RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: mrs.tenacious on Sunday 11 August 13 18:48 BST (UK)
-
I know that tree information on Ancestry being purloined has been frequently discussed on here before,
and I understand that having a tree on Public Tree setting leaves us all wide open to our research being copied willy-nilly.
But since becoming a member 6 years ago I have always had my tree on Private setting. 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.
Today (and for the third time in about as many years), Ancestry has shown that one of my photos has been copied to a public tree belonging to someone I have had no contact with. After this had happened before, I contacted the people concerned and they said they were able to access the photos.
I added a note underneath my photos, politely requesting that none were to be copied without my permission, but it has happened again. I have contacted Ancestry asking for an explanation, and await their reply.
Surely if a tree is on Private Setting, others shouldn't be able to access and copy them?
Has this happened to anyone else?
-
I changed my Ancestry tree from public to private a few months ago because I was tired of people plundering my family photos and invariably wrongly attributing them. I will be most upset if despite this, people are still able to take them. I don't mind if people contact me first and we establish a link. I have gained some interesting photos myself in this way so both parties benefit. It is the people who help themselves without reference to me that makes me cross. Will be interested to hear what Ancestry has to say, Mrs T.
-
Isn't it the case though that once you have given access ti someone that they can then pass the access on to someone else?
-
But when you use a commerical website everything you put on to it belongs to that commerical website, you understand that when you sign up, so public or private nothing on it 'belongs' to you you gave that right away when you used their website. That is likely what they will tell you, which is why having software on your own computer means it remains YOURS and only yours.
If you give access to ANYONE they can then pass information onto others
-
I've seen photos appear in the Photos & Maps search results, but when I've clicked on the associated tree it has been private. I don't use ancestry trees for exactly this reason, so couldn't comment on whether there is another tick box that needs ticking somewhere. I think the only way you can keep the tree completely private, is to tick the box that says keep it out of the search results.
-
As others have said, once you allow anyone to have access to your tree you then have no control over what happens to your photos. They may have said that they won't put them on a public tree, but may then pass them on to someone else who does.
-
Thanks for your comments davidft & iluheah - you've hit the nail on the head as after further checking it appears there is just one person who has added the photo to their public tree, and this is where the others have found and copied it from.
Looks like I'm going to have to message that person and ask them to remove it, message the other from today and do the same.
Sadly I think I shall have to remove all the photos on my Ancestry tree, and go with iluleah, attaching them to my own software programme.
That being said, like so many who have said the same before me on here, I would never copy photos from another tree without asking the owner's permission first. What a shame we all don't think alike! :(
(Fair comment smudwhuisk & groom - posted after your replies!)
-
Hi, it really does need explaining to members of Ancestry what Ancestry's definition of private is, I have just been looking at records on Ancestry and found a photograph relating to my Dutch Grandfather, (my tree is private) in the publicly accessable photographs, and before anyone asks I have never given access to that particular tree to anyone.
I have emailed them asking how that could happen.
Frank.
-
Hi,
Apparently there is a glitch with the sister site Mundia.com - Someone joined Ancestry affiliate Mundia.com, fully expecting that there 3 public trees would be accessed from Ancestry.com. What they did not expect was that they would also upload that persons 2 private Ancestry trees AND some private trees that they did not own but were included on as an invited guest.
Pretty lengthy message board posts here:-
http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/topics.ancestry.ancsite/12540/mb.ashx
Sandra
-
I don't think there is anyway to stop this. As long as anyone else can access your page, private our not, you always take a chance, that somewhere down the line, this will happen. And there is really no way to stop it.
Also, there is nothing to stop them from copying a photo, onto their own computer, and uploading it onto a different site like Myheritage, or even back onto Ancestry, without any trail at all leading back to you, by using "Save image As", in Windows.
If your biggest complaint is people posting your photos without attributing them to you, why don't you try watermarking the online image itself, before you post it? That way your name is associated with it, and it would be too much trouble for the average person to Photoshop it out. If those you trust, want an unmarked copy, than they will have to contact you directly.
-
I like Ancestry as a site - I've found it one of the most straightforward genealogy sites. I've never put photos on, though, and probably wouldn't have. Now, I definitely won't, so thank you for the warning, and I'm sorry you've had this problem.
-
If your biggest complaint is people posting your photos without attributing them to you, why don't you try watermarking the online image itself, before you post it? That way your name is associated with it, and it would be too much trouble for the average person to Photoshop it out. If those you trust, want an unmarked copy, than they will have to contact you directly.
Mrs T and others,
You might also try putting an invisible watermark on your images and say they're watermarked visibly. I've used a tiny freeware Java thingy called Hallucinate. It works a treat. :D
I'm sure other tools are available if you don't run Java.
Alan
-
Thanks for the replies, everyone - valid and helpful comments from all of you. I understand that once photos are shared with anyone they are 'out there' but I was naive enough to think I could control the extent a little!
I think I shall still remove photos from my Ancestry tree, and contact both parties I mentioned earlier with a polite request to not post them publicly, or pass them on without my permission. I may consider 'watermaking' them for the future, too.
Disappointed that my request for the photo not to be copied without my permission (right underneath the photo) was ignored though. Perhaps I should have typed it in red and in capital letters!
Perhaps I should also suggest that Ancestry could include this issue in a protocols guidelines section on their site. :-\
-
I think you may be able to restrict photos on private trees from being available through the search by changing the setting in your site preferences - activity preferences - deselect personal research activities. Whether this applies to anything that ends up on Mundia, I couldn't say. Worth a try. ;)
-
Further to all the comments here, may I add a warning that other people may also save to their tree your personal stories about your ancestors, and once you have given access to one person, you have lost control.
I have gone through the feelings of anger when "my" relatives' photos have been copied to others' trees - because they are "their" relatives too. And of course photos come back in exchange, as has already been said here.
But a personal memory copied to another's tree is rather more upsetting.
-
I exchanged emails with someone on Ancestry about a shared line and was rather surprised to find he had chopped up my emails into stories and added them to his tree. If I had known he planned to do this I would have tried to make my offerings a bit less telegraphese. I suppose it's flattering but I think it would have been polite of him to ask me if I minded, claytonbradley
-
What a great idea - I have watermarked my photos today that haven't already been "pinched". With relatives a generation or two back I can understand that the person taking the photo may have a legitimate connection without me knowing who they are, although the lack of politeness in failing to contact me firstly is annoying. However even my parents photos have been purloined by people I have no knowledge of and indeed in some trees they have been relocated to America, despite them having always lived in Scotland. I think that some people just collect names without bothering too much about the research.
On a more positive note a photo of my mother with a favourite aunt that I put up led to a grand daughter of the favourite aunt contacting me and we have been in touch regularly ever since, so it is worth putting up the photos. Alex.
-
I exchanged emails with someone on Ancestry about a shared line and was rather surprised to find he had chopped up my emails into stories and added them to his tree. If I had known he planned to do this I would have tried to make my offerings a bit less telegraphese. I suppose it's flattering but I think it would have been polite of him to ask me if I minded, claytonbradley
Now that is beyond acceptable and I have to say something similar happened to me several years ago which is why I do not give personal information out now if someone contacts me, I am very guarded because of that experience
.....and I have never put any of my information online or trees and NEVER would
-
Once you have posted anything up it's pretty much 'public property', even if you say it's not. Also, once you have posted them to ancestry.com removing them will make little difference as they are already out there in the public domain.
If you do not want people to copy them, then never ever post them up to web site such as ancestry.com or indeed any of the others. Tough I know but that's how it is.
Personally if I come across a photograph that is not mine be it a family photograph or any other image I will always but always try and get permission and when granted (as it nearly always is) I attached credit and thanks the owner before putting it into my own family tree or on my blog. Some time back I 'borrowed' a copy of a wood cut image of old town Croydon I had taken from an art galleries web site only to be contacted by the owner of the original who was then kind enough to accept my apology and allowed me to use it. Lesson learnt!
This all reminds me a bit of lending a spanner to a mate who then lends it to somebody else and that's it, I never see it again so yes, Gggrrrr indeed!
-
I can't understand why people complain
Once you have shared your tree with one person, they can copy your photos etc, and add them to their own tree, which my be oublic, or shared with others who have public trees
Personally I have benefitted from the sharing
-
Have to agree there, it's often a good trade off with pictures and the like, but pinching personal text without asking really is out of order. I had some wonderful stuff from my great Aunts diary sent to me from the States which has been incorporated into my own personal and public blog, but with credit and thanks attached as said.
Ah well :(
-
It is as well to remember that everything published on the Internet becomes public property by default, whatever you or the Law may say about it . . . including every post on this and other forums, unless they are 'members only' and password protected.
And the likes of G**gle can and will read your private correspondence as well :o
-
I can't understand why people complain
Once you have shared your tree with one person, they can copy your photos etc, and add them to their own tree, which my be oublic, or shared with others who have public trees
Personally I have benefitted from the sharing
Stonechat, I think the problem for most is that they have not shared their trees or anything added to them.
The quarrel and associated upset/anger is with those other members who have TAKEN, without regard to anyone's feeling.
Surely a little courtesy, and prior contact, would not be too much to ask.
But then, with certain people it appears it is.
