Ethics in Publishing Family Histories

Under U.S. copyright laws, facts cannot be copyrighted. Recent legal opinion has even decided that certain compilations of facts, such as telephone directories, are not subject to copyright.

But what about compiled genealogies? What can I include in a published genealogy without infringing on someone else’s rights? And what rights do I have to the compilations I produce?

Stephen J. Danko has written a fascinating article that looks at some of the issues of genealogy facts and what can or cannot be copyrighted. Stepen doesn't supply all the answers but he certainly has some interesting observations. You might like to read his article at http://stephendanko.com/blog/2007/07/31/ethics-in-publishing-family-histories/

Comments

[Cheryl]

I agree, a fascinating article, I have already read it and left a comment. Not sure there are always answers for everything, but great food for though. Logical reminders, along with a clear, analytical, explanation!

[Bev Anderson]

I put all of my bibliographic citations, notes about documents found, and in the case of transcribed information and links to microfilm documents (particularly in my Norwegian research) in the Notes sections so any reputable genealogist can see my sources. I always credit my sources, whether they're copyrighted or not (there are genealogy books on some of my lineages, but so long ago the copyrights have run out; I still credit them).

A few months ago I ran into a case where two of my contacts had shared info on living people with someone we've never met or worked with and another researcher found the data for living people online. I wrote to that person and demanded he take the info on living people offline. The only reason I have some info on some living people is because I've promised them I'd not put info on them online, so this other person (who seems to be some kind of shirt-tail relative; I still don't know who he is or how he's related) was clearly unethical in what he did.

He said he had credited my web site with info he'd used (my web sites only have info on dead ancestors, not living relatives), but that wasn't shown online on his web site. Worse, this fellow seems to do well at copying other people's research, but does no original research of his own. I love to share my info, although I don't share info on living people with many researchers, only a few I've worked with for many years, but when someone violates the privacy of living people, I draw the line (for myself and for others). I don't share info on living people with any new genealogy contacts anyway, but now my trust level has been shattered for sharing info with those I previously trusted for some 30 years.

To say I was miffed is an understatement. I keep a descendant database separate from the information I've published online that contains info on only deceased ancestors and their siblings specifically so I don't have to go through the hassles of the 'private' entries and the like to keep info on living relatives offline; it's always offline because it's in a separate database.

I can't claim copyright info on anything except my own words, but whatever I use (information, transcribed letters, photos, names, whatever), I credit my sources. If someone doesn't want to go through me for copies of documents or sources, they can get their own and check out the accuracy of my research.

Interesting article! It reminds genealogy researchers they must keep to the highest standards of research and documentation... and maintain high ethical standards to protect the privacy of living individuals.

[Judy C]

I learned this fact the hard way when, like others, posted something online. I responded to a picture of a tombstone in Elmore, Idaho thinking that there might be others looking for information on this person. Within 2 weeks, I found the information word for word posted several places on the Internet. I've been more cautious what I write for public view since.
Judy C.

[Jason Presley]

My approach to publishing online is simply to be sure MY information is as accurate and well sourced as possible, making sure to exclude information on the living. I feel that scouring the web, trying to notify and correct all those inaccurate trees (especially all those propagated by the FTM CDs and FamilySearch) is ultimately a hopeless endeavour, so I try to make sure an accurate version of my family information is available. Knowing my work is bound to be copied & pasted, at least I can be more comfortable knowing these name collectors are copying ACCURATE information.

[Dick Eastman]

I have to ask the question: If you supply some facts to another genealogist, what is wrong with that person publishing those facts all over the Internet? After all, you do not "own" the facts.

In the past, I have passed along information that I have and have always expected the recipient to do the same: pass it on to anyone else who might be interested. If anyone wants to publish the same data on the web, I have no problem with that.

- Dick Eastman
(part-time Devil's Advocate)

[Wayne Townsend]

I agree with Dick. If you have information that you do not want put on the internet then don't put it there for others to pass on! Not everyone is ethical and you can't control what someone else will do. If you don't want it published by someone else, don't give them the opportunity.
As far as putting "Living Persons'" information in your published works, in these times of Identity Theft, that's just crazy. If you have information that you want to pass on or receive, do it by telephone.

