Rules of Posting Genealogy Information Online

The past few weeks have been fascinating. We saw Ancestry.com deliver a search engine that focused primarily on genealogy resources. The service was designed to simplify the process of finding family history information that many people would not be able to find easily because it is often scattered among numerous websites across the Internet. However, the service quickly became controversial as genealogists discovered various features that some felt were inappropriate, including caching of web sites and the use of HTML frames that hid the origin of a page obtained from another web site. Ancestry pulled the service after only a few days.

I watched the various comments fly back and forth with somewhat mixed emotions. I agreed entirely with some of the messages posted and disagreed with others. More than a few surprised me. In numerous cases, I thought to myself, "That's the way everyone does it. Not to say that it is right or wrong, only that it is common practice."

While Ancestry.com caught the heat recently, everything I will write about in the rest of this article applies to all search engines, all message boards, all online genealogy databases and to all publicly-visible web pages. It applies to the now-defunct Ancestry.com Internet Biographical Collection as well as to Rootsweb, OneGreatFamily.com, FamilySearch, Google, Yahoo, Dogpile, Alexa, HotBot, AOL Search, Lycos, and the genealogy-specific search engine at WeRelate.org. These are ideas I would like to share concerning what to do and what not to do when you place information on the World Wide Web.

While I call these "rules," they are really suggestions. These "rules" are just a start. I suspect you can think of additional "rules." If you can add more, please post your suggestion(s) in the comments section below.

OK, here are "Eastman's Rules of Posting Genealogy Information Online," a new set of rules invented today:

1. If you don't want everyone to know about something and use that something as they wish, don't post it online! There are no secrets after you post information online. You can claim copyrights or legal protection, but the fact remains that information placed on the web quickly becomes common knowledge. You may be correct in thinking that nobody else should ever reuse your information, but not everyone will agree with you. Regardless of your intentions, some people will re-use your data elsewhere. Getting the data removed later will be difficult and frustrating. Think before you post!
2. Keep in mind that all search engines will index your site (unless you take steps to do otherwise as listed in Note #1 below), and most of them will cache the information. One web site (www.archive.org which is not a true search engine) will cache your data more or less forever, even if you later change or remove your data.
3. A few specialty search sites will charge their subscribers a fee to search your site and millions of others. General-purpose search engines, such as Google, are usually free to the user. Specialty search engines that look only for financial data, legal data, real estate transactions, sports scores, etc. typically charge a fee. The more specialized the search engine, the higher the fee. Some charge very high prices. You and I don't hear much about the fee-based search engines, but they exist, nonetheless.
4. Facts are not copyrighted, at least not under U.S. law. If your web page contains only names and dates and locations of life events (birth, marriage, death, census entries, military service, etc.), you do not own that information. It is public domain.

If your page(s) contains additional descriptive information, interpretations, stories, or other information that you wrote, the original information you added might be copyrighted. However, the dividing line between copyrighted information and public domain information is often fuzzy. Even legal experts who specialize in intellectual property issues often disagree with each other. You should realize that not everyone is going to agree with your interpretation of the legal issues involved.

Actually, all of this is probably a moot point anyway. Whether legal or not, it is very difficult to force someone to remove copies of information you supplied.

Never assume. You may have strong opinions concerning what is right or wrong, but not everyone will agree with you. Ask yourself, "What will happen if I place this information online?" Be realistic!

The above are a few of my thoughts. Again, if you have further suggestions for additional "rules," please post your thoughts in the comments section at the end of this article.

Note #1:

If you do want to place genealogy information (or any information) on the World Wide Web and do not want your information to be found by search engines, there is a simple way to do so: create a ROBOTS.TXT file and place it on your web site. Thousands of web sites do this already when they don't want certain information to become too public. There are many web sites that will explain ROBOTS.TXT and tell you how to add such a file to your site. Start here: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=create+robots.txt+file&btnG=Google+Search. Once you add a ROBOTS.TXT file to your web pages, your information will disappear from all search engines within a few months. However, don't be surprised if nobody visits your site anymore. It will be rather well hidden.

If you are willing to have some search engines index and cache your site but do not want all search engines to do so, you can be selective. Again, the solution is a ROBOTS.TXT file. You can exclude specific search engines by name. The format of the commands is a bit tricky, so study the instructions carefully. Start here: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=create+robots.txt+file&btnG=Google+Search.

Note #2:

You should realize that search engines are not perfect. Even the specialty search engines designed for a specific purpose will erroneously add some extraneous data. The search engine's filters may interpret words differently than a human would. For example, a financial services search engine might add your genealogy data to its search engine if your ancestor was named James Penney or Ezekiel Dollarhide. Likewise, a genealogy-specific search engine may add a page that describes the "roots of New Orleans jazz," and a real estate search engine may add information about "the history of the House family."

Comments

[Confused]

You could have posted your rules without devaluing yourself by posting pro-Ancestry advertorials.
How many people have pointed out to you now it wasn't a search engine but a collection!?

[Marian Hayes]

> "If you don't want everyone to know about something and use that something as they wish, don't post it online!"

Duh. Dick, the whole discussion was about us sharing our information freely with our own visitors, and then Ancestry.com coming along to steal our content and resell it as if it were their own collection. Did you miss that point altogether?
And just what is your point here? Is the Dick Eastman rule of copyright that you have no copyright if you post on a website? Or that letting everyone copy your website works fine for Dick Eastman and therefore should be good enough for everyone?

[Legal Eagle]

"acts are not copyrighted, at least not under U.S. law. If your web page contains only names and dates and locations of life events (birth, marriage, death, census entries, military service, etc.), you do not own that information. It is public domain."

But Ancestry.com is all facts....
So under U.S. Law nothing on Ancestry.com is copyrighted?
We all need just one subscription and can repost all of it anywhere we like for those who don't wanna pay their outrageous fees?

[Bob]

You said: "f your page(s) contains additional descriptive information, interpretations, stories, or other information that you wrote, the original information you added might be copyrighted." Might? In what cases would original stories, descriptive information and such not be copyrightable by you as the creator and the author of the original work?

And as far as sharing information online and posting such, there's a big difference in creating websites and posting such online and enjoying visitors coming to YOUR site and interacting with YOU, rather than some big company caching your work and placing it on their site in frames and calling it THEIR "collection."

To me, your comments on the issue are quite perplexing.

[Bob Felk]

> To me, your comments on the issue are quite perplexing.

In one of the other threads, Dick proudly claims to be friends with Ancestry.com management.
I think that's your answer. That's why all his posts on this matter have a heavy pro-Ancestry slant.

[Dick Eastman]

And yet in other comments about past articles, I have been accused of having an anti-Ancestry.com bias. The mix of comments tells me that the articles are about balanced. (smile) Indeed, I like some of the things Ancestry.com has done and dislike some of the other things the company has done.

