Some Thoughts About Publishing Your Genealogy Data

Watching the comments posted to this newsletter's web site prompts many questions: Just how private are the facts that we record? Can we really "protect" our genealogy data? Should I copyright my data? Is my data automatically under copyright protection when I publish? Should I keep my data secret? Is it a good idea to do so? Or should I publish my genealogy data for all to see?

I do not know all the answers, but perhaps I can offer a few thoughts for your digestion.

First of all, there is one major issue that we all need to recognize: facts are not protected by copyright laws in the United States. A collection of facts is public domain information. We might be able to claim a copyright on the originality used in arranging of those facts, and we might be able to claim a compilation copyright on large collections of facts; but each individual fact remains in the public domain.

Next, there is the question of exactly what is "my data." The genealogy data that I have collected consists of a collection of facts. As already stated, facts are not "owned" or copyrighted by anyone. I don't own that information, at least not in the legal sense.

Next, most of the genealogy data we collect is obtained from public domain sources. I know that I obtained most of my information from birth records, marriage records, census records, military pension applications, and more. All of these are public domain sources of information and are already available to others, should they wish to look. In no way is the data to be considered "my private data" as I have no ownership over it. I simply transcribed data that is already in the public domain. I copied the information for my personal use, the same way anyone else can do by spending the same effort that I did to find the original (public) records. Therefore, it is not "my" data, it is everyone's public domain data that I happened to transcribe.

In a few cases, I may have supplemented those public facts with even more information that I obtained from family members or other non-public sources. Indeed, I did obtain a few pieces of information from a family Bible in my possession, information that has never been published before. However, the U.S. laws still insist that facts cannot be copyrighted. I interpret this to mean that facts are facts, regardless of the source of information. Whether I obtain a fact from a public record or from a private conversation or from an ancestor's Bible, it is still a fact, is not subject to copyright, and is not owned by me. A family relationship that I learned from a cousin is also a fact, not my "private" bit of information.

Next, what is the purpose of my hiding the information? Am I protecting anybody or any facts? As already mentioned, the facts are mostly public already. Most facts are readily available in public domain census records, birth records, death records and other locations.

I cannot "protect" those facts. In the case of deceased people, I don't see how I am protecting anyone. I never publicize information about living people; so, whether I publish my data online or not, I am not protecting anyone.

(There might be one exception here: by not publishing I am protecting myself from the embarrassment of others finding errors in my research efforts.)

I have seen arguments that "Other people may take my data and republish it." In my mind, that's a good thing. If I have done a good job of research, wouldn't I want the correct information to be available to other descendants of these people, my distant cousins?

Next, I have seen arguments that "Other people publish inaccurate information, so I don't trust them and I will not publish my information." This strikes me as self-defeating: you are allowing their inaccurate information to remain unchallenged and uncorrected. When others search the web, they will find incorrect information and will probably perpetuate it by republishing those errors themselves. If you have correct information, it seems to me that you could do more good by publishing the correct information and thereby refuting the errors.

If you collect stories about the family and retell them in narrative form, you may be able to claim copyrights and "ownership" of those stories. However, that ownership excludes the facts buried within the stories. Facts are still facts and are not protected by copyrights or by any other legal protections in the United States.

Again, I do not have all the answers; but there is one thing that I am certain of: private individuals do not own "facts."

Comments

[Dave Grow]

Good points. Up until recently, publishing information online was simply a one-way information flow, but I think we're finally starting to see the point where collaboration online is becoming more popular. That way, hopefully less inaccuracies will be perpetuated.

I can appreciate the comment, however, that "other people take my information and republish it." In my experience, most people aren't really upset about the republication necessarily, but the cases where no credit is given to them for their countless hours of work.

[Infinite Ancestors]

When I was still fairly new to genealogy, I was more protective of my research (on which I'd already spent countless hours and dollars), thinking maybe I'd write a book or something and be the first to "break" some of the stories. I used to share it freely with relatives, but not post it publicly.

But now, I share and post almost everything (except of course information on the living), having long ago concluded that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (and that the protectiveness was just silly):

PROS:

+ Publishing my research improves my chances of contact from other relatives (however distant), and researchers with overlapping interests (places, historical events, military units, etc.)

+ Much of my research is automatically backed up by publishing it, and it is much more likely to survive over time.

CONS:

- People will use my research privately and never contact me. This is the most unfortunate aspect. I know from web site statistics that many people spend a lot of time looking at my research, but too often it doesn't show up anywhere else publicly and I don't get email about it.

