In a message dated 9/2/2007 1:16:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: The copyright moment in this case was my wonderment whether the FTM contributors had actually contributed files with the intent of them being published and sold. ---- I can't say what the submitters' intent was, but they clearly gave permission when submitting the files to be included in the CDs. We don't have to agree with the policy of putting the trees on CDs and selling them--but the submitters were agreeing to the terms whether they remembered having done so or not. They were not duped in any way. It is always important to check the terms you are agreeing to. There is actually is no copyright issue involvement there--it is more a contract. The submitters were not giving up their copyright or the right to use their data in the future--only granting FTM permission to publish the trees and sell them on CD. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

my comment clearly off topic but this message got my attention because of family ties then it's back to copyright. B. C. (Benjamin Clark Holtzclaw) wrote mostly about the Germanna colony families. Nothing direct about the Bibler's. However, it is Bibler (I am a Bibler - through David Bibler of Ohio). As for Amelia Gilreath - her books are still under copyright - dated 1989. 11 volumes of Frederick County deeds, Shenandoah deeds are 1987-1994 W. David Samuelsen RoverLSmith@aol.com wrote: > > Richard, > > I was thinking you had a footnote regarding a deed from Lewis and Mary > Bibler to John Koontz and that you had probably gotten the information from one of > the Gilreath abstract books. I don't have the original deed, but do have the > abstract, which does say Barbara or Barbary, just like every other Lewis > Bibler deed. It crossed my mind that you may have inadvertently written Mary > since Mary Pence married Francis Bibler. You could be right about where you got > your information though. We'll talk about this off list. We're finally going > to put up a web site ... slowly, and we'll have the abstracts on the site if > we can't get the original deed by then. > > To make this relevant to copyright, what do I do when I received written > permission from Amelia Gilreath to use any of her abstracts at my discretion, > then crashed my computer, and she passed away? I don't know the status of her > books at present. I know that she closed up store during her lifetime and had > offers from publishers but didn't seem eager to take any of them. I wonder if > her heirs have sold the rights and I might get myself in trouble using all > those abstracts. > > Any takers? > > Thanks > > Debbie > > > > > > Debbie, the Lewis Bibler note was not my work. It appears in a book by a > noted historian and genealogist (now deceased, I believe) named B. C. > Holtzclaw. At the time your fist called my attention to the name of Lewis' > wife the file was not at my web site; I only had a link to it. It is now at > my site. I am having the deed in question checked to see what it says about > the name of the wife of Lewis. I'll let you know. > > Richard > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Joan, The copyright moment in this case was my wonderment whether the FTM contributors had actually contributed files with the intent of them being published and sold. The rumors that followed caused pretty big damage and FTM bashing around the genealogy groups, which were, it seems now, pretty young at the time. I was on-topic in an off-topic sort of way. People refused to buy the CDs with the excuse that the files had been inappropriately obtained; however it didn't seem to bother them to borrow them at the library or incorporate into their own files information from them. Debbie There were more sales in between there...FTM started with Bannerblu, was sold to Broderbund, then was sold to Mattel, then to The Learning Company, and then to MyFamily.com (now TGN). I may have missed a few sales along the way--but that's most of them. Genealogy.com and the GenForum boards came along at some point in time and were connected with FTM--probably about the time Mattel or The Learning Company owned it--and they were all a part of the eventual sale to MyFamily.com. The important thing is that TGN inherited the product and the websites and the whole thing -- user agreements already in place. TGN simply didn't change any AUPs or user agreements or policies for any of the companies they purchased along the way--Genealogy.com and FTM, RootsWeb, etc. Hope that is clear--I know we need to get back to focusing on copyright discussion. