more than a little annoyed

[Redroger]

Being a little devious I have put some information known only to myself in the tree that was plagiarised from me a few years ago, and subsequently displayed on Ancestry. Anything that comes to my notice containing this flaw is immediately disregarded.

[Ringoroses]

I agree totally with those who've made their trees private. Had a similar experience early on, made it private, no problems since.  I'm quite happy to share information with anyone who has a connection to my line, delighted to in fact.  I'm still in contact with several people who've asked since I made it private. But I can't be doing with name grabbers who raid public trees simply to expand their own, regardless of the evidence.  The person who raided mine has no connection to my family whatsoever; yet he has several of my relatives, and my early research, added to his tree simply because the person he was apparently originally looking for had the same name.  I don't understand people who do that - isn't part of the fun finding the proof?

Regards Ann

[Hampshire Lass]

I have had exactly the same experience.
A lady put many of my maternal and paternal ancestors and photos from both sides of my tree on her tree and simply will not respond to my numerous attempts to make contact with her. I have tried relentlessly to determine how we are related and have concluded that we are not in any way!!  I cannot see why she would want details of my maternal grandmothers cousins or my paternal 2x great grandfather. The only connection I found was that although she lives in America some of my ancestors come from Durham, as do hers.Her tree has now increased from 2000 to 20,000 !!!!!

I had read Nicks information concerning Ancestry on a previous thread and so I tried twice to contact them concerning this. However in my case it hasn't worked. Now my tree is private and I'm careful who has access.  Needless to say I bitterly regret ever having my tree public and hate the thought that this person has stolen pictures of my mum and dad and claimed them as part of her family when they simply are not.

[Nick29]

Try phoning Ancestry.  Their call centre people are very helpful and friendly.

[maidmarianoops]

you could put on a completely untrue branch  and see if they copy that


sylvia

[Hampshire Lass]

Try phoning Ancestry.  Their call centre people are very helpful and friendly.

Initially I emailed them (twice) and then I telephoned, but for some reason it just seemed too complicated for the person I was talking to  (perhaps it was my fault !!) and I gave up. However, I agree, generally they are helpful and friendly. It was just this occasion which was difficult and to preserve my sanity I simply gave up and forgot all about it until I read this thread.

you could put on a completely untrue branch and see if they copy that


sylvia

Unfortunately, my tree was public in the early stages of my research experiences and I had made a monumental error with some information about my greatgrandfather and that information has been copied to her tree. She refuses to answer my messages and the error concerns a terrible crime which wasn't in the end commited by him but someone else with the same name living in the same area.


Just have to put it all down as experience really, but I could kick myself for being so silly.

[Nick29]

I think much of the problem stems from the fact that those who 'steal' our photos are probably not really breaking any laws.  Depending on which country you live in, photographic copyright exists usually between 30 and 100 years, and that copyright is usually owned by the person who took the picture.  Now, I have photos on Ancestry, whose age varies between about 20 and 130 years (maybe a little more).  Most of these photos either came down to me from my mother's estate, or were donated by cousins (with their permission to publish them on Ancestry), who presumably got them the same way.  So, who actually owns any copyright ?

[Hampshire Lass]

That's why, in the end, I felt I just had to let it go.

I am annoyed with myself though but really it came down to inexperience.

I think if I meet my greatgrandfather, in the afterlife, I'm going to have a great deal of explaining to do, as his crime is forever recorded on the internet and he's completely innocent.     

[Cell]

I think much of the problem stems from the fact that those who 'steal' our photos are probably not really breaking any laws.  Depending on which country you live in, photographic copyright exists usually between 30 and 100 years, and that copyright is usually owned by the person who took the picture.  Now, I have photos on Ancestry, whose age varies between about 20 and 130 years (maybe a little more).  Most of these photos either came down to me from my mother's estate, or were donated by cousins (with their permission to publish them on Ancestry), who presumably got them the same way.  So, who actually owns any copyright ?

Hi,
You own that unique  image that you have scanned, photographed -you may not  own that old  photo's copyright , but you certaintly own  your  very own image that you have captured of  the object..  for example your unique scan,your picture of the   picture , The picture that they are stealing is not the original , it is your  unique captured image  of the object   that they are stealing. They are breaking  most copyrights  by doing this,they are stealing your  unique image of  an object

Kind regards