- Dick Eastman

[Dick Eastman]

---> In what cases would original stories, descriptive information and such not be copyrightable by you as the creator and the author of the original work?

According to intellectual property experts I have talked with, there is much disagreement about this even amongst the experts. Many of them will claim that "minor additions" will not hold up in court as falling under copyright protection. The phrase "minor additions" does not seem to be defined very well anyplace I have looked.

I know I would not want to be involved in litigation on either side of this issue!

- Dick Eastman

[Dennis]

I am no expert on meta tags but here is a simple meta tag that will stop caching that you can add to your webpages http://www.i18nguy.com/markup/metatags.html . If you don't tell the spiders not to do something they are going to do it.

I think if you do some research you can find a script that will limit certain companies from using your info.

How can we expect google, ancestry or any search engine to know what we want them to with our site without telling them?

[Virginia Cisewski]

Dick,

Not all cached pages were in questionable territory. There were in excess of 2000 pages cached from the USGenNet server. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit web hosting server and have published a Conditions of Use Policy for more than 7 years which is applicable to all pages located on our server. Here's a pertinent excerpt of that policy:

"You may not use USGenNet’s services or resources, including any websites, mailing lists, message boards or other Communication Networks, to publish, post, transmit, distribute or disseminate the proprietary information of any others, including trademarks or copyrighted information, without express authorization of the rights holder. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for personal, noncommercial use."

[Dick Eastman]

---> So under U.S. Law nothing on Ancestry.com is copyrighted?

No, no, no, no. I never wrote that or inferred that. Do not focus on one statement and then try to apply it to an entire site.

Again, "Facts are not copyrighted, at least not under U.S. law." Every first-year law student knows that. However, Ancestry.com and other sites have facts and a lot, lot more.

For further reading, start reading the laws involving COMPILATION copyrights. Compilation copyrights is something you rarely see discussed on genealogy message boards but are critical when discussing large compilations of information.

Next, you must read the licenses of each online site in question. Ancestry.com's statements are available at http://www.ancestry.com/legal/Terms.aspx

Just because you might have a right under copyrights doesn't mean that you can ignore licenses. Your rights always are dependent on both the laws and the applicable licenses. Never focus on one specific statement while ignoring all the other factors involved.

That will be the end of my comments on the legal issues as in the article I only repeated things that are "common knowledge" and have been proven in court time and time again. For more detailed "what if" scenarios, please contact a legal professional who specializes in intellectual property issues. He or she can answer your questions far better than I can.

- Dick Eastman

[Bob]

There is a big difference between original stories and "minor additions" to facts though. An original narrative, story, article, poem, work of art, song lyrics or whatever is just that -- original and I would suspect is fully copyrightable and such is being copyrighted each and every day. Did this nifty search distinguish between such original works from just mere facts before the same was cached, placed in frames and added to their "collection?"

And I will go back to my original feelings. I simply don't understand why they felt the necessity to scour the Internet caching works freely available to anyone via a good free seach engine like Google and make such a "collection?" One would expect, and most especially their customers, they would devote their energies to suppling material to their customer base not readily available free online like digital images of source documents and the like.

[Dick Eastman]

One final, final comment: Please re-read what I wrote in the article:

"...the dividing line between copyrighted information and public domain information is often fuzzy. Even legal experts who specialize in intellectual property issues often disagree with each other. You should realize that not everyone is going to agree with your interpretation of the legal issues involved."

[Deason Hunt]

Dick,
I appreciate you putting into words what all of us should know or at least suspect about anything we post on the internet. Some people will respect our rights, and some people won't. Your rules or reminders (or warnings)might be helpful for anyone who doesn't think about such things before posting. I hope that you won't react as negatively as some of those who have commented when people use your rules or parts of them or their versions of them on their blogs or when making presentations on this topic to individuals and organizations.It is a positive when we can share good ideas, and, after all, sharing information with others is the beauty and utility of the internet. I won't get into the Ancestry thing because with politics, religion, Microsoft, and, yes, Ancestry there seems to be no middle ground and no reasoned discussion in which we respect the views of others with whom we do not agree. It's just become shouting, posturing, name calling, and repeating the same tiresome stuff.

[Patsy]

Good comments, Dick.

For further information, EVERYONE should read the ALL of the NGS "Genealogical Standards and Guidelines," (links at the bottom of middle column) at:

http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/

It includes specific guidelines about sharing information with others and also about posting online.

My comments don't apply to copyright issues, but rather to SOURCING. Anyone can copy my genealogy research, but they should at least footnote it, right? I don't appreciate all of the people who have my original narrative stories (including my typos) uploaded to Ancestry.com and WFT without any source attribution. They are copying material written 20+ years ago, back when we shared hard copies of information. No one asked my permission to upload it in his GEDCOMs or WFT, without. It's just plain unethical, but, charitably, these people probably don't know any better.

All of need to encourage each other to constantly educate ourselves!

[NoName]

As usual, the point to the massive objections to the IBC were overlooked.
It isn't the fact that data was posted and is not copywriteable, or in the public domain, or anything else.
No one objects to a search engine. This Collection was not a search engine result, other than in searching the index or their use of a search engine to find the locations. It was a result of years of grabbing from the net, framing within ancestry and displaying content as if it were their own content.

Obviously, the powers that be within TGN re-thought, consulted and otherwise mulled over their presentation. Had they thought it ethical, legal and otherwise just fine and dandy to do this, in this fashion, ( probably with some legal advice too) they would have left it up.
I don't believe for one minute that it won't re-appear in some other fashion designed to soften the impact.
As far as copyright goes, yes, certain facts that are in the public domain are not copywriteable, but a display of data from family bibles is not public domain,this data is not available anywhere other than than th eoriginal source and does not become public domain upon display, for just one example.
Displaying entire cached pages as your own was and is a violation.

[Kristine]

So are you saying it's okay for us to put the data Ancestry is putting online on our sites since copyright laws are fuzzy?

[Legal Eagle]

Dick Eastman pretended to quote:

---> So under U.S. Law nothing on Ancestry.com is copyrighted?

Disingenious, Dick, to quote only one part and ignore the rest.
The full quote:

> But Ancestry.com is all facts....
> So under U.S. Law nothing on Ancestry.com is copyrighted?
> We all need just one subscription and can repost all of it anywhere we like for those who don't wanna pay their outrageous fees?

Dick scrambles to eat his own words:
> No, no, no, no. I never wrote that or inferred that. Do not focus on one statement and then try to apply it to an entire site.

> For further reading, start reading the laws involving COMPILATION copyrights.
Oh, so you mean Ancestry.com has compilation rights, but I do not? It is ok for Ancestry.com to copy me, but not ok for me to copy them? Huh?
Why do you keep saying we must lay down and take whatever Ancestry.com does, but can't do the same to do them?
Why the two different measuring sticks?