-
But these people have shared something with at least one person
The information will not be out there otherwise
Once you share even once you have lost control
-
But these people have shared something with at least one person
The information will not be out there otherwise
Once you share even once you have lost control
That is true, but even if you don't share with another person once you put anything online on any website that information belongs to the website so 'nothing' you put on there is 'yours'
I completely understand peoples frustration which is why I would never publish a tree private or not on any website and once done you can not delete it
-
just post on the net,and other web sites, what you dont mind sharing with others,any stories ,pics that you dont want to share "Dont" post, we all know that anything that goes on the net becomes public.
-
Like clayton bradley, I exchanged emails with someone to clarify some points in their tree, and subsequently found the content of my email on their tree, unattributed. I can't say it bothered me for long, but I was a bit miffed that it was added as if their own research. (And I would have written it a bit more formally if I had known)
halhawk
-
I also changed my tree from private to public supplying information to help other families with their research as I was always grateful for any information from other trees . The problem now is people copying from the tree and adding all the wrong information and photo's without your consent . I have contacted some of these people and explained you have the wrong person but it's like talking to a brick wall!!!!!! Going to make it private again
-
Thanks for the comments everyone - I can't disagree with any of the points raised to be honest!
Ancestry have (very nicely) confirmed that they are only a distributor, and indeed suggested the photos were copied from the public tree of someone I had invited to view mine.
I recognise the benefits of making contact with other family members, indeed I welcome it. They may be able to help with my research, as I can them. I have been delighted to receive photos and stories from others and learn more about my family (but have never added them to even my private Ancestry tree). I do agree with msr in that the frustration caused is because some people don't seem to have the common courtesy of making contact and asking permission to copy photos, or even to ask for any information. I will continue to ascertain how 'valid' a contact might be, but I understand I can't control it completely and I shall just need to be a little less bit 'precious' about it all.
-
I know this is an old thread, but if you want to put pictures on a website and be sure that nobody copies them and uses them, consider using a watermark. There's a lot of free graphics programs that'll create a watermark for you. Also consider creating a low quality image. It gives people an idea without letting them run off with your family.
Finally, a lot of people won't look, or don't have the ability to see some of the hidden information that you can store in an image file such as a .jpg. Again, a good graphics program will help you out there.
Finally, to find those pictures that are scattered across the web, use Google Chrome. Go to one of your private images and right click. You'll see a "Search Google for this image" menu option. Google will then look for this picture and report any websites.
Family pictures are a strong part of our past and it's disrespectful for other people to steal them. They should know better, but they don't so it's up to us to protect them.
I hope someone may find this post useful.
-
Nelgin,
I concur with most of the points you made but would add that there are two ways of watermarking a picture - visibly or invisibly. Which are you advocating?
A visible watermark will deter only those without the necessary graphics knowledge and skills to remove the overlaid message. Unless the picture is ruined by watermarking across the whole image like the professional sites do which would rather defeat the object in our case.
Programs are available which can embed an invisible image of identifying text or graphics within the displaying image. These can be encrypted and password protected so the message cannot be removed.
These still don't beat the screen grab pirates so a combination of both types of watermark will afford the best protection you can get.
-
I'm not really advocating one way or the other. It depends how much you value your images and how far you want to go to protect them. Since a lot of webhosts are based in the US, you can always apply for removal using the DCMA.
Of course, it's hard to beat a professional photo thief, but I expect most people who grab pictures just want to use them by simply copying them.
-
Hi :)
I think that people are often upset by both misunderstandings and different interpretations.
Personally, I don't think that living people should be put on anyone's tree without permission, but it seems that, as long as one's tree is 'private', then it's ok, even if these are very distant relatives. And, since the details are a matter of public record there is little to argue against. I also feel that it is not a good thing to include the recently-deceased.
Regarding photos, if they are on a public tree then they can be shared very easily. I tend to assume that it is acceptable for me to share the relevant ones and that others will share mine. I feel that if I don't want them shared then I probably shouldn't post them. I do understand why sharing something so personal could be upsetting, though.
Various things can cause upset or offense. It seems that some people don't like their own families to be researched by strangers. Yet we all share many many relatives, going back over the years, with complete strangers. I've started doing cluster research, which involves creating trees of potential relatives. I hope that this research will help others, so the trees are public on Ancestry. Maybe I have unwittingly offended some descendants of these families.
Mostly, I get annoyed when others either simply copy my research without verifying it for themselves or, alternatively, do their own research and then add wrong information about my family which others subsequently accept as true. Then my family details are spread incorrectly around the family history community.
I think that as long as we steer clear of including details - including photos - of the living or recently-deceased then we should be ok. Basically, most people who enjoy genealogy / family history are happy to share information and learn from each other. It's best to assume that they mean well, I think.
-
Feeling slightly freaked out by all this!
Have a private tree on Ancestry I started several years back with lots of very precious old photos posted -- just 3 or 4 trusted folk given viewing access to it, but all of them pre-warned I am MOST anxious (to an excessive degree!) my photos never appear anywhere else on the Internet, including on other trees, private or public. So far (as best I know!) this has been totally respected.
Following Ancestry's recent DoS attack, however, have learned my lesson and decided to create an off-line tree using Legacy and move all my personal stuff (photos and stories) to that from my Ancestry tree, so there will then be no question of anyone gaining access to it. Then I will likely make my Ancestry 'skeleton' tree, stripped of all photos and stories, public. But at the moment, because Ancestry is not yet 'firing on all cylinders' I am unable to make a GEDCOM file and get started on this project -- which is making me feel a bit 'twitchy'!! :( :(
Thank you for letting me rant! And, Nelgin, thanks for your useful tips.
CELTICANNIE
-
In reality once you upload something online, it is on forever, even if you delete it and like many websites ancestry harvest everything you add/put on public or private and once it is put on their site ( same as other sites) it belongs to them not you, so they can use it, as you sign up for their terms and conditions.
After my computer was stolen where I had my family history on it, and backed up to the hard drive ( that the thief 'thoughtfully' stole too) so only print out copies of everything so I set up my own free website and started again. The website is a strange name/number combo so no one will find it and even if they do each page is set with different passwords along with hidden pages where I can only get into them via the managing my website page, so no one can get into those. But again the 'owner' of the website who allows free website space can, never found anything from 'my' website elsewhere online and I have had it now for about 5 years...just another option for people, as is cloud storage
-
Hi CelticAnnie, I am doing exactly the same as you, have you tried downloading your GEDCOM today?, I know the site was having trouble with GEDCOM's but I have this morning downloaded mine as the site now appears to be OK
Frank.
-
I used to worry a lot about this sort of thing, and get angry and upset, but now I worry much less. The more we share info, photos, etc, the more we learn about our ancestors.
As I said, I generally only worry about very private family pictures or info that relates to living people or their close relatives and which might, therefore, cause upset.
I suppose it's different if people are being deliberately unpleasant but just sharing info on trees is helpful to everyone, I think :)
-
i agree with you tricia-2 why have your tree on any site if you dont want others to see it just keep it at home , life,s to short to worry about family tree,s being copied carol
-
Has anyone mentioned the fact that there are more copies of the same photos around!
I had a very precious 'one off' photo of my g/grandmother with a written dedication to my granddad.
When her 2 last surviving daughters died, found the same photo in their collections, but not signed.
And how many times over the years when we have had photos developed (before digital) and someone has asked for a copy, so off you popped back to the chemist or shop to get more copies of one or more photos.
Just a thought :)
-
Just an FYI, but if your photos make it on to a public tree at any point, they will show up in a Google images search for that name. So even if you have the person remove it from their tree, it will still be out there.
-
There is one rule in the World Wide Web (Web 2.0):
If you want to keep something private,
keep it out!
Rules might be changed,
websites might be sold,
content might be hacked and stolen ...
Best regards
Rudolf H. Boettcher
NB: I am tagged on reindeer photos only ...
-
There are two settings in privacy on ancestry - one is to make your tree public/private and the other is to be excluded from searches. If you simply set a tree private without removing the search element then it will appear in searches, so if you wonder why things show up on a search and subsequently say private this is why.
If you are concerned don't put stuff online, which is a shame as hope we are in this hobby to share.
For images, get a thumbnailer and put a thumbnail sized image online.
For stories, convert to an image, if its copied it won't be changed, so can control how it looks.
There are issues though, if you don't want stuff seen, why put it online. Remember sites like ancestry have costs, so they want to use whatever you put online.
-
Whilst you keep your tree Private and only allow certain people access. Asking them not to share your photos etc.
If they have a Public Tree and put those said photos on there, there is no way anyone can be stopped from copying these photos.
It is an age old problem.
I now never give anyone access to my tree. I will share information once I have established a connection but that is where it all ends. Once bitten twice shy......
-
There is one rule in the World Wide Web (Web 2.0):
If you want to keep something private,
keep it out!
Rules might be changed,
websites might be sold,
content might be hacked and stolen ...
Best regards
Rudolf H. Boettcher
NB: I am tagged on reindeer photos only ...
Oh Rudolf I LOVE that ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have to say I worry however why worry about things you are in control over, you simply do not post your tree online and you simply do not post your photo's online, it is in your control and there is plenty of FH software available free so it is very easy to keep your tree private as in on your own computer. That way it is not harvested by the website or any harvesters who happen along to view it and fancy adding it to their tree, you can still share what you want, when you want and how you want
I am just thankful I do not post my tree online and still share with others who are researchers but never harvesters and I have that choice, having used it many time even on here when people PM and only want a Gedcom and when they do not get it they "disappear to whence they came" never to be heard of again...
