Message boards on genealogy sites and blogs lit up this past week as Ancestry.com announced the new Internet Biographical Collection. The pros and cons have been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here. If you have not yet read about this controversy, perform a Google search on the words "Internet Biographical Collection."
Many of this week's discussions debated claims and counterclaims about copyrights, legalities and such. I read a lot of these messages but never found any written by anyone who claimed to have a law degree or other appropriate credentials. It seems a lot of people, including me, were writing about legalities without having the academic qualifications to back up their claims. To be blunt, I don't know if anyone was correct. I also noticed that nobody cited legal precedent, at least not with a case title and source citation.
Shame on all of us! We genealogists should know better than to make claims without source citations.
I have now found one case where a court ruled on the exact issue of the legality of caching other web sites' content and on the copyright laws involved. This landmark case should be required reading for all of us who posted messages either for or against the recent ill-fated Ancestry.com product.
Recent Comments