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/2/2007 12:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: OK ... Where I was confused was with Broderbund. Lets see if I have it right now. I was assuming that Broderbund was associated with Genealogy.com. Broderbund sold FTM to Genealogy.com, Genealogy.com just sold it for them? Genealogy.com and GenForum were connected, though, right? I was thinking this was why GenForum went downhill ... that it had slid with Genealogy.com. You have too good of a memory. Debbie Debbie- There were more sales in between there...FTM started with Bannerblu, was sold to Broderbund, then was sold to Mattel, then to The Learning Company, and then to MyFamily.com (now TGN). I may have missed a few sales along the way--but that's most of them. Genealogy.com and the GenForum boards came along at some point in time and were connected with FTM--probably about the time Mattel or The Learning Company owned it--and they were all a part of the eventual sale to MyFamily.com. The important thing is that TGN inherited the product and the websites and the whole thing -- user agreements already in place. TGN simply didn't change any AUPs or user agreements or policies for any of the companies they purchased along the way--Genealogy.com and FTM, RootsWeb, etc. Hope that is clear--I know we need to get back to focusing on copyright discussion. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Debbie <RoverLSmith@aol.com> wrote: > No, most family tree gedcoms don't contain copyrightable information. Some > of them do, and those get copied, too. Some people actually include little > narratives. Little phrases from some of these narratives can be typed > into > Google with quotation marks surrounding them and will pop up all over the > Internet. Not that it would be worth a lawsuit, but it does go on ... Not > just on > Rootsweb, but all over. What we have here, I'm afraid, are some chickens coming home to roost. Some folks who will remain nameless think that all genealogical material that is on the Internet should be free. They preach that every time the name Ancestry.com comes up. One obvious consequence of that is that everyone starts to actually believe it. Oh - there's something of interest about my ancestor. Cut. Paste. Looks good. I guess I'll post it. After all, if it's on the Net, it's free, isn't it? Richard

OK ... Where I was confused was with Broderbund. Lets see if I have it right now. I was assuming that Broderbund was associated with Genealogy.com. Broderbund sold FTM to Genealogy.com, Genealogy.com just sold it for them? Genealogy.com and GenForum were connected, though, right? I was thinking this was why GenForum went downhill ... that it had slid with Genealogy.com. You have too good of a memory. Debbie Broderbund Software sold Family Treemaker quite early on. FTM was originally a family owned business under the name Bannerblu Software--FTM actually had quite a chain of sales from company to company--Mattel, The Learning Company, etc. until FTM and Genealogy.com and the GenForum message boards were eventually sold to MyFamily.com (now TGN). I don't believe GenForum ever had any connection to Broderbund Software. Nor does Broderbund have any connection to TGN. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 11:41:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: GenForum is connected to Broderbund, which -- IF I am not mistaken, was bought out by or merged somehow with Ancestry. The published CDs with people's trees on them and sold them, which made many people upset ... Someone else might know if they actually had permission to do this ... I don't. Broderbund Software sold Family Treemaker quite early on. FTM was originally a family owned business under the name Bannerblu Software--FTM actually had quite a chain of sales from company to company--Mattel, The Learning Company, etc. until FTM and Genealogy.com and the GenForum message boards were eventually sold to MyFamily.com (now TGN). I don't believe GenForum ever had any connection to Broderbund Software. Nor does Broderbund have any connection to TGN. Long before any involvement between FTM/Genealogy.com and TGN, FTM created the World Family Tree program (WFT) solicited FTM files for inclusion on CDs. The submitters had to agree to their trees being placed on the CDs. If they didn't read their contractual agreement with FTM then shame on them--it was the submitters' responsibility to know what agreement they were making when submitting their trees. So TGN actually inherited the WFT database and the end user agreement that went along with it. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joan, I know. Sometimes you can find the original source and sometimes you can't. When one file comes out exactly like the next, poor spelling, bad alignment and all, and then another and another exactly the same, you do know it's happening. You just can't complain, and it's not up to anyone but the original author to complain anyway. I've found some of my own writing on the web. Unfortunately I had made a mistake in one -- I never could get that mother and daughter straight -- I always mixed up their names. I didn't complain and I figured out how it happened. I had emailed someone with some information just to personally share and it showed up without my name in a family file. Then it procreated. I'm glad my name didn't show up that time. I was sent an entire family file once from someone who reluctantly shared their research with me. It was mine word for word. I have no clue where they got it. I know they didn't get it from me, don't remember sending it to anyone, and I sure did notice my writing could use some improvement. Debbie Debbie- I'm not sure how you can accurately pinpoint copyright infringement in a file if you are not the copyright holder. I say this because I know I have personally granted permission for some other researchers to include my data with attribution in their files. If you are seeing files that don't give attribution to another person or database as the source--how can you tell who the copyright holder is? It is often difficult to determine who first posted the information and who researched it unless you find copyright material of your own in someone else's file. I do know that RootsWeb most likely wouldn't take action for reported infringement unless the complaint came from the copyright holder himself. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

I apologize again for my out of line comments to Richard. Actually I like him. I was offended and didn't keep my sarcasm under control. GenForum is connected to Broderbund, which -- IF I am not mistaken, was bought out by or merged somehow with Ancestry. The published CDs with people's trees on them and sold them, which made many people upset ... Someone else might know if they actually had permission to do this ... I don't. Ancestry was a Godsend after Broderbund (Genelaogy.com), and Rootsweb was at the time an independent entity that apparently had a hard time supporting itself since it was free -- or donation based, so the originators of it sold out to Ancestry -- which is when the Rootsweb and Ancestry trees became the same. Genealogy.com has pretty much died off. Aside from the historical records, I don't know what they have that you can't buy for less somewhere else. FamilyTreeMaker was the genealogy program sold by Broderbund. Now its with Ancestry.com as well. One of the two bought out Ultimate Family Tree, which was a great genealogy software program, and eliminated it. The bigger the business, the more they have to make, and the more creative and ruthless they become in doing it, even to the point of at least the verge of copyright infringement and unethical practices. They hire personnel to answer the phones who are not equipped for the job and sometimes don't even answer your emails. It's not just genealogy -- It's business in general. Depending upon what area you are researching, there are various libraries and archives online that scan and publish online old books and magazines, deeds, deed indices, manuscripts, family Bibles, historical journals, material concerning religious material, and on and on. These sites are so much better because they are nonprofit and they continue with their projects until the money runs out. They just don't have everything we need, so we have to turn to sites like Ancestry. I wish they would get some competition again so they would try harder to please the customers and spend more time adding data rather than indexing information already available. Most of the copyright issues come from private individuals thinking just because it's posted and can be copied they are free to distribute it. We're not even free to distribute emails without permission, let alone other people's graphics and narratives. We CAN use them as sources. I find my most valuable online information with Google searches and the libraries and archives mentioned above. Heritage Quest also is very helpful .... and free for people whose libraries subscribe. The best source of information of all are the people we meet and discussions we have. Debbie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 10:38:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: I've just seen this numerous times looking at other people's trees and wondered why they do it. It would really be nice to know who the original writer was, because they are the person you would want to email for more information. Debbie Debbie- I'm not sure how you can accurately pinpoint copyright infringement in a file if you are not the copyright holder. I say this because I know I have personally granted permission for some other researchers to include my data with attribution in their files. If you are seeing files that don't give attribution to another person or database as the source--how can you tell who the copyright holder is? It is often difficult to determine who first posted the information and who researched it unless you find copyright material of your own in someone else's file. I do know that RootsWeb most likely wouldn't take action for reported infringement unless the complaint came from the copyright holder himself. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