[Rose]

HERE'S A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE MATTER:

As one who has spent 1000's of hours compiling our family history for the past 5-6 years and as someone who is currently completing a Ph.D. dissertation, I can appreciate both sides of this issue. My own take--with which many others will disagree, I'm sure:

Genealogical information belongs to the family, not the individual. Secrets are toxic and keeping them can do far more damage (for generations to come) than telling the truth, whatever it is. I've uncovered many "secrets" in my own family. This has led to many unsolved mysteries which not only confound the work but, worse, may prevent future generations from ever learning the truth.

This implications are enormous: Generations who will never be able to uncover their own biological history. Feelings of betrayal which cut deep, undermine relationships, and may last for generations. Not to mention the complications for the genealogical researcher who may never be able to break through the proverbial "brick wall" or connect the proverbial "dots" to complete the family dossier.

I have made it my own practice, with a few exceptions, to share what I've learned with other member of the family. "Exceptions" include a decades-long discrepancy in a marriage date--kept secret for the obvious reason by elderly "cousins" to whom it still matters. Even their children don't know what I know. After the cousins' deaths, I'll include the truth in my documentation. I suspect their generation is the last for whom pregnancy before marriage will be such an issue.

In the meantime, to ensure that what I learn doesn't get "lost" to the future, I compile the hundreds of files I've collected and burn them to CDs, which I share at cost at our annual family reunion each year. I want as many people as possible to have the information that I have so laboriously uncovered. I always include source references for the information I collect and would expect, as a standard courtesy, to have others cite the original source in any publication of the information I've compiled.

My question: What would it take to ensure that all such information was placed in the public domain--including more recent census data? I realize the unintended consequence of any law to this effect (for instance) might be the greater reluctance of researchers to "publish" their work. On the other hand, it might make more information accessible, enabling families to solve some of the mysteries that have remained out of their reach up to now. I'd like to propose a "dialogue" on the subject, at least.

By the way, anyone who wants to use, publish, or share my thoughts on this issue has my permission to do so--with proper citation, of course!

[Carmen Johnson]

This is an interesting topic, especially when you have been working on genealogy for a number of years in the computer age. I've been on both sides of the issue. I'd written something personal in notes on my great-grandparents that have been republished many times in other people's websites with no credit to me at all. Yet, I also realize that it is very easy to accuse someone and be completely innocent. A few years ago, I used census records to piece together one of the peripheal families in my line. I had documented my sources as census records on things like birthdates and locations - yet I was accused by another researcher of stealing her information. I'm sure that she pieced together the family the same way I did...but she felt that I had stolen her info. I hadn't even traded information on this particular family nor looked at the multitude of genealogy sites. I was bothered but reminded that dates can be gathered from almost any location and I don't have ownership of those dates. This is just something that we need to be careful about. I am more careful who I share my info with now. However, if someone wants to type the info up from a book that I have given to a family member, then there really isn't anything I can do about it.

[Bob Greene]

I have compiled my family genealogy for not only me and my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but also for other members of my family. Consequently I see no problem in including living relatives. How else would my children, for example, know their cousins, etc.? I also include all dates that I have, even those marriages that show Speedy Gonzales made his nine-month trip in two months. However, I include the date only in the documentation, which I include in end notes. You can find it, but you have to really be looking for it. As far as other bumps in the family line — suicide, murder, cattle rustling, etc. — I have included them in my database (and all of its copies) so that future family genealogists can access it. These things are upfront in the computer program, but marked so they don’t print anywhere. Other than that, I, too, do the best I can.

[Rod N]

If the information compiled in telephone books (that, like genealogy, required “discovering relationships, finding facts in unusual locations, and carefully assembling the information”) cannot be copyrighted, it’s not likely the facts in compiled genealogies have legal standing to be copyrighted.

[Jennie Vertrees]

I write a local history column for a local paper and have been writing it for well over ten years and have always asked permission before I copy from anyone else's work and always give the source and the author as a preface to every article I write. One of the most interesting things I used was a day by day diary of a man, married to my great-grandfather's first cousin, and it was filled with a plethora of events along the way to the gold fields in California. He expressed himself so well, but the spelling was strictly phonetic and I left it that way as that added to the beauty of what he wrote. I was dumfounded to find it in book form and being sold by a genealogical society in another state. I had gone straight to the owner of the material now and didn't even know it had been printed by this group. The owner of the original material had given me permission to use it in my column.

The thing, which bugs me the most is to find my exact words written by someone else, who gives the impression it is that person's work.