> Next, you must read the licenses of each online site in question
Uh... Dick, I don't know what you have been smoking, but whatever Ancestry.com's license tell you, they do not own the copyright on my grandfather's birth certificate.... their license matters nothing.
No copyright is no copyright. Every first-year law student knows that.
Funny that you would try to contradict that...
It actually IS okay to repost almost every record on Ancestry.com wherever you like, whatever they and you say.

[Dick Eastman]

---> It actually IS okay to repost almost every record on Ancestry.com wherever you like, whatever they and you say.

As I wrote earlier, "...the dividing line between copyrighted information and public domain information is often fuzzy. Even legal experts who specialize in intellectual property issues often disagree with each other. You should realize that not everyone is going to agree with your interpretation of the legal issues involved."

[SRM]

Sadly Sir, Some of the info they posted never was on a website where it could be viewed or used, such as my personal PRIVATE unpublished phone number (no one has this number) or parents names, not to mention my niece's name and birthdate.
And some of the info they posted was stuff that had been corrected after they stole it. No this is more than indexing this is stealing and not checking the facts or requesting permission to use it or even referring to the original site where corrections can be made.
And I'm sorry but a genealogy search engine doesn't need to go to the illegal sites which most of us wouldn't let our children visit. When I was searching the TGN engine I got waylaid many times.

[Jeff Scism]

The main issues in this whole mess are focused on the simple process of asking before you take. Ancestry being the Big Hungry Dog, shoves their way around, grabbing everything and treating individuals as if they were insignificant unpaid volunteer transcriptionists.

There is no "for hire" relationship between the creators of the accumulated (COMPILED) data and The Genealogy Network.

The closest you can come is the fact that some of the pilferred data was on ancestry's owned servers, in the accounts of people Ancestry's parent corp, donated server space to. That doesn't automatically become a quid pro pro of 'donating' the content to Ancestry, no matter what their AUP states.

Ancestry isn't even 'compiling" they are serving the data and content "as is" except removing the source and identifying information, including the copyright notices.

Copyrights were designed to protect intellectual creative works, and believe me a majority of compiled data takes a lot of creativity to present. That is why it is 'intellectual' property.

It is like a property owner renting out an apartment, and coming by in the middle of the night, and stealing the contents, because they own the building.

In most cases however there wasn't even that much implied contact, The thefts were drive-by, purse snatches, and hit and run.

[M. Daniels]

"If you are willing to have some search engines index and cache your site but do not want all search engines to do so, you can be selective. "

Dick the problem is not coding to stop caching since nobody knew Ancestry had a bot spidering their sites they could not know to add their bot to their sites.

Ancestry said "we did this in case the site was ever removed".

Ancestry has nothing but facts and if we used your line of thought even the Harry Potter books could be used. Intellectual property is protected, original works are protected even if they do conatain some facts.

I think the National Genealogy Society "Standards" should be used by all and if Ancestry wants to do business in the genealogy world they need to be a good genealogy citizen. I read recently where Ancestry demanded a copy of a census report be removed since they hold the copyright to the image. Do you suppose the person could have said he was caching the image in the event Ancestry goes belly up or removes the records. I don't think Ancestry would buy that reasoning.

There are so many records needed that has never been published and Ancestry has the man power to get them online and they don't need to stoop to harvesting.

MAD

[TransDutch]

Since there are some people who don't understand, I think I may be able to clarify. Ancestry is by no means all facts. Any facts you find on Ancestry are public domain. John Smith born April 1, 1852 in Whatsamata Texas. Married Sarah Rubble Jan 29, 1900 ... these are facts. (made up facts, but facts nonetheless) The scanned image of a census document? Not a fact. Ancestry's presentation of facts in their record format? Not a fact. Layout and design are all copyrightable.

So, yes, use the facts you find at Ancestry at will. (I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am correct here.) Just don't use screen pictures or documents you downloaded from the site. That's where the fuzziness begins. (From what I've read, some websites have been told by Ancestry lawyers to remove census images relating to famous people. They might not go after you if you post documents relating to your own family, but they probably can. Scanning is likely treated the same as photography. Sure, someone else can take a very similar photo/scan...so you are welcome to find the original and photograph/scan it...but others' photographs/scans are still copyrighted.)

Whether or not you can quote a document depends upon several factors. I would refrain from quoting verbatim any non-governmental post-1900 document.

[Steve Danko]

Craig Manson has begun to post a legal analysis of the issues surrounding Ancestry's Internet Biographical Collection on his blog at www.geneablogie.blogspot.com. His first installment was posted on 08 Sep 2007.

Having read Craig's blog for some time, and knowing something about Craig's legal expertise, I expect Craig will provide an objective, well-researched analysis to complement the opinions already expressed on this issue.

[Bob]

Thanks Steve for the link to Craig Manson's legal analysis. Very interesting reading indeed and am looking forward to reading more by him on the subject.

[Richard Cleaveland]

I'm an amateur genealogist, and if someone copies my data that's ok with me (although it would be nice if they gave me credit for the personal add-ons.) If I made a mistake, and they copy that too, sorry - that's now their problem no longer mine. I would hope that anyone that discovered my mistake would let me know (and it has happened). That, of course, would only happen if the source (my site) was cited in the copy.

If, however, I was a professional, and the information I had is/was being sold to a customer, I'd have to be nuts to post it on-line unless the customer said to do it.

Dick

[Dennis]

People might find this interesting on the point of caching
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case489.cfm
Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc.

If you don't want companies to cache your website add a no-cache meta tag to you website.

I see a lot of people talking about ancestry copyrighting public domain information. As far as I know they don't, they use a BS law called "terms of use".

[Lindsay]

Transdutch wrote: "Scanning is likely treated the same as photography."

In fact it is, but a photograph of a two-dimensional object such as a painting or a document is not copyrightable either. The copyright stays with the original, and if the original is in the public domain then the photograph or scan of it is also in the public domain. It is not hard to understand the legal rationale for this: copyright applies to creative works and there is no creative aspect to the mechanical scanning of two dimensional documents. The legal argument that Ancestry makes has nothing to do with copyright, as a user you agree to their terms of use which provides access to the scanned material on the condition that you not redistribute it. If you receive a cease and desist from Ancestry it will be on the basis of their terms of use, not copyright. Note: I am not a lawyer, blah blah blah...

[Suzia]

" ... a photograph of a two-dimensional object such as a painting or a document is not copyrightable either."

Thanks, Lindsay. Wikipedia uses a similar phrase on many of its entries, including some from foreign sources. I've been wondering if the assumption has been challenged.

Now, if everyone would only install a "Terms of Use" tag on their own websites, should they then (like Ancestry) be protected from unauthorized redistribution, regardless of whether or not the actual content is copyrightable?