-
Nothing is private and I would not put my tree on Ancestry .I would not want it copied even though Ive checked everything.For some its a way of not doing any research.I have contacted some tree members but only when Im sure they are genuine and not just collectors and admit I have made useful contacts.There are many trees with hundreds of pictures and I often wonder what is the point of it all.
My research has cost m a lot of money and time and I don't want others pinching it.Am I being mean.
Ringrose
-
Nothing is private and I would not put my tree on Ancestry .I would not want it copied even though Ive checked everything.For some its a way of not doing any research.I have contacted some tree members but only when Im sure they are genuine and not just collectors and admit I have made useful contacts.There are many trees with hundreds of pictures and I often wonder what is the point of it all.
My research has cost m a lot of money and time and I don't want others pinching it.Am I being mean.
Ringrose
Of course you are not being mean, you are looking after what you are done. If when I do a display in a public space of textile art work someone fancied taking some of it I would be upset, many of those displays also have no photographs allowed and that is because textile students will copy work and pass it off as their own and not original work( and yes it has happened), some silly students at one end of course examination had several copies of my work in their final pieces, trouble is they didn't know I was moderating their finals.... that is no different to copying someones FH research and passing it off as their own
-
Some people do research for their own benefit, some want to share with others.
We all face a choice, publish or not. One advantage of publishing is that you may get more information from others that way - there is no guarantee any research is 100% accurate and someone else could hold information to help over a brick wall or highlight a wrong branch you've gone down.
-
I recently found photos of my great grandmother and several siblings on several Ancestry trees. I had shared them with one person privately who I had been in contact with through GenesReunited. I did ask for them not to be shared publicly. I have written to her - no reply. I got two replies from others. One said he would remove the photos, the other gave this reply.
"This information is open public record as are any photos or records so recorded. I am going to have to decline your request."
I replied saying he had received (or copied?) from a third party and they were actually my photos. No reply. :(
-
Hi Snowyw, good to see you again :)
Sounds very much like my problem, this person even has photos of me, and did have some of my daughters although after a lot of wrangling they were removed, whether by her or Ancestry I still don't know.
Are you sure that your person is a he? Sounds very much like the woman in Aus who has almost 92000 people on her tree, and I can tell you that she is not related to any of my relatives she has collected.
Don't hold your breath!
-
Photos aren't public and subject to copyright. Sites like ancestry should pay more attention and allow take-down notices. Unfortunately unless they get hit with legal action threats, people will just refuse.
Maybe you could send ancestry a takedown request
http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-DMCA-Take-Down-Request
though if its just used on a tree it would be a case of showing that ancestry are earning money if it comes up in searches - just being on a tree for own research is deemed fair use
You are allowed to take short extracts of works when the use is for research that you do not make any money from or for private study, for educational courses or even for use in connection with a hobby. Such use is only permitted when it is 'fair dealing'.
The purpose of this exception is to provide students and non-commercial researchers more access to copyright works. In assessing whether your use of the work is permitted or not you must assess if there is any financial impact on the copyright owner because of your use. Where the impact is not significant, the use may be acceptable.
-
I have just posted on Ancestry's facebook page and had a very quick response. I'll keep you posted!
-
I've been thinking of doing that myself Snowyw, but 'she' is on fb too. I know that as she uses the same photo on both.
Not sure I want her knowing my identity as she was a bit obnoxious on the Ancestry Connect, before she blocked my messages that is.
I will watch with interest though.
-
Not sure I want her knowing my identity as she was a bit obnoxious on the Ancestry Connect, before she blocked my messages that is.
Your other option msr, is to create a new FB page with an unidentifiable name and a new email address.
-
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this topic, I searched for long and weary for information on a certain family member. On finding a connection i was given a frosty welcome and not much information. I am sure there was much more to be gleaned. However, that`s the way of it. I suppose there are people who find a tenuous link and grab all the info they can just to add names to their tree, which seems pointless. I would and have, shared willingly, any information pictures etc. with Difficult one. Unknownmale. Having said that this site Rootschat has been a saviour on many occasions.
-
I found a family member and gladly shared a picture of our common ggg grandparents.... Only to find it on findagave with a not stating that person as the one who "donated" the pic.... Of course they did but I was surprised they never told me!!!
-
And never heard from them since of course...
-
I haven't heard back from Ancestry. The most annoying thing that will not go in my favour is that the photos are credited to the person I shared them with, not me. Probably because I don't actually keep my tree on Ancestry. If I haven't heard from them by the weekend, I may have to post again on the facebook page....
-
This is a minefield area, which is why my copies of old family photos are not on my Ancestry tree, but are on my blog.
However, I used to work in advertising and had to know the copyright law regarding photographs. Copyright in a photo is held by the photographer and NOT by anyone who happens to have a print of the photograph. The only exceptions are if the photographer is an employee, in which case their employer holds the copyright, or if there is a written agreement transferring the copyright.
If you are in a photograph you do not own the copyright, and can only have a say in how it is distributed if you have signed a model release form.
So, if you have old family photos you do not own the copyright and legally you have no say whatsoever in how that photo is distributed. If you choose to send a digital copy to someone else or post it online, you have no control over how it is subsequently distributed.
Oh, and copyright usually ends 50 years after the death of the copyright holder anyway.
I don't suppose this is what many people posting on this thread want to hear, but it is the law.
-
That is interesting and helpful, JM Strachan.
So as I understand it, I own the copyright of any photo that I have taken. What happens re copyright of the photos my father, who died 15 years ago, took? Does that pass to me as his heir? I also have family photos taken by my grandfather, who died 40 years ago - who owns that copyright, does that also pass to his heirs and their heirs?
-
Sorry, it's 70 years after the death of the copyright holder, not 50 years.
As for passing onto heirs: I don't know but have just looked it up and it's not very clear. Ideally copyright needs to be mentioned in a will, but realistically that only happens if the work in question is earning money. If your father named you in his will as the beneficiary who received the residue of his estate or all personal possession/contents of house, then yes you'd inherit copyright. Otherwise possibly not.
-
One of my photos is of my grandmother and her mother taken in 1921 by her father. He died in 1935. So no copyright.
The others were taken in 1934 by my grandfather who died in 1972.
So where does that leave me with the first one?
-
Isn't there the added complication regarding scans of photographs by someone other than the original photographer? I read somewhere, but can't remember where, something suggesting that if the photograph was out of copyright but you had scanned it in and manipulated it (such as where they've faded), it's deemed to be a new photograph with new copyright period?
It's a bit of a minefield unfortunately, as most forms of intellectual property are.
-
And to complicate things further: before things went digital, the original photograph is the negative or whatever that was created when the photo was taken. Lots of prints can then be made, and with old photos we may simply be the owner of one of those prints. Unless you have access to the negative, you won't have ownership of the original but only have a print taken from it.
Personally, I wouldn't even worry about copyright as it's far too complicated. In any case, the only way you could use copyright law to stop someone distributing a digital copy of a print of an original negative (phew!) would be to take legal action against them, which would be far too expensive to justify the possible outcome.
In this digital age we need to accept that if we post pictures online we cannot fully control what happens to them thereafter. If we don't want them seen and used by others, the only real way to do that is not to post them online, unfortunately.
-
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.
But it boils down to what you could and would do. If you contacted someone and said "I own the copyright so hands off" and they ignored you, what would you do? Unless you were prepared to pay to get a lawyer in on the act, there isn't really anything you can do.
And you do need to check terms and conditions of any sites where you post images. They probably say that you agree to pass ownership of the image onto the site holder, or something along those lines.
-
As JMStracahn says it is a mine field, I cannot say I entirely agree with the concept, if I hire a photographer to takes pictures, I do not feel the work belongs to him/her. If I hire a joiner to fit a kitchen he/she has no claim on the resultant work. However it is the law.
Unknownmale.
-
If you hire a photographer, then who owns the copyright depends on the contract you have with the photographer. You can have a contract whereby the photographer sells you the copyright along with the image.
The reason why the default owner of the copyright is the photographer is that what is being copyrighted is "creative expression". It's the same with any creative work, such as writing, painting, etc. If an author writes a novel and a publishing house publishes it, the author still owns the copyright as it their "creative expression", not the publishers. Unless, of course, they agree to sell their copyright.
If you get a new kitchen, there is no copyright involved except that whoever designed the kitchen cupboards you buy may have the copyright to that particular design. But a kitchen cupboard manufacturer would take out a patent, which is different to copyright.
-
Sidestepping the minefield of Copyright, intellectual property etc can't we just follow the guidelines placed by ANCESTRY - "We are sensitive to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. Be aware that content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner and that photographs of living individuals, except your own minor children, must not be posted without their consent..."
Note: creator or SUBMITTER. Permission of the owner can only be sought via the submitter, and in snowyw's case the submitter didn't seek permission, in fact attached them to her tree when specifically asked not to share them.
In my case photos of a living person - ME - have been taken and added to someone's tree. As soon as I realised that not everyone played fair I removed all photos that I had uploaded. What a pity that it was necessary.