While I agree that lists should remain on topic, and not digress too far afield from their mission statement I don't believe I've seen anything here that wasn't closely related to copyright issues--- The distinction between copyright, plagerism, and licenseing requires a fairly refine eye. There's no message that has come across in the last few days (And there's been an awful lot of them) that hasn't provide valuable insight for me as to the limitations of copyright issues in my own work. The forays into plagerism have been particularly informative. Even the commentary on the business practices of Ancestry and Rootsweb seem to be ultimately related to the copyright issue. The commentaries are mostly something that Ancestry and Rootsweb have brought upon themselves. Sort of a long standing popular dissatisfaction with what some see as a very mercenary approach. (By the way, why is Genforum and GenCircles not similarly crticized--- probably because they are much smaller.) Ultimately, however, the criticism of both on this list has been driven by a perception that they profit from the work of others coupled with the perception that this is somehow tied up in copyright issues. I don't think that's the core problem here, but that's why people are discussing it on this list. (On this general subject, a subscribe to the view that Ancestry is about the most valuable tool I've found on the net--- (well, not exactly, ancestry is a very valuable resource, but I think the newly developing wiki's are actually more significant for me.) About the only messages, or perhaps parts of messages, that I could have done without are the ones that verge on, or slop over into, personal attacks. There haven't been many, but there have been some. Could have lived without those. But as far as I'm concerned everything has been very much on subject, or so closely related to it as to make little difference. I would also point out that I registered for this list probably eight months ago or more. At the time I'd been intersted in some particular points related to copyright issues on the web, and reviewed the lists archives. Very, very, informative. So I subscribed. During those entire eight months there hasn't been a single email from this list. And curoiusly, when I posted questions to the list, I never saw my questions appear in return email. Possibly something went agly, But then someone else finally posted an item---the one that started this discussion---so I replied. Even more curious---my email didn't get posted until well after several other messages had been posted. I do find that very curious, and I also have a fair idea of why that might have occurred. I would understand the concern for staying on topic if the list were all that active. But since I've found everything I've read in the last several days informative, I'd have to say that I'd rather see the list dealing with the occasional off topic item, than not having the postings. On the otherhand, once this flurry of excitement is over, I suspect this list will fall back into inactivity. Too bad. As I say, I've learned much from the emails. They've been very valuable. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Copyright Admin wrote: > This discussion is migrating far away from copyright issues, which is > the topic of this list. Please remain on topic, or refrain from > posting to the list. > > > copyright-admin@rootsweb.com > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Joan, If it were something I had posted, I would ask the person who had copied my material to please remove it, or ask them to at least cite the source, and then report it if they didn't comply, but I have only seen this infringement. I used to help with other people's trees sometimes, but don't have my own. I've just seen this numerous times looking at other people's trees and wondered why they do it. It would really be nice to know who the original writer was, because they are the person you would want to email for more information. Debbie Debbie- If there is copyrighted material posted at RootsWeb without permission of the copyright holder AND the copyright holder can prove the validity of their claim--the first course of action is to ask the person who has committed the infringement to remove the copyrighted material. If they fail to comply contact the RootsWeb HelpDesk. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 10:08:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Joan, No, most family tree gedcoms don't contain copyrightable information. Some of them do, and those get copied, too. Some people actually include little narratives. Little phrases from some of these narratives can be typed into Google with quotation marks surrounding them and will pop up all over the Internet. Not that it would be worth a lawsuit, but it does go on ... Not just on Rootsweb, but all over. Debbie Debbie- If there is copyrighted material posted at RootsWeb without permission of the copyright holder AND the copyright holder can prove the validity of their claim--the first course of action is to ask the person who has committed the infringement to remove the copyrighted material. If they fail to comply contact the RootsWeb HelpDesk. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

This discussion is migrating far away from copyright issues, which is the topic of this list. Please remain on topic, or refrain from posting to the list. copyright-admin@rootsweb.com