[Legal Eagle]

Lindsay wrote:
> In fact it is, but a photograph of a two-dimensional object such as a painting or a document is not copyrightable either. The copyright stays with the original, and if the original is in the public domain then the photograph or scan of it is also in the public domain.

Exactly. Therefore, scans of copyright-free documents, such as most scans on Ancestry.com, may be redistributed anywhere, anytime, regardless of any terms of use. No copyright is no copyright, whatever Ancestry.com and Dick Eastman claim to the contrary.

[Doris Wheeler]

Bottom line: If you don't want something borrowed, stolen, used,... (insert your own word), do not post it on the internet. And what would that do to the amazing advances made possible in our genealogical research in the past ten years?! I am sure there is no one doing research today who has not benefited from something they learned on the internet. As my mother taught me when I was a child, share, share, share. If you want to limit your sharing, use CDs, paper, etc., not the internet which has been the greatest contributor to human knowledge in history.

[Doris Coghill]

I have a web site for my business and have been planning on adding some hidden pages to that that site with the family history - and probably have it password protected, giving the URL and password to the family in the Christmas letter - and not having a link to the pages appear anywhere on the business part of the web site.

If I add the Robots.txt to just those family pages will it keep them from being indexed but not effect the business part of the web site?

Or do you have another suggestion?
THanks in advance for any advise

[Lindsay]

Doris,
If you password protect the pages then the search engines cannot index them.
You can use robots.txt to tell search engines that you don't want them to index a list of directories or pages. Note my wording, a search engine can ignore robots.txt if it wants to.
If there are no links from public pages (on your site or anybody else's) search engines won't find the pages.
A side effect of robots.txt is that you publish to the world that you have pages you don't want search engines to search, they are thus ignored by honorable search engines but no longer "hidden".
Password protected directories are the best solution, although somewhat inconvenient.

[Lindsay]

Legal Eagle,

What is your basis for saying the terms of service can be completely ignored? I don't know how binding terms of service are if they are just posted on a site with the statement that if you continue to use the site you have agreed to the terms of service, but I would have thought that customers that sign up with Ancestry have entered a legal contract with them (although I am not a customer of theirs and don't know the details of the sign up process or terms of service). At a minimum it seems likely that Ancestry could and would disallow further access. I haven't researched this area at all and am curious.

[Julia]

Dick,

Thank you for creating some common sense rules and related notes. You tried to provide a service, but were immediately attacked by some of your readers. I find their response frustrating and sad. That's all I'm going to say. I thought of many other comments, but do not want to add fuel to the fire.

Julia

[Dave S.]

I'm totally baffled by Dick's attitude on this subject. Especially in the light of the article that he wrote in June of 2006. Here is the link:

http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2006/06/ive_been_ripped.html

[Grannie B]

What is the matter with you people? Dick Eastman made up a few suggested rules to follow when posting something - really anything, on the internet, whether to Ancestry.com or your own web site. His suggestions are not new.
Ancestry posts similar "rules". They also add "if you do not agree with these conditions, do not continue use..." (my words-they may not be their direct words). READ ALL OF THEIR TERMS OF USE!!! How many of you even START to read any of it? NOT MANY. Have you read their Disclaimer? I doubt it. Dick Eastman may not have the precise facts 100% of the time, but he does not deserve the knocks he has been given. Right or wrong, if you disagree so strongly with what he writes, why are you reading his articles?

[Gary]

Using Robots.txt files work just fine if you know the name of the robot collecting the data. Since Ancestry.com has hidden the name of their robot, or used no name, a Robots.txt file does absolutely no good.

[Gary]

Meta tags are ignored by most of the search engines. If Ancestry hides the name of their robot gathering information, why would they bother reading and obeying Meta tags.

[Wayne Townsend]

Wow, my mind boggles at all the political/irrational/unhelpfull yak that I have just spent quite a few minutes reading! Nobody can figure out if something should be copyrighted or not...what should be free...what should be cached or not ....my gosh, what a bunch of hooey! Dick, I enjoy your newsletter but if all it is going to be is a bitch session, I am not going to waste my time reading it. As for all this other stuff, I agree with you Dick. If you don't want it copied, don't put it on line! Simple! Let's get genealogy back on track and start working with each other instead of sounding like a bunch of overpaid, underworked politicians! The internet is what it is and it's not going to change (except maybe for the worse) as far as information use goes. Deal with it and get on with your reasearch. You're not getting any younger sitting around arguing.

[Dick Eastman]

Wayne, I agree. I was surprised that this article of suggestions for your posting of your information online in the future soon became a sounding board for re-raking Ancestry.com over the coals time and again. I only mentioned that company in passing in the first few sentences, then focused the rest of the article on what you should do in the future on any web site.

I think you and I are in perfect agreement. You wrote, "If you don't want it copied, don't put it on line!" In my article, I wrote, "If you don't want everyone to know about something and use that something as they wish, don't post it online!"

While the comments here have gone off topic to rehash recent history over and over, I haven't seen any comments that suggest that either your statement or mine is wrong.

- Dick Eastman

[Dick Eastman]

---> "If Ancestry hides the name of their robot gathering information, why would they bother ..."

Ancestry has never hidden that robot name. In fact, they publicized it well. That info is easily found within seconds by searching on Google.

The robot's name is (or was) "MyFamilyBot" and that information has been posted on a number of web sites, including here, for several months. Ancestry provided details on their web site at http://www.ancestry.com/learn/bot.aspx

- Dick Eastman

[Ton Daino]

> I'm totally baffled by Dick's attitude on this subject. Especially in the light of the article that he wrote in June of 2006. Here is the link:
> http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2006/06/ive_been_ripped.html

OMG!
Interesting find there! He is totally contradicting himself.

I've tried to make sense of it. Seems it is okay if his buddies at Ancestry.com rip you off by stealing your stuff "without permission or credit", and make the ridiculous rule that you should not be posting to the web if you do not want to be copied, but if anyone copies his stuff the same way, it is violation of copyright, and he "has been ripped off".

Dick, any explanation why your contradictory stance for these two cases makes sense?

[Linda Gutierrez]

When I put up my website and gedcom it was to SHARE the information with anyone who was interested. That is what genealogy is all about - sharing information and making new connections. I have carefully credited any contributors. I have presented much of my information in biographical sketches to make it interesting and informative. Much of this information contains facts which I would expect that any good researcher would extract for their own use. I have put up all of the correct disclaimers and policies on my website and copyrighted the material. Am I completely protected from anyone grabbing my narratives and posting them as their own? NO. Will I pull my website or the biographies from the internet because of this possibility? NO.

Why? The answer is simple. I am happy to share what I have found.