-
I don`t suppose the vast majority of us are aware when we commission pictures we are aware of copyright etc. I know as a young man having pictures of my children taken I ran foul of the copyright situation due to the fact the photographer had sold up/been bought out. so it is not always clear cut to the uninitiated.
unknownmale
-
I love people sharing their family photos with me. I have never done anything other than keep them in my private collection. I have received some amazingly old photos for which I am eternally grateful. However this has left a very sour taste and has made me think twice about sharing my photos in future. Sad as that is.
-
Could not agree with you more snomyw, as someone who has spent the most of his life since I was 15, trying to locate family pictures, including school pics. It is sad that this situation places restrictions on my search. It is not as if it was a pursuit to make financial gain.
Unknownmale.
-
- "We are sensitive to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. Be aware that content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner and that photographs of living individuals, except your own minor children, must not be posted without their consent..."
Perhaps you need to point out that clause to Ancestry, Snowy. If they state that, then surely they have a duty to make sure that it is obeyed.
-
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: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Unknownmale, I questioned Brotherhood as I wondered about all the Sisters helping and sharing; equality and all that.
I apologise if that has caused confusion, no disrespect meant.
Nor did I say that you had used the word 'plunder' but I perhaps mistakenly interpreted the words of Dave Dee - 'chore stuff', and your agreement with him - "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."
Again, my apologies.
-
Not a problem msr. I used the word to encompass all who take part not just males, old age I fear. I can list the no. of ladies who have assisted me, there are many, so perhaps I have caused confusion. It was your 4th. Para which led me to the plunder word. I should have qualified my agreement by adding, those who seem unwilling to share. Regardless hope I did not give any offense not my intention. Certainly did not mean to lessen the importance of the fairer gender, I may be old but know my place. (Levity) not sarcasm. Go safely.
Unknownmale.
-
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.
Sadly msr is right. My tree started off open as I naively expected people would be respectful but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I'm happy to share, but I draw the line at people wordlessly just taking things that are either dear to me (eg photographs) or which I have spent my own money obtaining. You wouldn't walk into someone's house and do it, so why should the internet be any different?
I put it to all of you private tree owners that you're not entering into the spirit of the genealogy community.
To my mind the spirit of the genealogy community is evident in bucket-loads here on Roots where people are unbelievably helpful and generous. Conversely, simply walking in and taking stuff I would say is the absolute antithesis of the community. Whether a tree is open or private I always make contact, explain my connection to the ancestor in question, and ask. Unfortunately if going private is the only way to make others behave with the same degree of manners & courtesy, then so be it.
-
(1) 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.
(2) Dave Dee, wasn't the parish record you wanted available to you though your subscription?
msr, thanks for your input.
In response to your point (1), with respect, I did not imply the word "plunder", but you were the one who inferred it. My point is that there are many people in this world who are "takers" and not "givers". Whilst some people with public trees can be in this category, unfortunately, those with private trees send a clear message to me that they don't want to share anything unless asked, as though everyone else is below them - at least, that's the way I see things. I made it quite clear in my opening original statement that I don't mind sharing any information and/or photos, documents, etc., with anyone. I have been on Ancestry now for almost five years, and have put untold hours of work into my own tree, trying, as best as I can, always to make sure details and citations are accurate. If my efforts can help others, then I'm pleased, and always encourage people to take what they want from me. It's called SHARING. I've received help on countless occasions from similar kind people with public trees. No-one will ever be able to accuse me of not playing my part - and I'm not implying you, or anyone else here will do so, either now, or in the future - neither am I intending to "blow my own trumpet".
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 put it to all of you private tree owners that you're not entering into the spirit of the genealogy community.
To my mind the spirit of the genealogy community is evident in bucket-loads here on Roots where people are unbelievably helpful and generous. Conversely, simply walking in and taking stuff I would say is the absolute antithesis of the community. Whether a tree is open or private I always make contact, explain my connection to the ancestor in question, and ask. Unfortunately if going private is the only way to make others behave with the same degree of manners & courtesy, then so be it.
Hi Jomot, and thanks for your handsome input, seriously. It's clear that you're a responsible person, and I applaud you for that.
The subject of sharing openly is obviously one that some of us see in different lights, and I'm gradually becoming aware of this via our forum. All I want is a community of people willing to share their gleaned information, no questions asked. I respect your view not to see it in quite the same way. You mentioned earlier about not wanting people "wordlessly just taking things" that are dear to you, or that you have bought. I truly can understand that, but I'm not that way myself. If I've bought something and it can benefit others (as long as they don't steal it from my grasp, of course), well, that's fine by me. Let's just say we are different from each other, but let's also be friends in spirit.
Best wishes.
Dave Dee.
-
Quote from Dave Dee
"unfortunately, those with private trees send a clear message to me that they don't want to share anything unless asked, as though everyone else is below them - at least, that's the way I see things."
May I simply make my point to you that I think that's an opinion which is worthwhile your reviewing.
I have no such clear message for you in having my tree Private, and I most certainly do not consider everyone else below me. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that seeing it that way may not be the most constructive approach.
-
Oh dear....I think the answer is a simple one...if you don't want people to take information and photos from your tree...then don't put them out there in the first place...I thought genealogy was about sharing...I don't have my tree on ancestry but frequently offer and share what I have by contacting tree owners and have been lucky enough to have this reciprocated....If I see something of interest...I contact the owner and ask if I may use a photo or document in their tree and explain my connection...I have never been refused yet and am happy to share. Life is too short to get precious over what is after all a hobby. A polite reminder of the courtesy to people who take without asking should be sufficient.
Carol
-
Quote from Dave Dee
"unfortunately, those with private trees send a clear message to me that they don't want to share anything unless asked, as though everyone else is below them - at least, that's the way I see things."
May I simply make my point to you that I think that's an opinion which is worthwhile your reviewing.
I have no such clear message for you in having my tree Private, and I most certainly do not consider everyone else below me. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that seeing it that way may not be the most constructive approach.
Ah, fair comment, IgorStrav, thanks, you are an exception to my perhaps-wrong pan-sentiments about private tree owners, but, with respect, you are not in my shoes, on the receiving-end, or, rather, the "non-receiving-end".
ATB
Dave Dee.
-
Oh dear....I think the answer is a simple one...if you don't want people to take information and photos from your tree...then don't put them out there in the first place...I thought genealogy was about sharing...I don't have my tree on ancestry but frequently offer and share what I have by contacting tree owners and have been lucky enough to have this reciprocated....If I see something of interest...I contact the owner and ask if I may use a photo or document in their tree and explain my connection...I have never been refused yet and am happy to share. Life is too short to get precious over what is after all a hobby. A polite reminder of the courtesy to people who take without asking should be sufficient.
Carol
Ah, words of wisdom, Carol (Treetotal), thanks. Oil on troubled waters. :-)
ATB.
Dave.
-
It is all very well you folk with a private tree saying that all someone has to do is to ask you politely for details about a person and you will tell them - but your answer will never reveal the full picture. We won't see the actual Timeline of the person we ask about, which would probably give the full, rounded picture of that person's life.
...The person asking for the information may never be told the names of all children involved, may never get to know if any of them went to Australia, Canada, NZ, or USA, and may never know if anyone was married several times. When asking for information about someone from a Private tree, do we really get everything that we would really love to know?
No, all we usually get back, (if we are lucky, because sometimes we get no answer at all), is a brief answer to our question and that's all. We won't know about all the extra information on the Timeline. Someone with a Public Tree reveals all this at a glance on every Timeline of every ancestor, often accompanied with birth, marriages, and death certificates, not to mention images of Ships Passenger Lists, gravestones, etc etc etc - but folk with a Private tree aren't willing let us see their work at all.
I am not shouting folks. Too old for that. Just explaining my point of view.
P.S. I don't mind folk taking images or information from my tree, it is just that I would like to see theirs too.
-
Someone with a Public Tree reveals all this at a glance on every Timeline of every ancestor, often accompanied with birth, marriages, and death certificates, not to mention images of Ships Passenger Lists, gravestones, etc etc etc - but folk with a Private tree aren't willing let us see their work at all.
Doesn't this spoil the fun of genealogy for you, having all that handed to you on a plate? I would much prefer to find this out for myself rather than just copy others' research. I am quite willing to share my work with anyone who can show a connection, but I can also quite understand why others don't like the idea of all their hours of research and money spent on certificates etc just being copied and added to other trees in minutes.
-
It is all very well you folk with a private tree saying that all someone has to do is to ask them politely for details about a person and you will tell them - but your answer will never reveal the full picture. We won't see the actual Timeline of the person we ask about, which would probably give the full, rounded picture of that person's life.
Quite an assumption there doddsie. I recently contacted someone with an online tree (not Ancestry) to freely & without request give them information they did not have, taking them back four more generations. I also contacted a private tree holder who was clearly researching the same family as me and did the same. And yes, my tree is private for reasons given above. manners cost nothing, and sorry if you don't think they are important, but I do.
-
It is all very well you folk with a private tree saying that all someone has to do is to ask them politely for details about a person and you will tell them - but your answer will never reveal the full picture. We won't see the actual Timeline of the person we ask about, which would probably give the full, rounded picture of that person's life.
...The person asking for the information may never be told the names of all children involved, may never get to know if any of them went to Australia, Canada, NZ, or USA, and may never know if anyone was married several times. When asking for information about someone from a Private tree, do we really get everything that we would really love to know?