EVERY family has some things they'd like to keep under cover and so it was in my family. I started my genealogical research back in 1956. I ran onto this one man, who carried the family surname, but I simply couldn't find his parents. I asked my Dad several times as he'd always admired this particular relative. I asked him repeatedly who this man's parents were, then I uncovered the big, dark secret in the most unlikely place. I was a few states removed from my home state and doing genealogical research in original records, when I ran onto my family names in an old ledger of a store owner in the 1840s era in that state and county. I then did a search on the store owner and found he had been married to a young woman, whose family had migrated to Missouri along with my family. She had died and they were without any children. I began to put things together in my mind and realized this young woman's family had come west with my family, but my family never made much effort to visit this one elderly couple or even talk a whole lot with them and I had surmised from my childhood that there must be some secret involved. I decided my relative was the illegitimate child of afamily member and that her parents had reared him and it was so interesting that he was named for this storeowner. I could hardly wait to get back home and ask my Dad again and then tell what I had uncovered. He lowered his head and said, "Well I never wanted to tell you, but Uncle ------ didn't have a Daddy." I chided him about it, but told him I was certainly glad I now knew the big dark secret. When a descendant of this man came to me and told me he couldn't find this relative's parents, he asked me if I knew who they were and how he fit into the family. By that time, my Dad was dead and I shared with him what I had found and my Dad's reaction to it and we both had a good laugh about the big dark secret.

[Lolene G. Newman]

I had a very bad experience with a cousin of my husband's with whom I shared family info in person, photocopying what I had. She then shared it with another cousin who printed it as his own work. Nothing new, you say? Normally not, but the picture he printed was not readily available to just any person. I had gotten permission from a librarian to copy it from a book on the family assuring her that it was for my personal files. That was my intent. Had the second cousin not published it, and kept it in his files as I have, I could say nothing. The thing is the picture belonged to the woman who wrote the original book, not me. There was NO citation as to where he obtained the picture, and I felt betrayed because he published it. Since that time, I'm very cautious about what I share with others.

[Bev Anderson]

Posted by: Dick Eastman | August 01, 2007 at 10:32 AM

:-) Reference your above post, Dick:

I don't mind if someone copies the info I've put online (I have some very old lineages, correct info is available, aside from documents). I quite cheerfully share info with other researchers who are interested and as obsessed with our family history as I am. I hope for credit on the few things where I've obtained new documents that no one with whom I've been sharing research for some 30-odd years has found, and since my sources are credited, they can obtain the same documents if they want. I get permission from others when I use their info, pix, whatever on my web sites, but per requests, I do not add where they are from, email addresses for them, etc. Just their names (and I ask how they want to be listed).

It was the information on the LIVING relatives that I demanded be taken off of this other fellow's web site. I'd promised my family that I wouldn't be putting their information online (I haven't), and it was quite a shock to discover this other fellow had, without asking permission, even, put info online that he had no business putting online - the two other researchers who had provided him with info on living relatives were unaware of what he had done with the info they'd shared with him. In this day and age of identity theft, it's unethical to put data about living people online without express permission.

As others have pointed out, there's enough information "out there" now on the web that is incorrect, and that's just on dead ancestors and relatives. There are now also a lot of web sites with trustworthy data. One just has to find them. It's easy enough to get documents to refute the incorrect data, even if it is expensive. I have attempted to make my data as accurate as possible, so human error notwithstanding (and I do correct my errors and typos when I find them or find new documents that refute other documents, or write notes indicating discrepancies). If my data is correct, and somoeone copies my data correctly, then at least correct data is "out there."

It's publishing data about LIVING people that I provided to other genealogists, who then provided it to a third party who then - without any permission from anyone, including the people who provided him the info - put the data online. Although a couple of times removed, it meant my promise to relatives not to put their data online was broken. In a sense, it was a 'chain of trust issue,' as well as an ethical issue.

It makes me feel better about myself to be an ethical and responsible genealogist to keep information about living relatives offline.

[Judy Florian]

After doing genealogy since 1983, the current (2007) complications arising within this hobby just amaze me: copying work without attribution, fears of identity theft, unethical behavior among researchers (including members of the same very extended family). It seems to point to one flaw in humans: "me first, and about all other people--who CARES!" My grandma, who passed on the love of genealogy to me, cared about each family member she knew, knew about but never met, and the ones she and I discovered. She would never dream of hurting them. "Cite your source!" was her constant mantra to me from 1983 to 2000 the year she died.

