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

[pharmaT]

Speaking as a 'selfish' private tree owner I rather resent the implication that we all just pilfer information from others who keep their trees open.  Had I not had all my paternal family, complete with photos, copied by someone with no connection to anyone in my tree, it would still be public. 

We all have to pay to access the collection of records on Ancestry, but anyone with a shred of decency will contact another tree owner to ask permission to use a piece of their own work, and if refused they should accept the decision. 

Public or private, it doesn't really make a difference, it is the individual who makes the decision on how to behave.   I was naive enough to believe that respect for others was paramount when I first subscribed to Ancestry, unfortunately I was soon proved wrong.

Me too.  In fact I'm quite upset at the suggestion that I am a selfish pilferer.  I have a private tree on Ancestry, it is also selected to be unsearchable.  My reason for having a tree on Ancestry is to have an off-site back of my research should the worse happen. Like you I do not take from other trees.  I HAVE read other trees from time to time but that is not to take their data.  It is when I have been considering messaging someone regarding a DNA match and I use what I have read to word my message to them not to plump up my tree.  eg "I see you have <name> in your tree from <place>.  My 4x Grt Grandfather was <name> born in<place> in <year>  does this sound familiar as I think this is where the connection may be."


I have than one reason for having my tree private. 1.  It contains sensitive information including illegitimacy, a murder and suicide.  I do not know how much other relatives may or may not know and I do not want to be responsible for them accidentally finding out and being upset.  2.  There always a chance I have made a mistake somewhere and I don't want to be responsible for someone else making a mistake on their tree should they blindly copy it.  3. I was given information for my tree on the condition I did not openly publish it and I try and keep my promises.  4.  Other family members have asked that I keep details private of the more recently deceased to preserve the privacy of those still living and again I try and keep my promises.


This does not mean that I selfishly hoard information, never share and never help people.  1.  If I am asked outright about the sensitive information by someone I will not lie, in fact if asked about that section of the tree I will not lie either.  I will warn them there is some sensitive information and check they really want to hear it.  If they say they do I will share all info I have.  I private tree does not allow for these checks.  2.  If I share information via discussion with another researcher then it reduces the chance of automatic copying of any mistake and I could also spot errors myself.  Please note I am not saying I have not taken care with my research I always work on the idea that there is no such thing as too much evidence I just recognise that I am human and humans make mistakes.  3. The info I was given I was told  I COULD share with definite relatives, I can only do this via conversation.  4.  By sharing in other ways I can edit info to keep it to earlier relatives. 5.  I have also done look ups at SP centres for people who are not relatives or for the other side of relatives trees.  6.  I have taken location photos for people too.


I am  bit upset though that my Dad's photo is attached to a guy who died in New York in 2015 because my Dad died in Scotland in 1999 and had never set foot in New York.  However it is that it is attributed to the wrong person I find upsetting rather than someone else having it that upsets me.

[Finley 1]

my feelings are slowly changing

as I realise if I dont share it soooon it will be too late.. and all my work will end up like my poor wonderful friend Margaret  - 'LOST'  -   as one day she was just NOT on anymore and when I tried to trace her... dinada..  

so I am now- on - slow release.. in case I wake up 'gone'


xin

[lmfamilyresearch]

Photographs aren't necessarily unique.  Families that went in for studio photographs often had multiple prints made to send to other family members.  So descendants of various branches of a family may have a copy of the same photograph.

I have a perfect example of this.  My uncle has 7 photo albums from the mid-lat 1800s of our ancestors and you will find the same photos in nearly every album.

[lmfamilyresearch]

I have my tree set to private as I have information on it that I have been asked not to share.  I had one person contact me on Ancestry asking to get access to my tree because she/he was also descended from X and Y.  When I looked for a tree under their username I couldn't find anything.  I did, however, respond to the person by saying I couldn't share the tree because I have information I have been asked not share but if they emailed me (and I gave my email address) then I would be happy to share what I could share.  I never heard back from them.

If I find a photo/story/document on Ancestry that someone else posted and I see where to get it then I will go get that piece of family history myself and save it with the information on where I got it.

Even though I have a private tree, I also mark any photo or document that I have been asked not to share as private.

[Andrew Tarr]

Copyright is an awkward area.  In the UK, the rights on a photo expire 70 years after the death of the originator, not the date the photo was taken.

That may well be the legal position, but I suspect that owners of most ancient photos will have no idea who originated them, or any way to find out; also that the originator (or his/her successor in title) is probably extinct anyway.

[les_looking]

Not often I post lately but do keep an eye on the forum.

Like others I have many photos from other family I don’t feel I have the right to openly put them on the internet, plus many certificates , another reason I made my tree private people don’t tend to contact you if the info is just there, now don’t get me wrong if someone contacts me and has a genuine connection I will give them all the info and records I can.

I have often spent at least half an hour replying to an enquiry from someone asking me about a person and often don’t even receive an acknowledgement, so you just know if your tree was “out there” you would never hear from that person, on the other hand I have had and still do have contact with some for many years.

So we all have our reasons none are right or wrong, just an aside as I said I rarely post nowadays but keep up to date with subjects that at of interest, but I notice how many of our long time posters are “gone” and have only noticed when looking through old threads deceased on their profiles, would it not be possible to have separate part of the forum remembering those people? We seem to have a part for everything else and those very people contributed so much to the forum in the past 😉

[Essnell]

I have an ancestry tree    3 people   once there was more but I quickly took it all down  same on genes.  however that is still out there.

I will share what I have if people are honest about it but not othewise. 

 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 checked as it also showed up very quickly on Ancestry, the person concerned was amazed and also upset as it looked like they had done it.  I am now quite careful everywhere I search.

On MH  someone private on one page can be totally seen on another page. it makes no sense.

My main tree is not on my computer it is on a external hard drive.  Safer there. Also Rootschat can be searched through google.   As has already been said.

There is no real solution.
Essnell

[Guy Etchells]

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

[Andrew Tarr]

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