No, all we usually get back, (if we are lucky, because sometimes we get no answer at all), is a brief answer to our question and that's all. We won't know about all the extra information on the Timeline. Someone with a Public Tree reveals all this at a glance on every Timeline of every ancestor, often accompanied with birth, marriages, and death certificates, not to mention images of Ships Passenger Lists, gravestones, etc etc etc - but folk with a Private tree aren't willing let us see their work at all.
I am not shouting folks. Too old for that. Just explaining my point of view.
P.S. I don't mind folk taking images or information from my tree, it is just that I would like to see theirs too.
Sorry - but just to say I always share my Private tree with my connections, thus revealing all the information you mention above.
Added: I really had no idea that my decision to keep my research Private for my own family and connections upset people so much - I'm happy to share with connections, and always have done, and it is great when people add comments to the tree, or correct me with new information.
I've found cousins, shared with them, researched with them, introduced them to this site......goodness me, how selfish have I been! :o
-
I don't know whether I provoked this run of posts, but you have the wrong end of the stick, in fact the wrong stick. Only reason I had not released family tree in any way is because I have only got back to 1740. Regrettably, it may well be as far back as I can go. The relevant entries to go further back are just not there.
On another Site a man posted re our family. I immediately replied, sending him the results of my efforts over 20 years, ie the tree. Hardly the action of a mean minded person. He is descended from one of my grandfathers brothers. I regularly have lunch with another member of his branch who lives in the same town as me. This man corresponds with the 2nd cousin I lunch with but leaves me out of the loop.
-
It is all very well you folk with a private tree saying that all someone has to do is to ask you politely for details about a person and you will tell them - but your answer will never reveal the full picture. We won't see the actual Timeline of the person we ask about, which would probably give the full, rounded picture of that person's life.
...The person asking for the information may never be told the names of all children involved, may never get to know if any of them went to Australia, Canada, NZ, or USA, and may never know if anyone was married several times. When asking for information about someone from a Private tree, do we really get everything that we would really love to know?
No, all we usually get back, (if we are lucky, because sometimes we get no answer at all), is a brief answer to our question and that's all. We won't know about all the extra information on the Timeline. Someone with a Public Tree reveals all this at a glance on every Timeline of every ancestor, often accompanied with birth, marriages, and death certificates, not to mention images of Ships Passenger Lists, gravestones, etc etc etc - but folk with a Private tree aren't willing let us see their work at all.
I am not shouting folks. Too old for that. Just explaining my point of view.
P.S. I don't mind folk taking images or information from my tree, it is just that I would like to see theirs too.
Well said, doddsie4, agree with everything you say. Couldn't have put it better.
Although I say all hail to those private tree owners who are willing to share everything, I just cannot see the point of keeping everything under wraps, simply because you don't want anyone else automatically sharing in the goodies you possess. It's a bit reminiscent of when we were children, not sharing our sweets with the other kids. Is it ME?
-
It's a bit reminiscent of when we were children, not sharing our sweets with the other kids. Is it ME?
Depends if the other kids asked or just came and took them off you. ;)
-
On another Site a man posted re our family. I immediately replied, sending him the results of my efforts over 20 years, ie the tree. Hardly the action of a mean minded person. He is descended from one of my grandfathers brothers. I regularly have lunch with another member of his branch who lives in the same town as me. This man corresponds with the 2nd cousin I lunch with but leaves me out of the loop.
You have my sympathy. That is atrocious behaviour on his part, especially as he's related to you. Some family members can be like that.
-
It's a bit reminiscent of when we were children, not sharing our sweets with the other kids. Is it ME?
Depends if the other kids asked or just came and took them off you. ;)
Hehe, comparison noted. Grinning. ;D
-
Doesn't this spoil the fun of genealogy for you, having all that handed to you on a plate? I would much prefer to find this out for myself rather than just copy others' research.
Yes, true - up to a point - the thrill of discovering something new through one's own efforts - I'm sure all of us here know that feeling. Some things, though, like certain photos or documents, are not available except via other people's trees. Similarly, if one is stuck on a branch, a tiny snippet of information from someone else's tree can unlock an Aladdin's cave that can even be fed back to that same person. In my own case, I have tons of photos that no other relation will have, also documents, and the same is conversely true. There are also bits and pieces about family members handed down by word of mouth to individuals. Isn't it good to be able to share such stuff with other members of the total "family"? I return to my assertion that this hobby of ours is all about sharing freely.
-
Maybe you should forget Ancestry and put your tree on the Wikitree. I see that some one has done that with my tree from Ancestry, not that I am worried by it but taking credit for someone else's work is a little bit naughty.
-
Just want to register that I'm leaving this discussion, as whatever your intentions, I'm now feeling judged and found wanting for a personal decision which I took when someone very peripherally connected to me took my whole tree, and posted it to his own, without permission, without warning me, and including large numbers of people who were not related to him. I now share with connections to aid their researches and I am very free with the information I do share.
I defend the decision to make my tree Private, but I don't wish to discuss it any more. I share and contribute as much as I can, and several comments here belittle these contributions.
Rarely am I upset by discussions on this board, I like to feel I am a rational and sensible human and capable of understanding other people's opinions, but I am uncomfortable with this one.
-
There are also bits and pieces about family members handed down by word of mouth to individuals. Isn't it good to be able to share such stuff with other members of the total "family"?
I agree Dave. The problem is that there are, unfortunately, those who just attach photos, stories etc to any name that is remotely like the one in your tree and therefore your photos and family stories end up attached to completely the wrong people. I prefer that people ask me and show the connection and then I am more than happy to share. I dont like the idea of my grandparents, who I knew and loved, ending up on an unrelated tree, perhaps on the other side of the world.
-
There are also bits and pieces about family members handed down by word of mouth to individuals. Isn't it good to be able to share such stuff with other members of the total "family"?
I agree Dave. The problem is that there are, unfortunately, those who just attach photos, stories etc to any name that is remotely like the one in your tree and therefore your photos and family stories end up attached to completely the wrong people. I prefer that people ask me and show the connection and then I am more than happy to share. I dont like the idea of my grandparents, who I knew and loved, ending up on an unrelated tree, perhaps on the other side of the world.
Yes, groom, I can understand that. In my own case, I don't think that would worry me, as long as my own beloved grandparents were not "slagged off" in any way - but I can genuinely see your point. What I want, though, is for the genuine, good people who can benefit from my own tree and efforts, to be able to share in my discovered treasure. We obviously all have very mixed feelings over this issue, but it's evident there are some extremely kind and considerate people here, on both sides of the fence, so each of us must be willing to accommodate the other person's point of view, mustn't we?
-
Just want to register that I'm leaving this discussion, as whatever your intentions, I'm now feeling judged and found wanting for a personal decision which I took when someone very peripherally connected to me took my whole tree, and posted it to his own, without permission, without warning me, and including large numbers of people who were not related to him. I now share with connections to aid their researches and I am very free with the information I do share.
I defend the decision to make my tree Private, but I don't wish to discuss it any more. I share and contribute as much as I can, and several comments here belittle these contributions.
Rarely am I upset by discussions on this board, I like to feel I am a rational and sensible human and capable of understanding other people's opinions, but I am uncomfortable with this one.
Igor, if I am one of those persons responsible for upsetting you, I apologise unreservedly. It's never been my intention to upset anybody.
Peace, brother.
Dave.
-
Thanks for your support folks. For a moment there, I felt like I was a lone voice in the wilderness.
I wonder what will happen if a majority of members decide to make their tree Private? Ancestry might have a bit of a problem there. People would soon desert them. How could they function?
-
It is a persons personal choice to do what they want with their research, and Ancestry is for research of their records. Why would you want to use other peoples trees for your research, most of them are flawed in some way.
-
Thanks for your support folks. For a moment there, I felt like I was a lone voice in the wilderness.
I wonder what will happen if a majority of members decide to make their tree Private? Ancestry might have a bit of a problem there. People would soon desert them. How could they function?
Nahhhhh, you're not a lone voice. And yes, let's all go Private and see what happens. 8)
-
It is a persons personal choice to do what they want with their research, and Ancestry is for research of their records. Why would you want to use other peoples trees for your research, most of them are flawed in some way.
Hey, you speak for yourself. My tree is perfect. ;)
-
Perfection is to strive for.
-
I'm rising to the bait again but for some of you, this may get around your problems with shared photos etc.
Like so many others I provided others with access to my own research which included all documents, photographs etc
I too find that they also pop up all over the place... usually where they don't belong.
On almost a dailly basis, I would receive PMs.
"I can see from your tree that you have a photo/marriage/death cert for a certain person. Can I have access please"
I would respond and ask the contact how she/he is connected.
Very rarely did that person come back with a reply
About 2 years ago, I made a decision
To make my fully documented tree both private and unsearchable!
It means that it cannot be found, not even on an Ancestry search!
No one knows that it exists!
However, every 3 or 4 months, I export a fresh gedcom from it and upload it to Ancestry.
It's still private but can be found.
As soon as it appears on a search, I delete it's pre- decessor
The copy tree is still private, but will be found on a search.
As gedcoms cannot transfer images, most contact that I receive now, is genuine.
-
Ancestry is for research of their records.
Exactly YT, that is what we pay the subscription for, access to all the records they have. Being notified of another member researching the same people is a bonus, collaborating even better.
Someone mentioned a 2-way street. In my opinion that is where please and thank you must come in, otherwise it's more like hit and run.
-
Ancestry is for research of their records.