I have compiled 2 histories. One was distributed to grandma's grandchildren and descendants in the other main branches. I'm still "sitting" on the second volume. Why? Well, mostly so I don't cause chaos among the small number of family members who do worry about identity theft.

So my question is: Can a researcher give a wrapped copy of a genealogy book to a library with instructions written on the wrapper that it should be held in the back room for say 30 years, and then allowed into the genealogy section? When I worked at a library, they had non-public areas where books had not yet been released into the public area. The back area also housed books needing repair or new acquistitions. A 30-year waiting instruction is the only thing I can think of that would help protect "the living" (since most in that group in my family record will be dead in 30 years). The babies will at least be in middle-adulthood so maybe by then the government will have figured out how to punish identity theft. Any comments on the the idea of asking for a 30-year wait before having libraries make public a new genealogy book/compilations of family?

Judy

[Imo Greenwood]

I have been researching both my parents surnames for almost 40 years. It has not been easy, but pleasurable. I've met many relatives I did not know and many states and court houses, I never would have seen. I'm so very happy. All relatives were very interested that I was doing this research and helped in any way they could.

I have published both family history books , each about 840 pages , with family names, birth dates, places, marriage dates and other info, with copies of documentations, sources of info and each with 400 pages of photos old and new.

No one to my knowledge has objected, almost all relatives have a copy.

Items, articles , not my own, I ask, got permission from the person who had written it and thanked them, gave them credit in the books.

IDENITY THEFT: I have found on the internet many places that has most every ones personal info, such as your drivers license with all the info , birth records, court records and much more. In my opinion, a 30 year wait might be good, but how, since the personal info is out there already, if, anyone wants to look and find it.

Dick Eastman posted:

I have to ask the question: If you supply some facts to another genealogist, what is wrong with that person publishing those facts all over the Internet? After all, you do not "own" the facts.

In the past, I have passed along information that I have and have always expected the recipient to do the same: pass it on to anyone else who might be interested. If anyone wants to publish the same data on the web, I have no problem with that.

- Dick Eastman
(part-time Devil's Advocate)

Posted by: Dick Eastman | August 01, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Dick, If I give info that I've not posted all over the internet to some one, I would expect them to get my permission before doing so. This happened to me once. If, I had wanted it all over the internet, I would have put it there myself. I contacted the person, they took the info off the internet. This may sound foolish, but that is how I feel.

[Sharon Hobart]

I've posted my family tree info on the web and am willing to share what I've gathered. Well, that was until, I saw that someone had copied my entire family tree with all the comments and included it in their tree. I didn't even know who the person was. The reason I know they did that is that the comments (notes) were all the ones I had put in and one of those comments was my mother's personal reflection about her Aunt and they had imbedded those comments too.

Now, if I upload my tree, I only upload the basic facts of birth, death, marriage, burial and children, but not census information, land, pensions, probates, etc. If someone contacts me to get more information, then I feel more comfortable giving out information that I've spent hours seeking as we share information between us. I too have spent years and $$ gathering this information in taking trips to states and paying for copies.

I try to do the same to others who post information that I was missing. I make it a practice to contact the person who posted the information just so they know I may use some of their information in my research and that it was helpful.

[Carolyn H Pappas]

Identity theft really cannot be controlled 100%. "Mother's maiden name" is the worst. We all learn from experience. I have only written & published genealogies that deal with people in 17th, 18th, 19th & 20th Centuries. If I ever get to me and my family's generation, I do not know what I will do with the living. Perhaps someone has some ideas.

[Ralph Taylor]

My, so many issues! Plagiarism, attribution, sourcing, confidentiality, identity theft.

One doesn't own facts, but one does own one's comments on the facts; stealing words is wrong. Likewise, failing to attribute to or credit the source is bad practice -- from the standpoints of both ethics and research quality.

Publishing information to which a family is sensitive is problematic. On the one hand, truth will set us free. On the other, we need to show respect for those who are affected and are possibly the sources. Publishing information on living persons is a violation of their privacy and may subject them to adverse consequences.

But, what to do about the violators? They are, for the most part, simply thoughtless, not consciously evil. One can only refuse to deal with them again.

[Michelle Proulx]

Perhaps the 30-year wait is the way to go? As a "permanent amateur" in this field for almost 30 years, I'm hoping to finish my first book in the next few months. I hate the "exclude the living" option. If my grandfather had done that in all his handwritten notes, I wouldn't have had the very helpful and important start to my research that he left me.

