Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lubana

Pages: 1 [2] 3
10
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Tuesday 16 April 19 18:12 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: josey on Tuesday 16 April 19 17:27 BST (UK)
1911 from familysearch https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X7TM-YZ3
no children with John & Louisa

1939 no redacted records.

Thank you.  Despite looking on the same [good] site previously, I was not able to find John and Louisa together.  Perhaps I did not search in an early enough year.  But in 1911 Louisa was still young.  I did find a John Robert Richardson in Hull who was born in 1916 but could not locate who his parents were. 

11
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Tuesday 16 April 19 17:09 BST (UK)  »
There--found the marriage of Lydia Brooker already!

Lydia Brooker
mentioned in the record of Martinson and Lydia Brooker
Name   Lydia Brooker
Event Type   Marriage Registration
Event Place   Hull, Yorkshire, England
Registration District   Hull
County   Yorkshire
Registration Year   1940
Registration Quarter   Jan-Feb-Mar
Name of spouse Horatio Martinson

12
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Tuesday 16 April 19 16:10 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: seaweed on Tuesday 16 April 19 14:22 BST (UK)
Could this be your man Berry?

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C8331995

If so this would be his seamans "Pouch"
Records relating to individual seamen filed together in a pouch. These documents may include application forms (most with a photograph of the seaman), certificates, identity cards, cessation documents and notifications of death.

What you really need is his Form CRS10. This will give details of all the ships he served on, with dates and places of Engagement and Discharge. If it has survived it will be in the series BT382.For security reasons, You would need to visit Kew or appoint an independent researcher to look for you.
If you are prepared to do that I will post details later.
Have a day out at Kew and pick up his "Pouch" at the same time.

PS Can you give us the name of your home town in Germany?

Thanks so much for this!  It certainly provides options.  The town where I was born [left for the US in 1952 with family] is Wesel on the Rhine in Westphalia.  It was one of the places targeted in Operation Plunder under FM Montgomery and later became part of the British zone of occupation.

Also, I made an error yesterday in giving the amount of centimorgans I share with my UK cousin.  The correct number is 1,089.

13
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Tuesday 16 April 19 16:02 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: MaxD on Tuesday 16 April 19 14:21 BST (UK)
Small progress perhaps.

A Driver Charles Edwin Brooker of the Royal Field Artillery died in France from wounds on 28 March 1918.  His wife was HV Brooker of 8 Cromwell Terrace Chatham (Kent).  CE Brooker married Harriet V Riley Q2 1912 in Medway district (Kent).  There is a child of the marriage, Lydia MV Brooker born Q2 1913 Medway district who is mentioned in his Effects register entry.

There are a number of Brooker possibilities in Kent.

MaxD

Yes, that's the one.  What could be helpful in my search is that the daughter was called "Lydia" and not "Lily" as had been suggested to me.  In that way, I might be able to find her married name [if any] and that might provide another connection.  Thanks for your help.

As for the person who suggested the DNA painter--I have already used that tool but even Ancestry suggested that my new relative could even be a second cousin.  It remains to be seen via genealogical digging and hopefully there will be a breakthrough.  Thank you for your suggestion as this really is a valuable tool.

14
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Monday 15 April 19 21:17 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: MaxD on Monday 15 April 19 17:42 BST (UK)
Did Charles Brooker die in the war or afterwards?  Do you know the forename of Mrs Brooker?  Approximately when did she join the Richardsons in Hull?

MaxD

The war ended in 1918 and Charles Brooker died in that same year.  That's all I know.  Mrs. Brooker, whose maiden name was Harriet Riley, was in Hull by 1919.  She went to live with her sister, Louisa, and brother-in-law, John Robert Richardson.  Mrs. Brooker had three children, Lily Brooker, Albert Brooker, and Winnie Brooker.  Then, in 1924, Mrs. Brooker married a man named John R. Berry in Sculcoates, Yorshire.  By him she had a son, Lawrence John P. Berry, whose birth was registered in Hull in 1925.  I suppose one would need the British census of 1921 to find out who all was living in the Richardson household.  I don't know if Louisa and John Richardson had any sons or not--and neither does my cousin.  If they did and one of them was my father, my cousin would still be related to me as Louisa was her grandmother's sister.  My cousin and I share 1069 centimorgans of DNA.  I'm not certain if that is too much for a more distant relationship.  Probably, Albert Brooker or Lawrence Berry would be the best candidates but my cousin could not place them in the battle for my hometown in Germany during or after the war.  My cousin thought Albert served in India and Lawrence [very young even in 1945] was either in the Royal Navy or the merchant marine.  This about sums up the entire difficulty.