Exactly YT, that is what we pay the subscription for, access to all the records they have. Being notified of another member researching the same people is a bonus, collaborating even better.
Someone mentioned a 2-way street. In my opinion that is where please and thank you must come in, otherwise it's more like hit and run.
msr, with respect, if the subscriptions we pay to Ancestry are only for access to their records, why do Ancestry permit us to see other people's trees, and, furthermore, allow us to give to or take from them?
-
Because they are in business to make money, and the easy way for people to seem to grow their tree is to take it from others who have already done the research.
-
Because they are in business to make money, and the easy way for people to seem to grow their tree is to take it from others who have already done the research.
But if that's so, the people taking information would complete their trees more quickly than via doing the research themselves (on Ancestry), which would mean they'd be more likely to leave Ancestry sooner. The longer Ancestry can keep them a-searchin', the more money Ancestry would make.
-
I tried to post before yours Annep so have only just read it through properly.
I have never thought of taking a tree to the extreme of being unsearchable, just private. So anyone who finds that a particular record has been saved by me can make contact to see how I connect to the person they are researching. I will always answer, and offer further information if warranted, but I will not allow anyone to make me do all the work for them.
Does that make me selfish, or just circumspect?
Dave Dee, Ancestry allows members the choice of having public or private trees, it does not tell us what we must do.
On second thoughts it does indeed. It actually says somewhere in the small print not to take personal photos etc without first asking, and as that guideline is not adhered to by everyone it has resulted in some making their trees private. Documents filmed by Ancestry however are a different matter, anyone with a subscription can find them by endeavour.
-
I don't think that would worry me, as long as my own beloved grandparents were not "slagged off" in any way
I think you have mentioned that twice, so obviously, and understandably, feel strongly about this. However, since your tree is public, you have no control over what anyone who copies it, and adds it to their tree, puts. If they decide your grandfather is a bigamist or your grandmother had several illegitimate children there is nothing you can do about it and that information would then be out there for others to copy and spread.
-
Dave Dee, other people's trees can often be useful as a guide but if you just help yourself to their trees that is not research, and you are assuming the information they contain is correct, which may not be the case. Some trees are total nonsense and by indiscriminate plundering of trees you make a nonsense of genealogy. I have numerous ancestors who lived their entire lives in a single Suffolk village but, according to some trees on Ancestry, emigrated to the USA and died in various states in prosperous circumstances. All total and utter nonsense. So it really depends on whether you want a tree which shows the truth, or whether you just want a load of names and dates which are spurious, meaningless and totally without foundation. I must say I quite favour the device on Ancestry of putting in the odd error and see how far it gets.... Serves you right if you copy it without checking. If you'd contacted me before helping yourself, I would have happily pointed you in the right direction.
-
Complete your family tree, Dave Dee? Whoever completes their family tree? Not sure I've ever met anyone who has done that. However far you get, however many people you have on it, there is ALWAYS some other branch to pursue. And when you get stuck, there are always plenty of people here who you can help until such time as you can break down that brick wall and get a couple more generations back.
-
I don't think that would worry me, as long as my own beloved grandparents were not "slagged off" in any way
I think you have mentioned that twice, so obviously, and understandably, feel strongly about this. However, since your tree is public, you have no control over what anyone who copies it, and adds it to their tree, puts. If they decide your grandfather is a bigamist or your grandmother had several illegitimate children there is nothing you can do about it and that information would then be out there for others to copy and spread.
Agreed. But it would be on their own heads. Looking at this logically, I doubt if my deceased grandparents would be caring about it, and anyway, as long as the good people on Ancestry could benefit from my tree, all well and good. I continue to be happy for my tree to be public, and, if there's anything too sensitive, well, as somebody earlier has suggested, it just ain't going on there.
-
Complete your family tree, Dave Dee? Whoever completes their family tree? Not sure I've ever met anyone who has done that. However far you get, however many people you have on it, there is ALWAYS some other branch to pursue. And when you get stuck, there are always plenty of people here who you can help until such time as you can break down that brick wall and get a couple more generations back.
Greensleeves, what I said was only a joke. Did you not see the winking face after my comment?
-
I continue to be happy for my tree to be public, and, if there's anything too sensitive, well, as somebody earlier has suggested, it just ain't going on there.
[/quote] There are some very good researchers about, given a snippet of information you may be surprised what they could find.
-
Dave Dee, other people's trees can often be useful as a guide but if you just help yourself to their trees that is not research, and you are assuming the information they contain is correct, which may not be the case. Some trees are total nonsense and by indiscriminate plundering of trees you make a nonsense of genealogy. I have numerous ancestors who lived their entire lives in a single Suffolk village but, according to some trees on Ancestry, emigrated to the USA and died in various states in prosperous circumstances. All total and utter nonsense. So it really depends on whether you want a tree which shows the truth, or whether you just want a load of names and dates which are spurious, meaningless and totally without foundation. I must say I quite favour the device on Ancestry of putting in the odd error and see how far it gets.... Serves you right if you copy it without checking. If you'd contacted me before helping yourself, I would have happily pointed you in the right direction.
Greensleeves, you're dead right about some trees containing "total and utter nonsense". Seen plenty like that! Only the other day, I saw someone in a tree who was born, then died aged about 4 years of age, in, say, 1850, and then was miraculously resurrected, to appear posthumously in the 1861 Census. When I started (almost 5 years ago), like most of us, I suppose, I believed the information in other people's trees all to be accurate. I soon found out how wrong that was! After that, I checked everything before putting it into my own tree - or at least added a note to say something or other needed confirmation. Thanks for the advice, though, much appreciated.
-
I think the problem is that Ancestry (since that's who we're talking about) has two basic settings - all or nothing.
The consensus of this debate - whichever side of it you're on - seems to be that those who take their research seriously are perfectly willing to exchange information with those who are doing the same. The only disagreement is regarding the current 'wide open' mechanism which results in far more takers than givers - many without the courtesy of a request or acknowledgment and often mangling years of work to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
There will always be those who are happy to let anyone help themselves and do whatever they like with it, and others who will be offended by such an approach. I'm in the latter category.
What perhaps the 'everything should be open' camp don't 'get' because its not in their personal make-up is that often an emotional investment goes into these trees. They aren't just a giant jigsaw puzzle to some of us, and just as we guard & protect our living family we also guard & protect our deceased. Dave says he doubts his deceased grandparents would be too bothered about being branded a bigamist or having illegitimate children and he's right - but if that was my grandparents, both of whom I loved dearly, then I would be bothered about it. Very much so.
However, regardless of that aspect of things I must admit to being very nonplussed at the apparent belief that just because someone pays a sub to Ancestry its their God-given right to access personal family documents that may have a very deep meaning to me, along with information I only have because I also paid subs to various other sites to obtain it. I'm happy to share if you introduce yourself and ask, I just don't think you should expect to simply walk in and take it without any thought to how I might feel about it. To me that's just basic manners, and if you cant display those then why should I give you anything at all?
Unfortunately its this "I'm entitled to have whatever I want and I don't give a stuff about you" attitude that underpins why so many trees have gone private, mine included.
Anyway, I'm leaving this thread now as I too am uncomfortable with the tone of some of it.
-
What a brilliant and well written post, Jomot. I think you have summed up exactly what most of us who have made our trees private think. It certainly isn't a case of being selfish, as perhaps has been suggested in a few posts.
-
I agree that many members have switched from a public tree to a private tree for the very reasons you have outlined. I got so utterly fed up with it a while ago that I actually switched to a Private Tree - but then, after a couple of weeks, I thought that this was just giving up on my principles, and the Ancestry principles, that the idea of the site is to share. So I made my tree public again and decided to stick with the solid principle of sharing.
I can see what you are getting at, though.
By the way, I can remember discovering from the Salvation Army what had happened to my Grandfather's long-lost sister - and I wept tears over the letter they sent me. You'd be surprised how emotional I am about the people on my tree.
-
I don't leave my house or car doors open 24 hours per day, as I expect eventually, someone will help themselves to my property, and do what they wish with it. Same goes for my version of my family history.
Regards
Malky
-
Hi all :)
I've been following the thread with interest and I have to admit also with a little bit of unease as I got to the point of not knowing if I was protective, mean or just plain old misguided regarding my tree being "Private".
Thank you Jomot for posting that answer to what I feel has become quite a bone of contention for people studying their family history, I did not know how to add to the thread but your answer summed my feelings up exactly, I have to say that my tree is private, But if anyone asks me for information I give them full access to my tree once we have proved a connection, likewise if I seek any information from tree holders both Public and Private I always Ask and give them information so that they can ascertain before answering my request that we are connected, afterall as has been previously stated, good manners cost nothing.
Best regards as always
Frank.
-
I am just so pleased I do not post any tree online having spent 35 yrs researching and sitting in records offices to find and copy document, transcribing French or old Latin documents in my quest to find my ancestors the research is valuable and anything of value you treasure.
I have been contacted from forums mainly and for some I have helped, shared and sent copies of documents that they would unlikely have found themselves, others I am far more restrictive but then I have to option of that judgement to make " are they wanting names and dates to fill up a tree and make it impressive" or "are they related to my ancestors too"
I will help anyone and thank anyone who helps me.