What if I wrote a book and published it, distributed it to libraries and family members? Is it possible that somewhere down the road that someone might copy what I included in my book about one person or another? Entirely possible.

When we publish we really have little control over how our information is used. The only way we can control it is not to publish it! But that to me is selfish to the extreme. Because genealogy is about sharing and connecting. Some of you may then decide that you will only distribute your information to family members. Even then, at some point, your information will be passed to someone who may make use of it in a way that you did not intend.

So, either make your decision to publish or not, but if you decide to, know that your control is limited.

Copyright is vague and open to interpretation. I have read books and articles on copyright issues to make sure I did not make any errors and infringe on any copyrights. I know that I have followed the rules and I can only hope that anyone visiting my website will also follow them. Anyone who publishes should educate themselves about copyright laws BEFORE they make the move to publish.

Now in the larger scheme of things, this discussion and Dick's article came about because of the recent short lived Biographical Collection that was added to the Ancestry database. I can certainly understand the reasons why so many of you were upset even though I actually missed out on seeing the presentation on their website - some days I search there endlessly and other days I have no time...

So, based on what I have read in numerous posts in recent weeks, it seems to me it was more the WAY Ancestry went about creating this collection, as they called it, and the presentation of it.

I think that the idea of it was probably good, but the execution of it was not. It would increase traffic to our websites - which is what most webmasters hope for - and help us to make more connections with members of our family lines.

Perhaps at some point a better idea will come about and perhaps those who are interested can help by giving Ancestry some constructive feedback on this issue.

[Bev Anderson]

But Ancestry.com is all facts....
So under U.S. Law nothing on Ancestry.com is copyrighted?
We all need just one subscription and can repost all of it anywhere we like for those who don't wanna pay their outrageous fees?
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 09, 2007 at 12:05 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Legal Eagle has the best point.

For the nearly 45 years I've been doing genealogy research I've understood any documents that are in the public domain are NOT copyrighted. Ancestry has put documents all in one place, but they extract their pound of flesh by charging outrageous fees to even view those public documents on their web site. They may provide a valuable "service" for hosting the web site with those documents, or at least indices, and if they just stopped at that point, those who are willing to pay their fees might be satisfied. I strenuously object to having a private corporation in charge of, and profiting from, "our" public documents that have already been paid for by our tax dollars because I want all corporations of any kind out of government on every level.

Ancestry is capitalizing on a function that our local, state, and federal government "should" provide as a good use of our tax dollars - at least free indices of every document from the earliest recorded up to 1930 would be nice to see online - not corporations out to profit from what our tax dollars have already paid for! It's the fact that Ancestry is trying to create a corporate monopoly using our public documents to which I so strenuously object. I don't mind paying a modest fee to government offices where documents are stored for copies if those fees go toward salaries for office personnel and upkeep of the offices and storage facilities, and I would hope that at some point the records could be digitized so things like column headers are legible where they aren't now in most microfilm documents, but I don't like the intrusion of corporations into what should only be governmental functions.

However....

For Ancestry to abscond with genealogical compilations published on various web sites, information acquired over many years by devoted family historians, and then try to pander someone else's research off as Ancestry's, is at the very least highly unethical, if not illegal. It would be ever so much easier for Ancestry to just publish links to various genealogy web sites with the caveat that if someone else uses another genealogist's work they must contact the person who published the web site. (Even if one does use someone else's references on a web site as a starting point to a new avenue of research, all good genealogists will still get their own documents. The thrill really is in the chase.)

Ancestry's crossing the line to copying, storing, or caching the work of genealogists who freely publish their genealogies on web sites for the benefit of family members - and then, adding insult to injury, trying to profit from freely-shared genealogy information - is just plainly unethical, if not illegal. If Ancestry has taken down freely published genealogies because people have objected, that's good... but that doesn't mean they've deleted the information from offline databases, so the information they've already taken will likely show up somewhere at some time and they will try to make a profit off of what was published freely to benefit other genealogy researchers and family members.

I don't know about anyone else, but my genealogy research is an ongoing process; I do it weekly, if not daily, so anything I've published online is already outdated by added information in my offline databases. As soon as I update a web site, it's sure to be added to in my offline databases by the following week. Caching any of my work is useless because it's shortly outdated. Still, if at some point in the future I decide to do a trial membership with Ancestry, I don't want to find my work on their web site. I most certainly would NOT donate any of my work to Ancestry for free, since they're a for-profit organization.

The only other way around Ancestry's pilfering is to compile the genealogies for as long as one is alive and then make a provision in one's will that all genealogy books and papers and documents and information in genealogy programs has to be donated to a genealogical or historical society, as well as making copies of the genealogy available by CD to various family members who might be interested (they can always print out .html pages if they want hard copies)... and never publish information online. That would take away the joy of sharing information (which is the fun part for me), but it would keep corporations like Ancestry from pilfering one's hard work, claiming it as theirs, and making a profit from information one would rather freely share with family members.

[Dick Eastman]

---> Dick, any explanation why your contradictory stance for these two cases makes sense?

Good question!

I think you need to go back and re-read http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2006/06/ive_been_ripped.html once again. Please note that I didn't question republishing but I did strongly object to a web site that republishes articles without stating where those articles came from, similar to what Ancestry.com did for 2 or 3 days. That site was republishing lots of articles from a variety of web sites and making it look like their own (again in a very similar manner to what Ancestry.com did for 2 or 3 days).

Read my copyright statement for the details. You will note that I encourage others to republish my articles with very few strings attached. I already give permission to copy articles from this newsletter and republish them on other web sites, in print, or most anyplace else one can think of. In fact, even commercial sites like the one mentioned in the article you cited can republish my articles if they note one more "attached string." Please note that my copyright statement simply states, "Permission to use the words in this document for commercial purposes usually is granted. However, commercial use requires advance authorization." (Ancestry.com clearly did NOT ask in advance.)

Lots of other web sites also republish my articles (you can find them in a Google search). All the ones I know of at this time do properly attribute the source.

Ancestry.com did not properly attribute the source of any of their cached pages when the service launched. In my opinion, that was a very DUMB thing to do. I am amazed that it got past Ancestry.com's legal department. (I suspect that Legal was never consulted although that's just a guess on my part. I cannot imagine that any lawyer would approve that one.)

Once launched and the negative feedback started pouring in, the company's managers stepped in and changed all that within a very few days. The site then gave proper attribution.

That strikes me as the proper thing to do: if you launch a new service and start receiving negative feedback, you quickly evaluate the situation and take immediate corrective steps. Ancestry.com's management did exactly that. Their service started off with a major dumb feature and then was quickly corrected.

Had those procedures not changed, I would have stood in the line of complainers and strongly voiced my opposition as well. As it turns out, about the time I discovered the problem was also the time that Ancestry.com fixed that problem. Therefore, it became a moot point. I cannot get too excited about a problem that existed for 2 or 3 days, then was corrected.