Joan, No, most family tree gedcoms don't contain copyrightable information. Some of them do, and those get copied, too. Some people actually include little narratives. Little phrases from some of these narratives can be typed into Google with quotation marks surrounding them and will pop up all over the Internet. Not that it would be worth a lawsuit, but it does go on ... Not just on Rootsweb, but all over. Debbie --- Debbie- Submitters to Rootsweb's WorldConnect program are expected to abide by the RootsWeb AUP which requires that you submit only your own work or public domain information or that you have permission to post if you are posting someone else's work. RootsWeb is responsive to complaints by copyright holders if they can prove there has been infringement. However, most family trees do not contain anything that is copyrightable. Facts cannot be copyrighted and no one owns them--anyone is free to use names, dates, and places. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 9/1/2007 9:43:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoverLSmith@aol.com writes: Does Ancestry have no power to stop the copying and pasting from database to database? There's a little copyright infringement going on there. --- Debbie- Submitters to Rootsweb's WorldConnect program are expected to abide by the RootsWeb AUP which requires that you submit only your own work or public domain information or that you have permission to post if you are posting someone else's work. RootsWeb is responsive to complaints by copyright holders if they can prove there has been infringement. However, most family trees do not contain anything that is copyrightable. Facts cannot be copyrighted and no one owns them--anyone is free to use names, dates, and places. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Richard, At first I also believed that Ancestry.com was one of the best bargains I ever encountered, too. Not anymore. The census images are available elsewhere .... Aren't they at Heritage Quest? -- Which you get free with a library card number from many libraries. You also get the Heritage Quest books and Revolutionary War pension applications ... With just a library card. I spent long hours going through Ancestry's census images when they weren't fully indexed .... Actually not fully there. Finally, they were almost all up, and I got a phone call from Ancestry telling me I needed to pay my annual fee a month early to ensure that I got in before they raised the rates .... Since the census was almost complete. You don't think we should have gotten a break for the price we paid to browse unindexed census records? I have gotten a lot from the newspaper images, which can also be obtained elsewhere. These, after all the time they've been up still have newspapers mixed up. I think for the price we all pay for this, rather than indexing our own donated work in order to charge even more, they should straighten up their newspapers. I'd like to not have to check out Iowa newspapers for Ohio information. One would think they could do a little better with the ship lists and church records. These could be easily placed together as they are in books. Maybe they could have fixed that problem for us before indexing our own research for us (which is actually indexed in a way by a Google search). When the Rootsweb trees first came out and the Ancestry.com trees came out, they were ok ... No index necessary. Then came the cloning. Does Ancestry have no power to stop the copying and pasting from database to database? There's a little copyright infringement going on there. Maybe they could put one of their aggressive telemarketers to work fixing some of their problems rather than attempting to get money early or promise people a months free trial that they don't get without an early cut off of their subscription, as I did. I wouldn't mind having the money back they took out of my credit card this month for the subscription I didn' t order, either. Sure there are good features. There always have been. But they never complete the project. They just go on to another feature designed to grab more money. The vital records are handy, but easier to find in a book, since we have to guess the spelling instead of reviewing the index for possible spellings. You are right that the donated databases are "free" to the extent that they are paid for by our subscriptions -- We all get to look at them in their original or copied from the copied from copied from copied from original form whether we subscribe or not. The OneWorldTree is nothing but a scam to make money from donated material. As I stated earlier, Google indexes them in a much more easy to find way that does not lump together old bad research simply because it has dates. I've had to go over yet again the same errors with fellow researchers who suddenly saw people married to imaginary people once again. Normally a database with this information would be disregarded as bad information and skipped by. Now, lumped together as possible matches, people wonder again. And they wonder again if some of their imaginary kids actually existed. The unnecessary pay for index is totally useless and causes more problems than it's worth. I've received several emails asking the same old wrong questions simply because they are on this useless index that some people believe is something new. People got awful uptight a few