I would love to see a standard developed in this area, such as including the first living generation in each branch with first names only, and possibly birth years? Do most people actually leave all their living relatives entirely out of published books these days? How sad.

[Rose]

Besides the 1000's of hours I've spent compiling our family history, like all of you, I'm sure, I've spent 1000s of dollars doing it. Trips, books, copies, paid research, etc. I recently joked that, although no one in the family has ever paid me to conduct this research, I've uncovered so many "family secrets" that someone may be willing to pay me to stop!

I understand the issues involved and the hurt feelings when someone uses our work without attribution. However, I'm far more concerned that the information be available to future generations. I also understand the problems related to identify theft but chafe at the notion of "hiding" data on living persons since that data may disappear for future researchers if someone doesn't collect it and make it available somewhere along the way.

Again, I believe we need a dialogue on this topic. I agree with the person who suggested that ethical--and REASONABLE--standards be adopted to guide all of us. My bottom line: Though some believe genealogical information belongs to the individual, I believe it belongs even more so to future generations.

[Betsy]

This brings up so many conundrums. Here's another: an ancestor of mine came West in the 1840s. He kept a diary of his first journey. My own great grandfather transcribed the diary (it is so attributed on the cover of this work), and several mimeographed copies exist.

An individual has posted this diary on the town's genealogical website, with dire warnings that this is copyrighted material and no one has permission to use it in any form.

I consider this warning to be pure bluster. That person doesn't own the work anymore than I do, but I think I have a legitimate right to incorporate the information (not "pure facts" clearly) into my own work.

What's the call by the ethics authorities on this one?

[Joan McIlmoyl Cleghorn]

Phew! Clearly there are some people who have NO ethics in family history publishing. This is an important topic and definitely needs dialogue and, hopefully, the development of clear, reasonable standards.

My own experience has been requests from a few members of the family not to put family data that is decades or even centuries old on the Internet so I have respected their requests. To continue to do that, any family researchers who request info from me, I only provide printed (not electronic) watermarked material stating it is not to be published on the Internet and also ask for a written promise not to do so before sending them the info. This is only if it includes that particular info. Otherwise, I indicate that I do not publish on the Internet and would appreciate them refraining from doing so as well.

Regarding living persons - this is part of the reason I do not publish to the Net - I want to be able to include all my family in the database and, yes my program allows a comprehensive selection of living, sensitive and excluded data, however I'd rather be able to use the KISS principle, particularly for those who have the data after me.

If I include data from other family researchers, I always verify it myself first and, once published, those persons will be credited as having contributed towards the entire project in addition to a complete citation of all sources.

The copyright laws in Canada differ from those in the US, however there are changes in the works for ours so it's hard to say where that will leave family histories or 'compilations of facts'. Personally, I go with the concept of the facts themselves not being 'owned' but when compiled into a 'personalized' format then that format becomes 'owned' by the compiler. IOW, if I publish my family history and indicate, from a census that my 2g-gf and his family lived in South Saanich, owned x acres and had x income, then anyone can quote and/or use that information. However, if I add to that 'fact' that the income was derived from both his farm which contributed x percent and his tavern which contributed x percent, which is not public info rather from family docs and I go on to tell how his various family members contributed to each of these enterprises, that is my contribution and thus is 'owned' by me.

If someone else uses that census info from my book, rather than from the census itself, then they should cite my book as the source but needn't get my permission to use that fact.

Just a few more thoughts to add to the mix.

8-)
Joan

[Sara Binkley Tarpley]

I am not sure that all compiled genealogies would be protected by copyright. I think it would depend on the format. If you produced one that is substantially just a collection of your data and transcriptions, the kind of "book" produced by genealogy software, it probably would not be. If, however, your work is one that you have actually written, using original language, your words would be copyrighted. In any case, the facts would never be.

It is only good research practice and good manners to show the sources for your work, even if the sources are other people's Gedcoms. I find work that I can recognize as mine all over Rootsweb, often without attribution. That is bad practice and bad manners, but it is not copyright infringement. Many of the compilations done by genealogical societies and many of the documents published on the Web that carry copyright notices are not actually copyrightable. These include things such as transcriptions of records or cemetery listings.

Although I ignore facts that I can tell came from my work and for which I have been given no credit, I am zealous about protecting some biographical essays I have on my Web site. They truly are my own creative work and belong to me. Sometimes I have to really argue with those who have republished them, and it is true that I would probably have little recourse legally if the republisher refused to remove them. However, technically they are clearly my intellectual property.