Yes, they did cache and republish my copyrighted pages and, yes, they did so without attribution for a few days. Clearly, that was DUMB. Had I discovered that a day or two earlier, I probably would have called them on the phone and complained loudly. As it turns out, the company corrected the problem within a very few days after product launch.

It raises my eyebrows a bit but I cannot get too excited when their management stepped in quickly to correct that problem. I have other things to worry about, things that have existed a lot longer than a few days.

Good question! Thanks for asking.

- Dick Eastman

[Joyce Reece]

Virginia C. (above) was the person who originally discovered the IBC forwarded to ALHN and AHGP, I forwarded the info on to USGW. I followed the entire issue as posted on all three networks multiple mailing lists and blogs. Thru it all someone has finally said what I've been saying for years. "If you don't want it used, re-used and abused you should never post it in the first place". The bottom line of this is that few to none of we volunteers will ever be able to force copyright issues to be clearly defined in the legal system. They aren't clear now and the probably never will be....in our lifetime. TGN had a great idea....they probably learned their lesson that they should have requested registration from web site owners as opposed to spidering and would have avoided all the hoorah. Give web site owners the opition of registering or not registering their sites. There are some who are adamantly opposed to anything to do with TGN and that is their right. I happen to use their service several times a day and like it very well. All the hashing and rehashing will achieve little to nothing....just about as much as it did when all this began.....that www thing really does mean 'world wide web'. Copyright= 'Not copyrightable'= i.e.a direct copy from microfilm of a census page. "Copyrightable" = a transcription done by me of the same page. Makes about as much sense as a bullfrog in the Mohave

[Sylvia Maier]

Since so many of you seem to have too much time on your hands, would you like to help me in my genealogy search? I could use as much information as you could send me. That way you all could get back to the "joy" of searching for family!

Peace!

[Nora Nell Thompson]

I have been a subscriber to Ancestry for well over a decade. I have benefited greatly in my research from records I found on their site.

I know that not everyone can afford their services. However, I discovered that if you call them and ask for a good deal, they will give it to you. I got my 2007 subscription for $100 off, simply by phoning them and asking. I didn't have to go through a bunch of people either. I just asked for the same price break they were advertising for "NEW" subscribers. I had let my old subscription run out by a couple of days prior to doing this however.

Let's do a little bargaining instead of just complaining, and on another note, ANYONE can volunteer to help index the films in the LDS vaults by going to www.familysearchindexing.org and signing up. There is a tutorial to help, and that should be completed first.

All those images are being scanned and indexed to be available free of charge, or for a very nominal fee, over the internet. Instead of us just whining, lets all get busy and help ourselves and others out.

In the meantime, I will continue to post my trees to the Internet in hopes that others in my family will find me and find my information useful.

Thanks Dick for all your efforts to keep us informed and abreast of what is going on in the genealogy world.

[jking]

Actually I think the hashing and rehashing at this point may be very important and probably not for the reason most people do.

This whole debate has pointed out how little many know or care about copyright issues. That's well and good if the information they gather is destined to do no more than sit on their own computer.

However many of those gathering information now will turn later to publishing the information gathered into books for the relatives, perhaps books or websites for regional use and if we are very ambitious, marketing that information elsewhere.

We may also turn it over to the local genealogy group who may use it as their own fund-raising publication.

Now, if we in our innocence, violate copyright while gathering that information, we have put at risk any group to whom we give that information for their use later. It may have been done purely innocently, but the risk is there.

And the risk is also that by not working to protect any copyright you should have, someone else will assume it thus again risking the fruits of your labor and your ability to transfer it in the future.

If nothing else, this entire fiasco should point out the need to learn basic copyright standards and why many feel the need to adamantly protect any copyright they might hold. Usually, proving you have worked or have not worked to protect a copyright is part of any legal challenge.

Yes, the hash and rehash may not be pleasant but it is not unneeded.

[Betty]

Wow! What a great discussion! I am really learning a lot. I appreciate the variety of responses and Dicks' ability to take the disagreements with grace. I am happy we have watch dogs out there and folk who are legal experts who are willing to apply their knowledge to the area of genealogy and copyright.

I do not see anything in this discussion that even vaguely resembles "Hooey".

I am new to the issue of copyright on the net as are many thousands of others. Our questions are not stupid. We bring actual experience with the copyright issues to the table. Our protests are relevant and needed. I hope we can continue to honor the phrase "respectfully disagree".

[paul]

Why is Ancestry vilified for charging for content AND services they've invested $$$ millions in? Do you think they got all these images and indexes for free? What do you think they do with their profit? Isn't it obvious, they get more genealogical records and put them online so we can sit in our jammies after hours and search through them, faster and CHEAPER than we would be able to at the source archives.

This is America people, capitalism, free markets, commerce, free will to buy or not to buy. Good grief, do we really want ancestry to die? How expensive would it be to get access to the records exclusively on Ancestry.com if Ancestry didn't exist. Come on, it is the profit motive that made Ancestry.com what it is today, and continues to propel it forward.

In the past few weeks, I've been reading a lot of negative, anti-Ancestry rage. What do you naysayers do for a living? Provide free products and services? Is that how you feed your families? What about giving ancestry some credit for greatly accelerating genealogy research, and for getting archives to allow their records to be digitized.

Yeah, they've made some mistakes, and have done a few things that have disappointed many, but BECAUSE they are a business that relies on paying customers to survive, they have incentive to respond, which they did, and were doing, even making the collection free within a few days of launch.

I'm personally disappointed that they removed the IBC. With a few more tweaks, it might have been great. It was probably the first version of what might have been a revolutionary search tool for genealogy. Perhaps if the feedback wasn't so insanely irrational, they would have continued to improve it - instead, the baby's been thrown out with the bathwater.

Shame on ancestry.com? Shame on the nitwits that torpedoed this FREE service.

[S. A. Josovic]

"FAIR USE" Explained in "Carmack's Guide to Copyright & Contracts"

When you find information in a book, article, or online source and you want to quote or paraphrase it in your genealogy, when must you cite the source? If you quote the information and cite the source, can you use as much of the information as you want? The answers to these questions fall under the copyright principle of "fair use."

According to "The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook," by Lloyd J. Jassin and Steven C. Schechter, "Fair use is a privilege. It permits authors, scholars, researchers, and educators to borrow small portions of a copyrighted work for socially productive purposes without asking permission or paying a fee."

Sharon DeBartolo Carmack addresses these and other concerns of fair use in her book, CARMACK'S GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT & CONTRACTS: A Primer for Genealogists, Writers & Researchers. According to Carmack, U.S. copyright law weighs four factors in determining fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use. Is it for commercial or non-commercial purposes?
2. The nature of the work. You can quote less from a song than from a novel.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used. You shouldn't reveal that "the butler did it" if you are quoting a new mystery book.
4. The effect of the use on the potential market, that is, its economic value.