- People will use my research and, by not at least indicating that it came from somewhere else, pass it off as their own. I don't even want my name (and especially not my email address) plastered all over, but it's not hard for someone sharing my research to put a link to my Rootsweb tree where they found it.

I think everyone should ask themselves why they do genealogy, and then consider whether their research and publication styles match those reasons.

[Happy Dae]

Well stated.

What I have done could be of help here: Publish your information, inviting collaboration. Withhold your citations, but offer them in exchange for collaborative efforts.

Oh, and stories? Ahhh, these are great enticements to collaboration. I've done a couple where I did not give the name of the mystery ancestor or relative. I made it a puzzler for the family (and lurkers) to reason out. Great fun! And one of the stories led to some unknown leads and information.

Keep your mind sharp and your eyes open for such opportunities. They are all around us.

Happy Dae
www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com/ssg1.htm

[Dave]

I have to disagree on the withholding citations. Why withhold the citations? Just so I have to contact you to see if your information is correct?

From my personal experience it is far more interesting to interact with people who publish their sources. First, I can tell that they are doing real research and not just copying blindly from a dubious world connct tree or I can tell that they are copying, because the cite world connect as a source. Second, if you are suddenly unable to respond for family or health reasons, I can still follow your research.

What it boils down to is a person's ethics. Yes, some people may pass off your work as their own. But genealogy is historical research. Can you imagine walking into a bookstore and choosing five books on the US revolution in the colonies and finding that three of them cite no sources? I hardly think people will applaud the authors who cite no source just so their readers have to write them letters asking where to find the primary source behind it all.

Those authors are stingy egomaniacs in my book.

[Peter Calver]

I'm very happy to share the relevant portions of my research with anyone who shares my ancestry. But making it all freely available so that any Tom, Dick, or Mary can download it and use it for any purpose whatsoever is counter-productive.

There's a famous law in economics known as Gresham's Law, which basically states that bad money drives good money out of circulation - and the same thing can happen with information. The Internet is a very effective way of promulgating facts, but it's also good at spreading rumours and downright lies - just look at the way that meaningful email is being swamped by spam.

Suppose someone wrongly deduces that there's a connection between my tree and their own. So they download a Gedcom of my research, and link it to their own. Even if our individual research was correct, now that the incorrect link has been made the value of that research has been devalued.

A third person comes along and sees both sets of research. They'll probably ignore mine because it's merely a subset of the other (larger) tree, so if they choose to link one of the trees to their own it will be the incorrect version. Now the 'good' version of the research is in danger of being driven out of circulation by the bad.

Here's an example - use Google to look up the meaning of the word 'crayman'. Several lists of old occupations describe it as "the driver of a cart carrying heavy loads". Funny thing is, that's also what a 'drayman' does - and on my keyboard the letters 'c' and 'd' are right next to each other.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that's the occupation of 'crayman' came into existence not in the 16th century, but as a typing error in the late 20th. It doesn't occur once in the 1881 England & Wales census, which is one that can be easily searched by occupation - nevertheless this bogus term been copied from one list to another so many times that anyone looking it up is likely to get the impression that it's a real word.

I don't want the same thing to happen with my research - indeed, I wouldn't like to see it happen with anyone's research. Until there's some way in which data can be tagged (as is now done with digital photographs) so that it's always connected to its origin, publishing information risks devaluing it.

[Bev Anderson]

Excellent points!!! :-)

I've published two web sites (both of which now need updating because of lots of new data on side lineages) and I'm working on a third (and I never put data about living relatives online; I keep that in a separate database). On the home pages of each web site I acknowledge the collaborative efforts and people who have helped me in one way or another over the last nearly 45 years of genealogy research. Genealogy research is not done in a vacuum, it's almost always a collaborative effort, and I've been given everything from tips on where and how to find info from strangers in libraries at microfilm viewers sitting next to me to having been send .jpgs of documents by other researchers (and I return the favor when I can; I've a network of individuals who have collaborated on lots of data on one of my genealogy lineages and we've shared our data and documents with each other).