years back when a man made a web page for which he paid by advertising banners. This web page attempted to index records from sub-pages of other people's websites. How was he wrong and Ancestry.com right? Can I index this stuff and charge for it? At least I'd look for obvious inaccuracies and dump those databases rather than the ones without the dates. Richard, I am not lying. I am expressing my opinion, which is just as important as yours. I expect you to respect it just as I do yours, whether you agree or not. It's not polite to ask me to acknowledge this email so you can determine whether I am deliberately lying. Now, will you please acknowledge this so you can tell me exactly when I said I donated a gedcom to Rootsweb or Ancestry. I won't ever. I have sent people information for their databases back when the project seemed it might be worthwhile. You might also acknowledge that you know that you have one of my ancestor's names wrong in a footnote at your Mill Creek page. I told you this a long time ago. Lewis Bibler was married to Barbara, not Mary. Is it a mistake, or were you deliberately lying? And, when you stated that Mary Pence married "Francis Pevler (now Bibler)" were you deliberately lying, or do you just not know, with all that Hawksbill research you did that his name was never Pevler, that that was just an incorrect spelling or poor transcription on a marriage record, kinda like Elizabeth "Dance" (Pence). He was born and died a Bibler, and records usually called him either Peebler or Bibler. By the way, were you deliberately lying when you say he was from Lancaster County, PA? If not, could you please tell us what evidence you have? Last we spotted the Biblers before they went to Virginia, they were in Philadelphia. >There seems to be an awful lot of cutting off nozes to spite faces going >around this week. I am not cutting off my noZe to spite my face, nor am I biting the hand that feeds me. The subscribers feed both Ancestry and Rootsweb or they would cease to exist. We pay for the Freepages through subscriptions ... In my case a couple I didn't order ... And of course the copy of Family Tree Maker I couldn't refuse, didn't want, but had to pay $5 shipping and handling for. Actually, the Historical Records are really worthwhile at Genealogy.com. The rest of it anymore can be obtained from Heritage Quest except some scanned and OCRed books, which are probably out on the Internet somewhere else by now. There are a lot of great library and archives sites adding all kinds of information every day. Debbie By the way, I do apologize for the rude remarks above, but I don't think we should insinuate that one of us would deliberately lie. More likely we accidentally make mistakes sometimes. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

"Bill" <wmwillis@earthlink.net> >I believe the point being made was in reference to using the term > "data" in the original quote. > its the use of the term "data" the contains the misunderstanding I > referred to, not your how you described the problem. Bill, I just went back over my original message. I know I don't see well anymore,but I couldn't remember using the term "data" at any time in what I wrote on this topic and I couldn't find it anywhere in my messages. Where it came from I don't know. Richard

Richard Like you I have been with ancestry for a LONG time. I was with them long before they incorporated with rootsweb and genealogy.com That was back when they had little to offer a researcher. Since TGN bought genealogy.com I've seen a big input into the One World Tree....a lot more data has been placed into the database. Joyce Gaston Reece

Debbie <RoverLSmith@aol.com> wrote: > I am not blaming everything on Ancestry, nor do I get any "free lunch". > Ancestry is quite expensive and I have paid for it for years -- Genealogy > is > not a cheap hobby. I consider Ancestry.com one of the greatest bargains I have encountered. For less than $10 a month I have all of the census images at my fingertips not to mention pension files, draft registrations, enlistments, vital records from all over and on an an. I used to spend more on parking while doing research. > I am merely pointing out my objection to selling back to us our > own work, whether it's an index or not, Debbie, you keep repeating that and by now you must understand that it is not true. The infomration on RootsWeb was fre last week. It is free this week. And it was free evry minute in between. The mere fact that you might pay for a seach engine to find it for you doesn't alter that in any possible way. If you reas this please acknowldge so I will know that the next time you say Ancestry is charging you for what you donated I will know you are deliberately lying. > and pointing out why I will buy web > space rather than use the Rootsweb "Free" space, which is far from "free." There seems to be an awful lot of cutting off nozes to spite faces going around this week. > We pay for it through our Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com subscriptions. Sure. But why do subscribe to Genealogy.com? Nothing there that you can't get at Ancestry, is there? Richard