While the guidelines of fair use are applied uniformly, as Ms. Carmack demonstrates, "the devil is in the details." For example, while it is generally sufficient to cite the source you use, in some cases you must actually request the permission of the copyright holder. Similarly, even though a work may be in the public domain (e.g. the papers of George Washington), if the originals are owned by an institution or an individual, you may need to obtain permission and/or to pay a royalty fee before you can refer to the work in your family history.

Fortunately, you can learn a lot more about the nuances of fair use and other important aspects of copyright law--especially as they impinge on the genealogist--in CARMACK'S GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT & CONTRACTS.

In scarcely 100 pages, CARMACK'S GUIDE informs its readers about all aspects of copyright law. Each chapter lays out a specific principle of copyright or contracts and then addresses the topic with situations specifically applicable to genealogists. Subjects covered in this fashion include: (1) Copyright Basics, (2) Fair Use, the Public Domain, and Seeking Permissions, (3) Illustrations, Images, Photographs, and Maps, (4) Works for Hire, (5) Collaboration Agreements, (6) Journals/Magazine Contracts, (7) Book Contracts, (8) Electronic Contracts, and (9) Self-Publication Contracts. The author also provides an extremely useful glossary of terms found in contracts and matters of copyright. Rounding out the volume are an up-to-date bibliography, a resource directory of websites, links, and online articles, and an index to the book's contents.

Vetted by copyright attorney Karen Kreider Gaunt, CARMACK'S GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT & CONTRACTS is the first comprehensive guide of its kind written expressly for genealogists. Available today at www.genealogical.com, it is the only book on copyright you are likely ever to need. Order your copy today!
http://www.genealogical.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&item_number=883&NLC-GenPointers1

[theKiwi]

> Shame on ancestry.com? Shame on the nitwits that torpedoed this FREE service.

A business model that relies on gathering up the work of other people (whether it's copyrighted or copyrightable or not) and then reselling that work without any obvious attribution of the origin of that work does indeed need a torpedo or two fired at it.

And it wasn't FREE until the "nitwits" had the second or third torpedo running in the water.

Then Ancestry scuttled it.

[Lindsay]

"if the originals are owned by an institution or an individual, you may need to obtain permission and/or to pay a royalty fee before you can refer to the work in your family history."

Can you provide any additional information that supports this? The reading I have done indicates that this statement is entirely false. If the copyright has expired and the work is in the public domain no permissions or royalties are required, much as some museums, archives, companies, and individuals would like you to believe otherwise. The owners of the original may require you to enter a contractual agreement that limits your rights to publish as a condition of access, but in lieu of such a contract you are under no legal obligation to ask permission or pay royalties to publish a work that is in the public domain. That is not to say that courtesy or a desire to support a worthwhile institution should not lead you to ask permission and or pay some supporting fees, or that you should expect future access to the work or other work in their collections if you don't ask permission or pay fees, just that the suggestion that ownership of the original copy of a work in the public domain gives one rights other than the right to restrict access to that copy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lindsay]

I think that there is a very dangerous sentiment being expressed in these discussions, namely that if you exercise your right to publish your own copyrighted information on the internet that you have no right to complain if someone steals it. This is analogous to saying that if you don't want someone to steal your car you should keep it locked in your garage and not take it out in public. One can argue that the internet is the equivalent of a bad/lawless neighborhood and that posting information on your web site is like parking your car in a bad neighborhood, and that if you do so you have no right to complain if it gets stolen. I would argue that you do have the right to complain if your car is stolen, even if it was parked in a bad neighborhood, and that tolerance of lawlessness is how neighborhoods become bad, and that we don't want to allow the internet to become the equivalent of a bad neighborhood. Moreover, even if one accepts that there are people out there who steal cars I think it is hard to justify claiming that a large corporation is within its rights to steal your car, even if if they steal it while it is parked in a bad neighborhood.

At the same time I would argue that if you find out that a corporation is stealing cars the appropriate response is not to go loot the corporation's property.

[Bea]

Please, could somebody direct me where to find info on COMPILATION copyright? I am also presently concerned with family members who are doing a revision of an out-of-print surname book, to update it - but are doing it all on CD for mass distribution (which naturally means that it would sooner or later, most likely get put to the Internet with the known zealots on board who grab and post every piece they can onto public sites.)And isn't there some rule of decency that would apply to say, those names-dates-locatins that are less than 100 years old? Something to link to for this, to illustrate clearly? Sure, it was different 'back when' we had the limited editions of hardback books to distribute to libraries and interested family members......but NOW with the COMPILATION of these families, too, all put into fast-mode of software, and the possibilities of all our private info (just because several of us who have our parents died in the past 3-5 years - does now that leave them open for public info and details to be linked to my name, and their parents?)onto the forums and links, ancestry, etc. as we are seeing more frequently. So the 'book'-to-CD idea being implemented is scary for some of us oldsters who are not so high-tech (often until we find out too late), and what are the guidelines? I know this was long, but nevertheless sincere, and don't even know if this was appropriate or where else to inquire for reputable info, suggestions. Thank you so much.

[Lindsay]

Bea,

I am not a lawyer but I would suggest that copyright is not terribly relevant to your situation. The only relevancy I can see is that if the out of print book is still covered by copyright you could contact the copyright owner and alert them to a possible pending infringement. Some people confuse "out of print" with "in the public domain". A copyright still exists even if the work is no longer in print. In any case, it is quite likely that the group can get around any copyright issue by only including the raw data, which cannot be copyrighted. Using modern software it is quite likely that they will format/"express" it quite differently.

I would suggest that your best route would be to call up the family members in question and discuss your concerns and if they cannot allay your concerns possibly request that they not include any information about you that you would prefer to not have published. Attempting to take a legal tack might be counter-productive, you might have more success with simply expressing your concerns and wishes. Good luck!

[Linda]

A HUGE difference between what Ancestry.com did and what other Search Engines do!

ANNA FECHTER of the The Generations Network STATED that they cached the files in order to preserve history. She said that if a file was removed later (by the OWNER), Ancestry.com would still have a copy of it. - I said that this robbed the owner of the right to determine the fate of his/her file.

To me, that was the whole point! I don't need Ancestry.com to take possession of my files in any way! And if I take a file down, I want it to be GONE!

Google, on the other hand, only keeps the cached files temporarily. Unlike Ancestry.com, they don't hold on to the files so they can sell - or continue to sell them - after the owner takes them off or dies.

I removed some files over the weekend and went to the Google link and asked for the cached files to be removed. THEY WERE GONE in less than 24 hours.