I do want to share my information, and I publish bibliographic citations with quotes from books and URLs of public data I've found for each individual if it's online, so my sources are credited, even if the info is in the public domain or there's duplicate info online of data I've found in books. That way anyone who wants to can check out my sources if they have incorrect data from somewhere else - or, they can correct me if someone thinks I've found incorrect info, but they have to be able to verify what they say and/or send me bibliographic citations or .jpgs of documents if they challenge my sources - I do not go by repeated stories from any old great-aunt when I've found documents that directly contradict what her great-niece three times removed says - I love old family stories, but not all of them are accurate. I'm not as concerned with finding living relatives as I am about publishing correct data. I'm aware of some incorrect info about some ancestors and I want the correct information "out there."

Not giving me credit for finding data someone else uses as their own (not "real" genealogy researchers in my book, but copiers) kind of hurts, since, like others, I've spent countless hours and buku bucks on my research, but I have to develop a thick skin and console myself that I've tried to publish only facts that are correct, and at least that may rectify the incorrect data I know is published elsewhere.

The only thing I have to do in my old age is decide where my genealogy papers go when I die someday. I may have to make CDs and distribute them to county historical societies or history centers in various areas where some of these people lived. I've not finished doing genealogy research and I don't know when or if I'll ever "finish" it, but I've got rather complete data on many individuals (with supporting documents) and don't know how much I'll be able to add in the future. Still, I need to make my wishes known and leave the information to organizations where it may benefit someone else in a couple of hundred years.

You've made excellent points, Dick! Thank you! :-)

[Don Ridgway]

Dick, I agree in principle with what you and others have said, but I am here to tell you that information which I stored on the net has been used by others who charged a fee to download it. How do I know? Simple! Being an 'expert' typist with 20/20 vision (haha) I made several typing mistakes in recording some of my old data. (Something about Olde Saxon names makes it hard for my brain to follow the spelling) In researching data on the net I came across familiar looking data. Lo and behold, it was my data, complete with all of my exact typing and spelling errors (which were uncorrected at that point). I agree with the phylosophy, but the use of my data without even a 'by-the-way' really riles me; and when it is done by a corporation it makes it worse. Worst of all - I trusted them, like a fool!!

[Bradley Martin]

Excellent Point. Never trust anybody with your data. I had the unpleasant experience of sharing data on common relatives with a cousin of mine as we had common 3 x great-grandparents. About a month after contact with this relative, I found my data submitted to Rootsweb including details of living people without any permission. I had a devil of a time trying to get the relative to remove the information from rootsweb but eventually he did. The worst part of all this was that about six months after, the same relative submitted the same data including living relatives to Pedigree Resource File which as you may know cannot be removed. Needless to say that I was riled and now regret having contacted that relative in the first place. Moral of the story, under no circumstances should you ever share details of living people with anybody outside your family circle.

[Matthew Bivins Rogers]

I see your points Dick and agree with your statements about facts being public domain.

Personally I'm a firm believer in open source research and try to share everything I have available, including old stories and letters that have been passed down to me. The only exception being when it involves living people or somebody sends me an old letter they don't want shared outside the family. In that case I'll quote the pertinent portion of the letter and state in an appendix or addendum the source is private but available with permission.

If I have the original letter in my personal collection there’s no question as to my right to publish it. If someone sends me a copy of an original letter from their own collection, I feel a responsibility to get permission to publish it.

Even in old letters you find errors. If you can post a graphic of the original on webpage and use a metascript to draw the attention of search engines, it sometimes generates new sources, which can either collaborate or correct the story. Sure you may develop a personal relationship with some of your ancestor’s old letters. But I’ve found sharing them openly usually develops a much better understanding of the subject than one would have if they held the letters back from other researchers.

In the past you’ve given me some excellent advice in formatting narratives with unverified information. Some people won’t publish information that cannot be supported. I feel it’s like the question no one ever asks, so it’s never answered. If you publish it as an obviously unsupported fact, you’re asking the question and essentially inviting others to share what they may know about the subject. This comes up a lot when examining old letters, which some people may feel they want to hold back.

As far as perpetuating false information, it’s going to happen no matter what I do. It’s been happing since at least 1901 in our family. Genealogy is research by its nature, anyone who doesn’t attempt to verify facts found in other studies, isn’t a researcher they’re a transcriber and they get what they deserve.

[Ray Friess]

I agree completely with Don Ridgway's comments. A number of us have spent years collaborating in research on our common family line and have amassed volumes of material, including public and private documents and information.

I am more than willing to give this information to anyone that wants it (and so is the rest of the group) but I have been extremely resistant to posting it all online or submitting it to certain online sites or companies. I am offended that they seek your data and ask you to post your generations with them. Then, they turn around and say you can't have access to anything they have unless you pay for it ... INCLUDING your own data at their site.