Not long ago I had someone PM me from here we exchanged emails and I tried to establish what relationship there was but all they wanted was a Gedcom of my tree and when he didn't get it they turned nasty as if it was a 'right' to have any and all information I had researched offering nothing but nasty comments. Clearly someone used to getting what they want, when they want and any how they want
-
I agree that many members have switched from a public tree to a private tree for the very reasons you have outlined. I got so utterly fed up with it a while ago that I actually switched to a Private Tree - but then, after a couple of weeks, I thought that this was just giving up on my principles, and the Ancestry principles, that the idea of the site is to share. So I made my tree public again and decided to stick with the solid principle of sharing.
I can see what you are getting at, though.
By the way, I can remember discovering from the Salvation Army what had happened to my Grandfather's long-lost sister - and I wept tears over the letter they sent me. You'd be surprised how emotional I am about the people on my tree.
Doddsie4, thanks for posting this and for sharing your heartwarming story with us.
Having read these posts, and hearing stories from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I admit to being wrong in making the assumption that all private tree owners are being a bit selfish, so I apologise to all for my mistake and thank everyone here for causing me to "see the light".
What really got me into this forum was the woman I mentioned in an earlier post who hasn't let me have a parish record image she has in her private tree, one I could have got myself, if the Medway Cityark Archivist(s) hadn't been so pedantic about applying data protection and privacy "guidelines" so rigorously and stupidly. The woman hasn't had the decency to level with me and say she doesn't want me to have it. That's what's got under my skin in such a big way, her rudeness. If she'd at least said that to me, although I still wouldn't have liked it, at least I'd have known where I stood, instead of just being ignored. Since then, I've found a good place where I can buy a CD or DVD+R with the missing image, plus a ton of others, so that's what I'm proposing to go for. As regards the ignorant woman, well she can do with her parish scan what the monkey did with his peanuts, for all I care.
Sorry to be so blunt, but this experience with an ill-mannered person has upset me as much as have been some of you owners of private trees about people wanting to benefit from your hard-won data (a view, thankfully, I can now appreciate).
Since reading all the different viewpoints, I've come to the same conclusion as Doddsie4, and am going to stick with keeping my tree public. Even I'd considered going private, after considering all these differing views, but that's not my way. I'm not like that. If, as someone suggested earlier, we all went private, we'd be spending much of our time writing and asking, "Please Sir/Ma'am, can you help me?" - and then getting upset, as in my case, when either being ignored, or having to go through the 3rd Degree, or even being told to shove off. I can't be doing with that. For me, it's always got to be about sharing, courtesy, generosity, and appreciation of the help of others.
I can't see any clear answer to this total problem that would satisfy us all. Ultimately, I think it's down to personal choice - public or private. Minds much greater than mine must have applied their reasoning to this issue, without success. Maybe the boy and girl scientists of "The Big Bang Theory" can help us! I may write them a letter. :)
Anyway, I'm going to be watching the continuation of this topic with great interest.
Thanks to everyone for taking part.
ATB.
Dave.
-
I don't leave my house or car doors open 24 hours per day, as I expect eventually, someone will help themselves to my property, and do what they wish with it. Same goes for my version of my family history.
Regards
Malky
Can see your point, Malky, yes, but at least with your family history stuff, your property will still be there.
-
Dave Dee,
The other person who does have the document you so badly wish to have too.
Had she given it to you, What would you have done with it?
Would you have attached it to your public tree , shared it with someone else who asked or kept it all to yourself ?
Just curious!
-
Dave Dee,
The other person who does have the document you so badly wish to have too.
Had she given it to you, would you have attached it to your public tree , shared it with someone else or kept it all to yourself ?
Just curious!
Anne, as it's a parish scan, I would have saved it in my growing collection of other parish scans on my computer, but would have put a citation in my tree to say the information came from the scan, and would also have included details of the document (which is of a marriage ceremony), in the Ancestry information panel for that event. I always include details such as who the parents were of the bride and groom, and the witnesses, stuff like that, as much as I can cram into the allotted space. In the case of the Medway Cityark parish scans that continue to be displayed publicly, I indicate, via a citation, that this is where the said image can be found, and also include the web address, so that people finding my reference to it can simply click on the link and go straight to the document on the Cityark website. They would then be at liberty to download the image for themselves. The parish image possessed by this irritating woman would be one hitherto in the public domain, and would therefore not be her own property, and not have been purchased.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes.
Dave.
-
Unless I am completely mis understanding you, I assume that you would not share the scanned image.
Instead, you would direct others on where to find it?
-
I think the way forward is for Ancestry to rethink how trees are presented and give the option of having your tree public with your documents, photos and personal data only available on request.
Everyone has the right to chose how and when to share data and who with....but at the end of the day...all things grow with love and sharing...our aim is the same...whatever our views ;)
Carol
-
Unless I am completely mis understanding you, I assume that you would not share the scanned image.
Instead, you would direct others on where to find it?
In this case, Anne, I would share it, in the sense that I would let people know openly that I possess the image. They wouldn't be able to find this particular image on the Medway Cityark website, because it's now been taken down, because of the latter organisation's ridiculous and over-reactive ruling upon the interpretation of data protection and privacy legislation. I would quite probably upload the image to my tree, so that everyone could partake of it, and would certainly have no objection to doing so, especially if someone asked me where they could obtain the image. If it wasn't already uploaded to my tree, I'd probably do so immediately, for that person's benefit alone. Why not? As far as I'm concerned, anyone can have anything I have access to for my own tree. I've helped out many people in this way, as have many people helped me, in like manner.
Hope this clarifies things, but if not, do please ask some more.
-
I think the way forward is for Ancestry to rethink how trees are presented and give the option of having your tree public with your documents, photos and personal data only available on request.
Everyone has the right to chose how and when to share data and who with....but at the end of the day...all things grow with love and sharing...our aim is the same...whatever our views ;)
Carol
A first-class posting, Carol, and yes, you've summed it up well. :)
Best wishes.
Dave.
-
Thanks Dave,
It does clarify things.
Perhaps your initial contact realised this would be the case, which is why she didn't furnish you with a copy.
AND... you are 100 % correct Carol
I am happy to share any "relevant" info, but if I open my tree to another, invariably the contact feels entitled to copy everything that's not relevant to our common link
This is what annoys me the most!
-
Thanks Dave,
It does clarify things.
Perhaps your initial contact realised this would be the case, which is why she didn't furnish you with a copy
Thanks also, Anne.
Do you mean the woman would perhaps not have been happy about letting me have the image because of concerns about data protection and privacy?
-
No Dave, not Data Protection or Privacy.
If she gave it to you and you made it public, you have both lost control of it.
It could turn up anywhere... especially where it doesn't belong.
How many times have you seen an incorrect marriage scan attached to the wrong couple?
I see it every day!
-
So if I understand correctly, Dave, you would accept something from someone's private tree and then publish it on your own public tree? I know in this case you will argue that it is a public document, but would you also do the same with any other information you were given from a private tree ie photos, family stories? This is the very reason that so many of us keep our trees private. If I share photos I always ask that they are kept private and are not added to a public tree. I hope that the person I am sharing with will have the decency to respect my wishes.
To go back to the point about being ignored - has the person in question responded at all? If not, how do you know that she has seen your requests? She may not be working on her tree at the moment and so is not using Ancestry, she may be ill or have even died. A good friend of mine, the mother on law of a second cousin, has 4 private trees on Ancestry, all highly sourced. However, she sadly died two years ago. As the trees remain there for all to see, anyone asking for details will not get a reply.
-
There in lies the rub Groom.
I also ask the same of my contacts. Not to place on a public tree.
So far, everyone has agreed
Problem... they forget to tell the next person who has access to theirs!
-
No Dave, not Data Protection or Privacy.
If she gave it to you and you made it public, you have both lost control of it.
It could turn up anywhere... especially where it doesn't belong.
How many times have you seen an incorrect marriage scan attached to the wrong couple?
I see it every day!
Sorry Anne, I'm not understanding your point. Had I been able to obtain the image from the Medway Cityark website myself, I would have done so, and provided a proper citation for the document in my tree, attached to the (correct) person concerned. All I'm asking of this woman, is for a copy of the document she's probably obtained earlier from Cityark (or, if not, she could say this is not the case).
-
Dave,
She doesn't know what ( if anything) that you intend to do with "her" scan.
That's why she refuses your request.
You have already said that you would probably put it on a public tree.
She has concerns about where it ends up... once it's on a public domain, anyone and everyone is free to collect it for themselves
I appreciate that it's a simple scan but, the same principle applies to any document or photograph
-
So if I understand correctly, Dave, you would accept something from someone's private tree and then publish it on your own public tree? I know in this case you will argue that it is a public document, but would you also do the same with any other information you were given from a private tree ie photos, family stories? This is the very reason that so many of us keep our trees private. If I share photos I always ask that they are kept private and are not added to a public tree. I hope that the person I am sharing with will have the decency to respect my wishes.
To go back to the point about being ignored - has the person in question responded at all? If not, how do you know that she has seen your requests? She may not be working on her tree at the moment and so is not using Ancestry, she may be ill or have even died. A good friend of mine, the mother on law of a second cousin, has 4 private trees on Ancestry, all highly sourced. However, she sadly died two years ago. As the trees remain there for all to see, anyone asking for details will not get a reply.
Groom, forgive me, but I'm feeling pretty sensitive and annoyed about this, and fancy there's something judgmental going on here about me and my motives. If I'm wrong, then I apologise.