Ancestry.com has two objectives:

(1) They want to offer all of our files on their site because when people visit Ancestry.com they THINK the vast amount of information is provided by Ancestry.com - and Ancestry.com gets credit. (Believe me, people don't read the fine print) They have been doing this for years with their LEECH sits that offer nothing but links to other people's work - but with Ancestry.com buttons all over the page. The point being that our files are offered as BAIT to LURE people to subscribe to Ancestry.com.

(2) Ancestry.com wants to be able to keep the files forever, even if they contain errors and are out of date. They want every scrap of information, even if it is wrong... such as the current file on their site that says I am dead. ["Only the compiler of the file can make a change!"]

I canceled my Ancestry.com subscription and will never regret it!

[Amanuensis]

Linda, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you post information about my ancestors on a website, I want that information to be available forever. I want each iteration of that information to be available forever, so that I can see the development of your information about my ancestor over time. Can you guarantee that? No, at some point you will die, and even if you set up a trust to take over keeping the website live, or make explicit instructions to your heirs to do so, can you say that ABSOLUTELY that your wishes will be carried out? You have overpersonalized your argument -- every post I have seen from you has been about ME ME ME.

Anyway, how do you know that Ancestry would not have removed your file from its cache had you asked? You are saying that Google did something for you because you asked that Ancestry did not, and that therefore Google is okay and Ancestry is not, but you did not give Ancestry a chance? No, you immediately flew off the handle and started threatening lawsuits.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Amanuensis,

I think that's asking a lot of people to keep all the information they have about your ancestors on-line, especially the incorrect info. As we have all seen, there are a bunch of just plain old chowderheads out there who can't tell the difference between correct and incorrect data even when it is spelled out to them and mindlessly graft incorrect family tree branches into their family histories that trace them back to King Arthur or some other mythical king.

I would suggest that if you want Linda's, or anyone else's, information to be available forever to have it engraved on gold plates and placed on the surface of the moon so we can read it with the Hubble Space Telescope. Otherwise, it just isn't going to happen.

The long and the short of it is people do research for many different reasons. There are many different levels of quality and surety as well as cost involved in compiling the data. Just because someone has discovered a fact about one of your, or my, ancestors in no way obligates them to publish or share that fact.

If someone puts up a website and then for some reason takes it down I think that it is entirely reasonable to think that that website is not being maintained in other repositories for easy access without their knowledge or against their wishes.

As for copyright. Sure, facts in the public domain are not copyrightable, but the arrangement and presentation of the facts are copyrightable. And that's were Ancestry ran into trouble. They didn't transcribe the non-copyrightable facts into some sort of database for access, they just copied the copyrighted arrangements and formats and served them up as one of their products.

As for Ancestry, I've got a World Deluxe membership and I'm happy with the value I'm receiving from it. I don't agree with everything that Ancestry does, but then if I took the time to investigate I'm sure that I'd find things about Johnson & Johnson that I don't like ... but I'm still going to use their band-aids.

[Old Researcher]

Amanuensis, I note in your post, it seems to be what YOU want. I want my neighbor to mow his lawn, but you know what? It's HIS lawn, not mine. The same with compiled articles, original compilations, original graphics, enhanced scans...the list can go on of such material on one's website. These do not belong to any big company to make decisions for the creators and the owners of such without their knowledge and consent. If I decide to remove something from my sites, thus removing items from public viewing, I have a valid reason for doing such and it should be of absolutely no concern to any company. I do not need any company to continue displaying my property forever without my permission. It's just a matter of respecting others' property. What if everyone took it upon themselves and decided to cache and display Ancestry's databases and such forever and forever to "preserve it for future generations to come." Would they be happy? I think everyone already knows the answer to that. It's just a simple old fashioned matter of respecting other folks hard work and in many cases, their property. Plain and Simple. This isn't rocket science.

[S. A. Josovic]

"if the originals are owned by an institution or an individual, you may need to obtain permission and/or to pay a royalty fee before you can refer to the work in your family history."

Genealogy is one of the most popular hobbies on the Internet. Genealogists love to share information about their families, and the very nature of the Internet fosters this practice. Probably because there is so much free information on the Web, many individuals have formed the false conclusion that "if it is on the Internet, anyone has a right to use the information as he/she sees fit." Despite the best of intentions, therefore, people will occasionally post content on a website or transmit it by e-mail without proper permission to do so.

The issue of copyright is an aspect of genealogical research that may never have crossed your mind. As copyright lawyer Karen Kreider Gaunt puts it, "Numerous misconceptions surround even basic issues, such as work for hire, fair use, public domain, and publication. An author or genealogist operating under one of these misconceptions could find herself faced with serious misunderstandings, loss of business and clients, harm to reputation and goodwill, and, at worst, litigation in federal court."

Ms. Gaunt's observations raise such fundamental questions as, "What is and what is not protected by copyright? What is in the public domain? Can I use information I find on the Internet? What constitutes fair use? When do I need to ask permission to use someone else's information, even if I quote it? And so on.

Fortunately, you can find the answers to these and similar questions in this new book, aimed primarily at genealogists and written in layman's terms. With Carmack's Guide to Copyright and Contracts in hand, you will be able to determine:

* What are your rights to your own genealogical discoveries?
* What can/should you do if someone has infringed on your copyright?
* When do you need to ask someone's permission to reprint their work?
* What are works in the public domain and how to find them?
* Can someone tape your lecture without your permission?

In scarcely 100 pages, Carmack's Guide to Copyright and Contracts informs its readers about all aspects of copyright law. Each chapter in the book lays out a specific principle of copyright or contracts and then addresses the topic with situations specifically applicable to genealogists. Subjects covered in this fashion include: (1) Copyright Basics, (2) Fair Use, the Public Domain, and Seeking Permissions, (3) Illustrations, Images, Photographs, and Maps, (4) Works for Hire, (5) Collaboration Agreements, (6) Journals/Magazine Contracts, (7) Book contracts, (8) Electronic Contracts, and (9) Self-Publication Contracts. The author also provides an extremely useful glossary of terms found in contracts and matters of copyright. Rounding out the volume are an up-to-date bibliography; a resource directory of websites, links, and online articles; and an index to the book's contents.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

S. A. Josovic,

I hope that you are the same person who posted the excact same review/ad on Amazon.com as you just posted here ... otherwise you are in violation of of Watershed Books' copyright.

[Joy Rich]

Amanuensis's "signature" links to http://www.apgen.org/directory/search_detail.html?mbr_id=820, the entry for a professional genealogist named Chad Milliner.

I googled "chad milliner." The first result is a listing for Chad Milliner on zoominfo. It says that Chad Milliner is a Content Specialist for THE GENERATIONS NETWORK, aka MYFAMILY.COM aka ANCESTRY.COM!