My philosophy is that if these companies want the same data I have, and are going to sell that data, without even a thank you or a free pass to their site, then let them do their own research, get the same data I have, and then sell it if they want.
But, our compilations are just that "OURS" and shouldn't be used by these companies to make a buck.
Meanwhile ... anyone who may be interested in our data ... it's yours... FREE. We hope you will reciprocate if you find you may be related to us.

[Lynda]

I think Ray hit exactly how I feel -- willing to give it to anyone who wants it but resistant to posting all online or submitting all to certain online sites or companies. I have a GEDCOM on one of those -- it's old and now has what I know is wrong data in it. I haven't not updated it because I've found and am still finding that research posted on OTHER sites, not sourced to me or even to the on-line company. And I am becoming increasingly unhappy with making what was a collaborative environment one where many contact hoops have to be done first.

I've had the experience of sharing GEDCOM of data and finding it posted to the world with the living people still in it. Fortunately for me it was only in one place, I found it immediately and got it removed immediately. My Lesson Learned -- never give anyone a GEDCOM with living people names in it.

On my genealogy site I am careful to never post anything someone gives me as if it was MY research that accomplished it. I ask do they want their name and email posted. If so, I will do so -- but I also will not post it if they do not wish it to be done. I find most do -- they want anyone who reads it who has a question to be able to contact them directly.

Genealogy is one of the most collaborative communities on-line in the world. Personally I think our ability to share and share and share some more is an example of the goodness still in the world.

I struggle with what to post and not post. How MUCH do I upload on my site? Everything? I don't think so. I guess seeing so many people take the research done in many hours and post it as their own has affected me even more than I knew. What is SO hard about saying above data from email address or from website URL?

Am I hurting my own research from withholding full postings of data?

[St.Louisan]

Amen, Ray.

I don't think ANY genealogy should be published without sources. Every fact or story has to come from somewhere, and I'd like to know where it came from.

I share freely if someone wants to take the time to email or call me, but I'll never put my database on Ancestry, or any of the other GEDCOM sites.

My experience is that people have taken my research, which includes long analytic narratives, and published them without credit. Get over it you say, but I spent years putting all the narrative information together. How are people to evaluate it if they don't have the source?

I've had a genealogy website for about 13 years on the internet and I've meet tons of cousins. I put original documents on my site and that has worked well.

[Brian]

Thanks, Dick, for a very well written and thought provoking article.

Here are my thoughts:

(1) I try very hard to keep track of my sources and give credit where credit is due. Over the years, though, I have sometimes missed a citation, particularly in the early years when I was just learning. If I have used information from someone's tree without proper, I hope they will forgive me since I was never trying to take credit for their work.

(2) I frequently find people who have used portions of my tree and I have not, yet, seen any attribution to me or my father with whom I collaborate. I found it amusing when I asked someone on GenesReunited about their sources and they referred me to my own tree on RootsWeb. I try to not take offense when I am not given credit because I have not been perfect myself. (Besides, I don’t need credit for this, we are all in this together.)

(3) I have posted portions of my tree on a number of places: Ancestry, RootsWeb, GenesReunited, FamilySearch, and others. I am more careful with what I post to GenesReunited because, at least the last time I checked, they don't protect the privacy of living people so I trust them less in general, even though I removed all living people before posting. In my view, I am happy to share and hope my tree will both help others as well as bring them back to contact me and ask questions.

(4) I post what I know and some of what I think I know - sources, notes, and all. I have sections of my tree where I have many different sources and am sure of every piece of information. I have other sections where I am still working on it and hope others may help me with these areas.

(5) I am glad that some of the online trees are becoming more collaborative. That will hopefully help all of us get better information.

(6) Of all of the online trees out there, I have found the new family trees on Ancestry to be the most helpful and to bring me the most interaction with other researchers. The automatic record searching, linking to sources, and photo uploads are very helpful and the improved control over my tree is very welcome. I still have a list of features I want but it is getting better all the time.

My only dilemma on Ancestry is whether to make my tree public or keep it "personal". Right now, I have it set to "personal" because it seems to get me the most interaction with other researcher and, from time to time, I learn new information from these contacts. It also gives me a chance to tell people what parts of my tree I am sure of and what parts are works in progress. If I make it fully public, it may help more people but I am afraid fewer people will contact me so I will learn less in the process.