No, I would not publish documents or photos obtained in good faith and confidentially from a private tree, without first obtaining prior permission of the owner, so please let me make that perfectly clear. I do not like any inference that I might do otherwise, or the calling into question of what I might or might not do.
The document referred to here is one that has, until recently, been in the public domain. It is one that I could have obtained myself, had I known Medway Cityark were going to start limiting parish register scans available for public viewing and downloading.
The person in question, a private tree owner, has responded, yes, and you'd need to view my earlier posts to see exactly what happened. To summarise for you, I'd asked politely for a copy of the image concerned (of the parish scan of a marriage ceremony), explaining why I wanted it, and telling her a little of myself. The reply I received was simply, "This lady was my aunt". Later webmailed correspondences yielded similar, short, irrelevant answers. At no point has the woman said why she won't send me the image, and I've found it very frustrating - and very rude of her. I'm not about to crawl. At the very least, she could have said she wasn't willing to provide me with a copy, but she hasn't even done that. She's been active regularly on Ancestry, as reported by that website.
FIN.
-
Dave,
She doesn't know what ( if anything) that you intend to do with "her" scan.
That's why she refuses your request.
Anne, if that's what she feels - and, respectfully, that's only supposition - then why the heck can't she tell me so? I'm just asking not to be ignored, as though I'm something sub-human.
-
Just supposition but she may have nicked it from someone else and is feeling defensive, or do not want you to find that out. [You can trace the travel's of photo's/ documents on ancestry back to the original poster]
Apart from that, how people respond to a request is their problem, I wouldn't get paranoid about it.
-
Anne, if that's what she feels - and, respectfully, that's only supposition - then why the heck can't she tell me so? I'm just asking not to be ignored, as though I'm something sub-human.
Only ignored Dave Dee? Have you not suffered being blocked yet?
Perhaps as mentioned previously the person you refer to may be unable to respond, for a variety of reasons.
As YT says, the originator of photos or documents up-loaded is mentioned whenever someone copies directly to another tree. I daresay that some more devious person, to avoid showing that they have copied from another tree, will download it to the computer then upload it to their tree thus being seen as the originator. But then I must have a suspicious mind, blame it on the spy novels I am in the habit of reading!
-
Just supposition but she may have nicked it from someone else and is feeling defensive, or do not want you to find that out. [You can trace the travel's of photo's/ documents on ancestry back to the original poster]
Apart from that, how people respond to a request is their problem, I wouldn't get paranoid about it.
Hi Youngtug,
Under "normal" circumstances, yes, a photo or document can indeed be traced back to the original poster. However, you can then save the same document to your own tree (with the name of the person you obtained it from appended to the document). If you then save that document to your computer, delete the original placed in your own tree, and re-upload it, the document will then be under your own Ancestry name. "msr" correctly points this out in a recent posting - and thanks for that, msr. I've done it myself with a few photos that have been in the wrong orientation, taken from the trees of some fairly close family members - meaning that you have to twist your head to one side to look at a person - or with one that has a huge margin around it that needs cropping - or one that maybe needs a bit more contrast or brightening to enliven the photo - that sort of thing. Some would say that's wrong to do so, but if the end result is an improvement, surely that's OK, isn't it?
Now, turning to your other point, about your implication that I may be becoming "paranoid" about something I feel strongly about, namely the rudeness of a person ignoring me when I make a reasonable request, I put it to you that you could make the same accusation against some of the people in here so vigorously and defensively proclaiming their reasons for making their trees private, could you not? They have their reasons for feeling that way, which I respect, but I also have my own reasons for feeling as upset as I do. It may be, incidentally, as you say, that when a person behaves ignorantly it's "their problem", yes, but when their ignorance is transferred to the recipient in the form of ill-manners, it can then become a new problem for the latter person.
-
Anne, if that's what she feels - and, respectfully, that's only supposition - then why the heck can't she tell me so? I'm just asking not to be ignored, as though I'm something sub-human.
Only ignored Dave Dee? Have you not suffered being blocked yet?
No I haven't, msr, thankfully. That must be worse, but it doesn't take away what I feel about a person behaving in an ill-mannered way by ignoring someone.
-
http://www.mikewilliamscartoons.co.uk/pages/MWC0034%20Thompson%27s%20Gazelle.htm
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Dave Dee
Parish Registers are copyright of the church, when a person obtains an image from a Parish Register whether by downloading from a website or directly from an Archive there are conditions on the use of that image generally along the lines of being for personal use only but sometimes more specific ie not to be published either on the internet or other forms of publication without permission. Personal Use could also be interpreted as not giving a copy to a 3rd party, certainly that is the case with the likes of DVDs or books. Perhaps the person is reluctant to give you a copy as they don't wish to breach any such conditions.
Generally you will find that websites have cut off dates for original images to ensure they don't breach Data Protection (or similar) Legislation. These websites do err on the side of caution, and some people are not happy about it, but, on the other hand, it can be an expensive exercise if they end up in court for breaching the Legislation.
Andy
-
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
-
...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.
-
(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.
-
...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.
-
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
-
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
-
You can take a photo of any house you like, if you are standing in the public street when you do it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
…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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :o ;D
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!
-
...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....
...
...
Mrs. T x
Well, Mrs. T, that really is a smashing reply, tinged with good humour, and thanks so much for sharing your thoughts further. Like you, I'm going to try to lighten up somewhat, even though sometimes it's difficult and things can be trying. Think you'll agree with me that, for most people, patience is something to be acquired over the years. The older I become, the more I realise how much I still need to learn about it - and about so many other things, too! It never stops, does it?
Well, thanks again. Keep smiling and stay safe and warm. :)
All 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....
...
...
Mrs. T x
Well, thanks again. Keep smiling and stay safe and warm. :)
All best wishes.
Dave.
You're welcome - and you too :)
Mrs. T x
-
...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....
...
...
Mrs. T x
Well, thanks again. Keep smiling and stay safe and warm. :)
All best wishes.
Dave.
You're welcome - and you too :)
Mrs. T x
Thanks, Mrs. T. Over and out. ;)
-
This topic continues (Part 2) on:
Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2) (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=722517.0)
-
My tree is also private on Ancestry but I rarely put any photos or media on there. I have a premium tree a another site which I use for that purpose.
The Anc tree is fine for research purposes but I don't trust them with anything else especially since some years ago I used their FTM program which synced to the Anc site; their site got hacked and so did my tree which meant I lost people and sources from it and had to do it again! Thence I bought FH and use it's gedcom to upload the basic tree to Anc ONLY periodically.
Some people seem to believe that you don't need a proper ft program to store your tree but you shouldn't rely on Anc or other tree sites ever.
Cr
-
Noone is going to want to use photos unless they are ancestors or descendants so i dont really see the problem, people have found ones useful to them of mine and visa versa that is what the point of ancestry is so families can build their trees. the minute you put a photo up on ancestry then ancestry owns that photo, and the whole point of ancestry is you can copy other peoples info they have found. I am sure you have got information off others by searching records etc, some of them people have uploaded, this is the whole point of it all! I think some people look at it wrong they thing my my my my when that descendant actually belongs to more than one person, I would think it would make people happy that they didnt have that photo and now can see what someone looked like. So I have a public tree, my photos i have uploaded are welcome to all, like i said noone is going to even be looking at photos that arnt concerning their family tree they are working on. People that are selfish and do not want to share their photos perhaps should find another avenue to build a family tree.
-
Hello Genie and welcome to Rootschat. I hope you find it a helpful and useful site to help you in your family history research (I certainly have).
I agree with some of what you say - once you put photos up on Ancestry, you lose control of who uses them, and what they are used for. The issues that people have had, though, is seeing photos of their relatives being mis-labelled and attached to completely the wrong person - then shared and multiplied with the wrong information. I don't put photos on there for that reason, but happily share them via email with people who I trust not to misuse them.
I can't agree with this though .., and the whole point of ancestry is you can copy other peoples info they have found. I am sure you have got information off others by searching records etc, some of them people have uploaded, this is the whole point of it all!
Cheers
Mike
-
'Noone is going to want to use photos unless they are ancestors or descendants so i dont really see the problem' 'like i said noone is going to even be looking at photos that arnt concerning their family tree they are working on.' 'People that are selfish and do not want to share their photos perhaps should find another avenue to build a family tree.'
Sorry genie12, but I do find both statements wide-sweeping.
1) It is known from personal experience of some members that not everyone who has copied photos is related in any way.
2) Some people do, it is the way the world is.
3) Anyone using online resources to build a tree should be able to do it in whatever way they wish, without being called selfish.
The subject comes up many times, in many places, with differing opinions.
Mike seems to have stopped me posting immediately, he got in before me, and I do agree with him on the portion he quoted.
-
I think some people look at it wrong they thing my my my my when that descendant actually belongs to more than one person, I would think it would make people happy that they didnt have that photo and now can see what someone looked like.
:)
-
This thread, which started in 2013, became so long and unwieldy that a 'Part 2' was created - see below:
This topic continues (Part 2) on:
Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2) (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=722517.0)
Unfortunately that thread had to be locked after it descended into acrimony. One post was so abusive that it was removed almost immediately (I had the misfortune to see it) and that poster, a relative newcomer, has not returned - at least, not under the same name.
I do hope we're not going down that road again.
Carol
Moderator comment: No, please let's not go down that route again. This topic is now locked.