An excellent guide to copyright is at http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/

[Phyllis Friesner]

I was given this site by a third cousin of mine. I really enjoyed reading everything you wrote about the subject of giving credit on what you rewrite, what other people told you. I also had been talking to two of my third cousins about this very subject, protecting the living. I met these cousins on line from the ancestry.com site. We all are members. They found me and the rest is history. We all share the same realatives from the whole family. Three brothers were the start of our families. It has been thrilling to read about them and to discover things that happened so many years ago...The one thing I found out was the great uncle I had known as a child, was the child that was born to my great grandmother in secret and she gave him to her parents to raise. She continued to live at home with her parents and was about 18 years old. She finally married my gr grandfather a few years later and they setteled nearby. My grandmother was born to them and she played with her half brother and knew all her life who he was....everyone but all the grandchildren...He appeared in the census with his mother and grandparents as the son of the grandparents. That was the implication because his genetic mother was still listed as the daughter of them and he was the son.
I now, as an adult, cannot understand why anyone but the people of that time knew about my great uncles place in the family. I knew him the whole time growing up and never questioned who he was. When my grandfather died he offered my grandmother a home and even then as a young adult I did not know. Later in life I heard some things that gave me food for thought. I asked my grandmother about it after my uncle died, "What Happened" She told me that it was true he was a half brother and my mother knew all the time and probably all the adults knew ....uncles and aunts....people of that time in the 1800's. With census in hand I wrote on my grandmother site and my gr grandmother and my Uncles site....I am proud to say that my family never left him out of the loop because he played with my grandmother while they were growing up living near each other and knew all his grandparents very well on both sides of the family. My grandmother never told the whole story like who his father was and now it does not matter. All of them have died. My best source died and she was 95 years old. She knew her grandchildren and gr and grgr grandchildren... Her great grandchild mowed her yard. Her gr gr grandchild visited her as a baby and young boy before she died. One day she sat down with me with the family bible and I got the start of my research for my family beyond my own siblings and to the past of my ancestry that came here from Germany and migrated to Pa. They help establish that wonderful state and fought in the revoluationary war. They were given bounty land. These are facts I found out thanks to these two cousins. My search went way beyond anything my grandmother knew. Still she gave me a start in our family I could not have possible reached without her and the family bible. I still find facts out that are family secrets and those that hurt noone I put in my comments and writings. I recently had a talk with my cousins about putting our tree out there on the net at ancestry.com. I have found SS numbers of my deceased husband and other family members that has died, on the ancestry.com site. I contend that even those numbers published by the ancestry.com site can cause identity theft of a deceased person. My cousin's and myself agreeded not to put my tree on the net to the public and not allow anyone to see the tree unless it is someone we trust in the family. My whole family is allowing me to do all this work and include them but if it ever goes public the people that are alive will not have birthdates which can be found anyway. There will be a lot I will not include. Someone else will have to put all the children on later. Like 30 years from now. I am about done with the tree that can be done without it taking the life blood out of me with my obsession I have working on the tree. I started many years ago but only a year ago did I seriously start to work on the tree. I took all my cousins grandchildren off and told them i would take all their children off if I went public with the tree. One of my cousins is a member of the DAR and proved our ancester's connection to all of us. We are so proud to be a part of this big family that fought in the war. My cousins and I are very concerned about all the area's that come from putting the tree public. So for now our decision is to keep it only with people that has died and not tell others anything with out checking with each other. This tree belongs to everyone really and what someone does with it can only be controlled by some degree. As for us we will be responsible what we write and get permission to write what we are told maybe in confidence and some not...You can only do so much to protect the family. Everyone knew about my uncle but they chose not to tell us as children, who would not have understood anyhow. Lots of "stuff" in all our trees...more than I could ever write about....What is the KISS principal? The only idea I have about protecting the mother's maiden name is to not use it but you cannot do the true research and keep it out. The only way you could really protect a tree is never to share it, never to write about it...never to find other family members because of the tree and then never have a tree because you were so afraid like "Little Miss Much Afraid" to do anything because of fear. I am having way too much fun for that. My cousins can see the tree and they agree to keep the children out. Keep dates out of all the last generation and pray to God nothing happens because of what you write or disclose in the tree....Sincerely..........
Phyllis Friesner

featherphilly53wolf@yahoo.com