Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied (Part 2)

[pharmaT]

I experienced copying of information found on here  I do not think someone took it, I think another search site did that and added it to the trees on their's, mostly accurately. 

I can't get worked up about 'information' being lifted - provided it is only the fundamentals of how historical people were connected, and what they looked like.  Our basic searches depend on public records which we (hopefully) manage to assemble into a coherent whole.  If we can illustrate our findings with suitable photos, so much the better.  Of course if we feel embarrassed about skeletons in cupboards, or unsure of our facts, that may be different.  But I have no qualms about upsetting the sensibilities of anyone long dead 

I'm not embarrassed by the skeletons in my tree.  I worry about the reactions of the living who may be angry at the facts presented.  If I am completely honest I cannot handle the abuse I may get.  I have already had abuse for things I have discovered so  don't want to invite more.

[locksmith]

Copyright is not held by the person who commisions a photograph. The Copyright is held by the person who took the photograph. For example if you "commission" someone be it a proffessional photographer or just your neighbour, they will hold the copyright not you.

Simon

Simon, your reply only relates to automatic copyright, it is very possible in the contract for a commissioned work for the copyright be passed to the person who commissioned the photographer.
It is also very possible for the photographer to grant a licence to use and distribute copies of the photograph if that is what they require.
Blanket statements cannot be made when it comes to copyright for commissioned works as the details of the commission change the rights involved.

Cheers
Guy

Yes you are quite right there is not enough room here to explain all the nuances of copyright, and of course the granting of a licence is what people who upload their photos to Ancestry either don't understand or refuse to accept as the Ancestry T&Cs are quite clear. You either have to own the copyright or you have the copyright owners permission, before you upload photos and make them publically available on a tree. You have then automatically granted Ancestry a licence for them to make them available as they wish. This includes making them available as records which other subsribers can attach to their own trees, but also Ancestry can use them for their own purpose (eg on other sites they own, or publicity media etc). If they appear on another subsribers tree, they haven't been 'stolen' or 'lifted' lifted without the permission of the owner, they have been legitimately attached as just another Ancestry record. If someone starts using them outside of Ancestry then you have a different ball game altogether.
I suspect a large number of Ancestry subscribers have no idea who owns the copyright of photos  that they upload.

Simon

[TonyV]

"I have no qualms about upsetting the sensibilities of anyone long dead"

That's an interesting thought and one I tend to agree with but it really isn't as simple as that some times. One of my paternal great grandfathers died in 1899 but before doing so he was jailed at least twice including a conviction for a serious assault on one of his sons. Much of his middle life was spent apparently trying to escape retribution either from private sources or from the police (or both). None of my generation of cousins, all born from around 1935-50 were aware of any of this until I unearthed it. I have no idea whether my own father knew but his father, my grandfather, must have known something because he was forced to live under an alias name for many years until his father died.

So while the person concerned is "long dead" i.e. 120 years ago, and I certainly have no qualms on his behalf about letting people in my family know about him, or even for that matter sharing it online in order to obtain more information about this black sheep, I do sometimes wonder whether ancestors just 2 generations away, most of whom are still alive today, would prefer that his disgraceful life had not been discovered.

For my part my main wish is that I had known as much as I do now before my own father died so that I could have asked him what he knew, carefully of course. My guess is that he knew a much watered down version of the truth. Obviously it all depends on how long is "long dead".

Tony

[Lubana]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[Lubana]

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?

[Slightlyspoken]

I've not written on here before so forgive me for being long-winded but I just came across this thread which I found really interesting.
I’m going to take off any photos I either didn’t scan in myself or ask permission for.  I had no idea that if it was shown as an Ancestry hint it wasn’t necessarily freely available to use.  I have several private trees I use to work on before posting to my main tree once I have checked to my satisfaction that it’s correct.  I have a message on the Overview of them saying so but I’m not sure if that message gets seen if it’s private. 
Am considering removing the last 2 generations off my main tree and keeping them private.  I have one uncomfortable secret I will only divulge if someone contacts me.  There are lots of other family skeletons but, to be honest, unless you write them up as facts or notes, they’re not immediately obvious to someone who doesn’t take their genealogy seriously, ie making a tree from Ancestry hints only.  I also never add a person just because it appears on someone else’s tree.  I might take it as a suggestion but then I follow up on the sources myself.  I have learned from experience!  If I find an error I will sometimes message the other person (politely and in a friendly manner) with evidence of where I believe there is an error and ask them to let me know if/why they think I’m wrong!
At the end of the day we have all benefitted from other people’s research and I’m more than happy to share mine.  I keep my own database in a private PC program and all the juicy stuff is there if I need it!
I have recently found a really good podcast called Ancestors Alive - from paper to people by Carolyn ni Lochlainn.  It’s US focused but she gives good information and tips and her “hygienealogy” episodes are great.  She’s like the Marie Kondo of genealogy!
Lynne

[Lubana]

Not sure what you mean by "not freely available for use".  Once again, using the words of Wiki "Every work first published before 1923 has been in the American public domain since 1998. Since January 1, 2019, works from 1923 have also lost their copyright protection."  And that includes photographs, published or not. Public domain means no permission is required.  Other countries follow the same time table. The fact that some people don't like to share is irrelevant. If they object to others using their old family photos, they need not put them on Ancestry.  I cannot see the point of private trees.  If there are living people who might object to being part of a tree, that is easily handled.  Name them "Private" or omit them.  Why did people with private trees ever put them on Ancestry in the first place?  Don't get it.  The whole point of Ancestry.com should be pretty obvious.  It's not just about DNA and ethnicity--it's about "ancestry", who and where we came from.  Most of us have over a thousand DNA relatives spread over the globe.  I like to know how we are related, but in many cases it's impossible to tell--mostly because they have no trees.  I recently found some close cousins and am happy to be able to communicate with them--but nobody is forcing one to communicate with anybody.  However, if you have a tree, why not make it public so that others can see how they are related to you?  Yes, it can be important.  In the search for my biological father, I never would have been able to learn what I know about who he was if it weren't for my DNA relatives and their trees.

[pharmaT]

My tree is private, and it's not just about living people but I am sick and tired of apologising and explaining myself as to why I put it on ancestry and why it is private (clue not so that people cannot 'steal' information).

If someone is a DNA match to me and they contact me I will send them any information they may need (providing I have it).