definitive reply, which takes into consideration points made by me and Keith, will made in due course?


Gwil

slightly edited