At any rate, I am thankful to those whose who have helped me and hope I can give back by sharing what I learn.

[Jeff Hodge]

I have only taken baby steps with sharing my data by printing a dozen copies of my narrative and sharing it with close cousins. This includes data for living persons which I would not put online. I (as you do) spend hours digging up a snippet of an ancestor's life, even if it's just a one-line "narrative" indicating his/her occupation.

We go through so much work sometimes trying to find this information. Because of this I feel an obligation, really, to collect this time of information from living relatives, rather than letting it slip away for future generations to hunt down. I've vacillated on whether to reach out to cousin's children and try to gather this (vitals, occupations, photos). Do I collect it (to the extent that anyone wants to contribute) and keep it to myself? I don't see that I could do that and then publish a family history (to our limited group) without including it ("where's my information that I contributed"). Is there some one of the group out there waiting to abuse the information? Maybe a silly question from a relative newcomer.

[FRANK&JEANSBOY]

I just get concerned that someone out there might use this information as part of an identity theft scheme.

[Trish Lewis]

I believe sharing the research, information, sources, etc. I have worked very hard to locate, collate, and write up over 30 years is critical. When I say share, I mean share freely, openly, and in as many ways as possible. I put as much as possible online and whatever anyone else wants to do with it is up to them. I think of online as an amazing collaboration. I highly value this, along with doing whatever is possible to corroborrate purported facts, including what sources are used. Could there be good reasons NOT to share? Anything is possible. On the whole, however, I side with with openly sharing...

[Lori English]

I don't mean to nitpick but there certainly can be a "Drayman".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dray
Merriam Webster's online dictionary states:
Main Entry: 1dray
Pronunciation: 'drA
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English draye, a wheelless vehicle; akin to Old English dræge dragnet, dragan to pull -- more at DRAW
: a vehicle used to haul goods; especially : a strong cart or wagon without sides

3 entries found for dray.
To select an entry, click on it.
dray[1,noun]dray[2,transitive verb]dray horse

I am trying very hard to source all my data acurately and will not publish until I can do so. I have contacted family members for myself and for friends that we never would have found if not for the people who have already published, incorrect or not. I may be wrong but I think there are some history books out there with sources that don't have the correct information or the whole story. They can be very subjective. Like all things in life, some people will coast on the works of others and some people will do their best for every job.

[David T. Robertson]

We may not own facts but we do own compulations of facts. I wonder why it is so hard to find a publisher willing to publish a genealogy. Yet, if the genealogy becomes public domaine they jump at republishing it. One might think that there is no profit in publishing a genealogy and the publishers wait until the work falls into public domaine because of the "small profit margin", but I think the answer is greed. They do not wish to share with another person, the writer. At this point in time I am in conflict with a genealogical Publishing company who placed my work on the web without my consent. Do I as an indivigual have to fight for my rights against a corporation? Not only did they place it on the web but they are charging for you and I to see it, through a membership fee. They are making millions of dolars and I make nothing. Does that seem fair to you?

[Gary]

I used to hold back from publishing online.....thinking one day I'd have the definitive genealogy with all facts supported with citations, scanned certificates, etc. I figured I'd publish once everything was done. Foolish at best, for nobody ever really finishes a genealogy.

Now I just publish everything online: on Ancestry ( I don't care if they charge ), FamilySearch (I don't care if they baptize my great-great grandparents after-the-fact), and GenCircles. Why? Because there are no guarantees in life. Any one of us could drop dead tomorrow. I've spent too much time and effort to have it all end up on a crashed hard-drive or on a password-protected backup drive nobody else will even care about when I'm gone. Don't flatter yourself that any of your heirs will share your passion about great-grandma Smith's actual birthdate. They just want to know how much money you left them.

My ancestors took the family history to the grave, I don't need to repeat that error.

[Ifor Jackson]

Note to Lori English:
THat was Peter Calver's point. Somebody mistyped 'drayman' as 'crayman' and the wrong spelling got copied to many other lists; an example of how errors can be transferred.

[Lori English]

Ha ha, what a dumb ___ I am. No wonder there are so many errors in people's family trees. I missed the obvious. Thanks for the tune up.
Lori

[Paul K. Graham]

Frank&Jeansboy,

The fear of identity theft from a genealogy posted online is completely unfounded. Identity theft is something to be concerned about, but it does not come from someone knowing your parents' names. It doesn't even come from someone having your birth date (which is easy to look up). It comes from someone having your bank card or check book, or some combination of other sensitive data that is easy to use at a point of purchase. Most identity theft is committed by someone who the victim is close to on a regular basis, like a relative or co-worker.