15
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Monday 15 April 19 16:44 BST (UK)  »
Thank you for your responses so far.  I fully appreciate that it is going to be very difficult [if not impossible] to identify my father but, as I only very recently learned of the existence of the cousin, my daughter and I are still actively working on the matter.  There are many problems we already know about that complicate everything.  For example, Mrs. Brooker, a young widow, came to Hull from Kent to live with her sister and brother-in-law, the Richardsons.  Her husband, Charles Brooker, had died as a result of his participation in WWI.  But it is not known if Charles Brooker was originally from Hull and related to the many Brookers of Hull--or if he was from Kent.

16
Yorkshire (East Riding & York) / Re: Looking For People From Hull
« on: Monday 15 April 19 15:04 BST (UK)  »
I doubt there are any living people involved.  I am 72 years old, so I doubt my biological father can still be living.  Yes, I did find my UK cousin through a DNA test.  Of course, my DNA matches to her with enough centimorgans for that relationship.  My much younger sister also tested, has no British ethnicity, has no match with that cousin and does not even match to me with enough centimorgans to be my full sibling.  Now she and I are only half-siblings by that criterion but sisterhood and love are not measured in centimorgans.  Through genealogical research and via comparison with other matches, it has been determined that I am related to my English cousin on her mother's side.  So far, that's all that is known for certain.

17
The Common Room / Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« on: Monday 15 April 19 14:54 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Guy Etchells on Monday 15 April 19 07:11 BST (UK)
Quote from: Lubana on Monday 15 April 19 01:14 BST (UK)
snip

Unless you can truthfully say that you have never, ever, used something that was in the Public Domain, whether a photograph or an ebook--don't make an exception for yourself and your family photos.  If they are from the 19th Century, they are in the Public Domain and you can't prevent anyone from appropriating them.  You own them, they are in your care--but you have no rights over them whatsoever.  So share them freely and for God's sake don't spoil the creation and the view of the creator by putting an ugly watermark or something on them.  They are somebody's best work, the result of their talent and expertise and you really don't have the right to change them in any way.  It's no different from writing your name or logo--whatever--on a painting in a museum.  Think about it.  But, if it really bothers you so much to share the old photos, then take them offline or don't put them on in the first place.  You can't have it both ways.


Not totally accurate copyright can extend beyond 70 years under certain circumstances.
For example if a photograph is scanned and additional work done to the scan such as removing "dust specs", altering the contrast or even colourising the image it is now a new work and as such is now a copyright entity in its own right.

Even written lists can gain copyright after 70 years by becoming part of a database and entitled to database rights which extend the copyright period.

In addition here in the UK there is Crown Copyright :
(3)Crown copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist—

(a)until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b)if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published.

The subject of copyright is very complex and cannot be dismissed in blanket statements
Cheers
Guy

It all depends on the controlling cases, the precedents.  Under US caselaw, removing dust specks or altering the contrast is not going to suffice but colorization might.  Databases I know nothing about.  All I do know it's not easy to defeat the concept of the Public Domain.  With your last point--aren't we wandering a bit far afield from the discussion about family photos?  How many of them have ever been "published commercially"?  But here's something about that.  In the US, photos being part of a book, say, isn't going to extend their individual copyrights.  One is merely prohibited from reproducing the book in its entirety.  Do you know of a UK case that says differently?

18
The Common Room / Re: Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)
« on: Monday 15 April 19 01:14 BST (UK)  »
I don't have time to read all the previous responses, so forgive me for any duplication.  Many people would be surprised to learn that they own no rights to their family photos--unless they took them, themselves, or are the copyright heirs of those who did.  We are so accustomed to institutions that house old photos acting like they own the rights to them and can tell anyone exactly what they can and cannot do with them that we think we are in the same position--because the photos are in our custody.  Yet there is a vast difference between stewardship [housing and caring for the photos] and owning any rights to them.  As with any other creative effort, the rights to the photos belong only to the photographers--unless they entered into a specific legal agreement that the photos were a work for hire.  In the US and in England, the copyright to anything lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years.  That means, within those 70 years, the photographer might have a copyright heir that now controls it.  But, after those 70 years have lapsed--that's it, finito, done. The work enters into the Public Domain.


Unless you can truthfully say that you have never, ever, used something that was in the Public Domain, whether a photograph or an ebook--don't make an exception for yourself and your family photos.  If they are from the 19th Century, they are in the Public Domain and you can't prevent anyone from appropriating them.  You own them, they are in your care--but you have no rights over them whatsoever.  So share them freely and for God's sake don't spoil the creation and the view of the creator by putting an ugly watermark or something on them.  They are somebody's best work, the result of their talent and expertise and you really don't have the right to change them in any way.  It's no different from writing your name or logo--whatever--on a painting in a museum.  Think about it.  But, if it really bothers you so much to share the old photos, then take them offline or don't put them on in the first place.  You can't have it both ways.

Pages: 1 [2] 3