As someone who does research for hire, I know a lot about finding out about living people. If you want to know someone's mother's maiden name, the easiest way to find out is to look up their mother's or father's obituary, or the obituary of a close relative. If you want to know a birth date, you pay a data mining company a few dollars and you can look up most people's birth dates.

Somehow we need to find a way to educate people that censoring certain numbers is not going to solve the problem of identity theft. Censoring "personal information" actually makes identity theft easier to commit. What we *need* is for banking and credit institutions to submit to common sense changes in how they do business that could stop thieves dead in their tracks. However, banks would rather the customers deal with all the hassle because the banking/credit system we have today makes a ton of money by not allowing simple protections to be implemented. Banks know that not working to stop identity theft helps their bottom line.

[Leta-Rose]

I agree with Gary (May 4, 2007.) I have spent 40 years researching and collecting information on my ancestors and relatives. I share with everyone and I don't care if they write a book and don't give me credit. Why would I spend all this money and time and effort and keep it to myself? I might have 20 good years left on this planet and I want my ancestors known to others. None of my children or other relatives share my passion for genealogy and I don't want my data to end up in a dumpster so I share it with others who are interested.

[Bill Keough]

What would be great if one of you
Family historian's could email me a link
To your Well Written Published Family History

So I could see what a Well documented
Well Written Family History looks and reads like

Thanks Bill Keough

[Bill Keough]

Send the link here BillKeo@netzero.net

[Tim]

We have had our research published on a free Web page for several years. We get about 5000 hits per month and are credited on many other Web sites (and not credited on many more). Few, but some, of the people who use our data contact us. Most of those who want the source (since the program we use to make the pages does not include it) have conflicting information in their file. Most want to know if we have information not on the site that may connect their line to ours. Many just want to tell us how great the site is. :-)

The only time (so far) that others using from our site really bothered me is when I stumbled onto a Wikipedia entry that directly quoted from one of our pages that I wrote. Yet not only did they not give me credit but also used that quote as a meaningless remark after presenting unsupported information in direct contradiction to it. That is when I stopped using Wikipedia. For some reason I thought the information on there was actually researched.

We never submit to any of the companies. Not only do we not like the idea of them taking our work and making money from it, but we also have no control over the updating of it. With our site we can control everything, we have a search function, and we can communicate with others who are researching the same families. The real challenge is designing the site so the information is easy to follow. Also, we do not provide a GEDCOM except by request. Then they only get what they need, not the entire file.

As a side note: using someone's bank account or credit card is Identity Fraud. Using their name to get another card or account (or using their SSN to get one in your name) is Identity Theft. Fraud is far more common than Theft, and is usually committed by a relative. Identity Theft often requires a mother's maiden name, Fraud does not unless that is the "secret question" to get an online password. In the unlikely event that an interview is required (say, to buy a boat in someone else's name), being able to tell a charming tale about a very real and verifiable Uncle Bob will go a long way toward the success of the crime. If a location is available Uncle Bob can even be called to say what a great person you are, never knowing that you are not "you". This is rare, but it has happened. Usually, some slimy relative just wants to buy a new toy on your dime.

[K. Paul Graham]

Dick's comments are always good discussion points. He has cleared a few points in my mind about status of "facts". Imagine my surprise however when seeing a very similar name to mine (Paul K Graham) commenting on the subject, relating to his personal experience in the professional investigative field. This K Paul Graham, with over 70 years of research, shares anything with anyone who expresses an interest in the family history. And close family members get the living names as well, so that more cousins can keep in touch. Look for my email in WorldConnect at McCoid;

[Dave]

The dilemma of borrowed and unattributed (and questionable) compilation and re-publication of many years' research is a theme among serious researchers who are reluctant to share their work.

There is a formerly free GED utility that is still available (but for a fee). It is called called GEDMark. It adds whatever authorship and contact information you want to each individual in your ged file (or any GED file for which you wish to record an source author). It's got a few drawbacks: authorship information is linked to individuals - not facts, and no authorship info is included if a user downloads your GED without sources.

If I ever upload 20 years of research effort, I will include attribution & my contact information so that later, far-flung users have the knowledge of its compilation and the opportunity to talk to me or my descendants.

I don't worry so much about genealogy newbies who might upload my GED without my sources (and without my contact info); to serious researchers, the sources are the most valuable ingredient in the GED (anyone can list possibly-related names and build suspect trees).

The analogy to Gresham's Law (good money drives out bad) doesn't hold-up when the market (Internet) is open and the supply (data) is free; obvious "suspect family files" are discounted and discarded in favor of plentiful, competently assembled and well-sourced family files.

Who among you spends much time reviewing online family trees that lack sources anyymore?

[Dallan Quass]

Dick's message is the best explanation of copyright law applied to genealogy that I've seen. I think of online collaborative genealogy as a kind of frontier right now, and just like frontiers in the past, it requires great people to stand out and make themselves heard in order to establish a good culture. As we show how beneficial a collaborative culture can be, and as websites develop better support for two-way collaboration instead of one-way publishing, I hope over time it will become natural for people to link to trees instead of copying them, and to work with others instead of passing off someone else's work as their own.

[pcaverly]

Why to we get involved with our family genealogy in the first place? Are we doing it so we can publish our history and make a lot of money selling books? I don’t think so. I myself am not the least bit concerned about anyone using my collaborated genealogy. I have printed a number of books and my opening page note states; "This book is a non-profit publication not to be sold. This is for the freedom of Genealogy and the author’s belief in the free exchange of information for all those searching for their family history."

I do not really care if I receive credit for any details others may extract because I would hope it helps others. I have seen some of my previous works, with errors, published on CD by commercial genealogy businesses. At first I was concerned but since I also search and find information everywhere I can I decided this was not really an issue.

I really enjoy your newsletters Dick. Not all the information is useful to me but you do an excellent job of keeping us all up to date in the field of genealogy. I also enjoy reading overviews of about your world travels to conferences that I could never afford to attend. Keep up the good work. Paul Caverly, Ontario, Canada.

[Christine]

I find this an interesting blog. I have a number of things happen just in the past 2 weeks. One distant cousin decided to publish a tree giving out my name & birthdate, my mom (who is living), my dads info...and no identity theft itself may not happen with just that...however...I was just asked last month two questions to answer for security questions for a financial company a week prior...#1 my mother's maiden name & #2 the place of birth of my father. So the answers to both security questions were plastered to the net identifying themselves specifically to myself.

The this past week, I was contacted by an individual who wanted my all data and sources (the documents themselves I believe) so he could properly cite them to me on my one side of the family so he could write himself a book. First, it is years of research that I have done for my family and extended family...the data might not be owned by myself...but the research is and it results in 5 binders of documents, 251 page report with 1400 sources. Then to be insulted a bit more this person has apparent connection to my family whatsoever and has not been forthright in telling me if there is any as well. Basically, I could write my own book with my research (which is MY research...although the information might be public domain, I am on nobody's payroll)

Years ago I had a woman trying to invite herself to my house who was writing a book...again...no relation..."I'll pay for copies of your documents," she said. Documents which have cost me hundreds of dollars she wants for a several dollars to put her name on them? ( Another family line I have am emmense amount on.) That's an insult.

As a 7 years county host on the GenWeb have helped numerous people over the years but rarely hand it ALL over. Just another opinion based on bad experiences.

[Dan Kasper]

Can anyone tell me if "facts" that were taken from a Latter Day Saints Family History Center microfilm are owned by them or are they open for publication? I've done extensive research using their microfilms to get birth, death & marriage records from Slovakia. A friend of mine has done the same thing for her German research. She wanted to publish her genealogy, but was informed by the Latter Day Saints that "they" owned the information, not her! They were the only ones who were permitted to publish the info she copied from the microfilms. If she went to Germany, she could have easily copied this information from their public records (the same public records that the Latter Day Saints copied). Does anyone have any input on this?

[Jason Presley]

As Dick said, "However, the U.S. laws still insist that facts cannot be copyrighted. I interpret this to mean that facts are facts, regardless of the source of information. Whether I obtain a fact from a public record or from a private conversation or from an ancestor's Bible, it is still a fact, is not subject to copyright, and is not owned by me."

It is not the fact that is copyrighted, it is the arrangement and presentation of the fact. The Latter Day Saints own their microfilms and the arrangement of the data therein, but they do not own the facts they copied or transcribed from some public or private record.

So unless you friend is intending to publish exact copies of the LDS data or scans of their work, then she is free to publish her data as she wishes.