I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is there to help people with their research. However, as has happened many times in the past, professional researchers take information from my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. Jean McCarthy nee Moore On 31/08/2007, Sara Binkley Tarpley <sarabtarpley@gmail.com> wrote: > Joan, > > You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to the actual > URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of it, which > was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid > subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the > material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the bottom of > each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no use in > properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for other kinds > of information, such as death records, the source information names the > specific record the information comes from and makes it possible to properly > source data you use. > > Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to the cached > image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to the actual > page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. Furthermore, I > know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the top; it is > certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I am not sure > that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not see it till > later. > > In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link to the > actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference between > real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non-hyperlinked > address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was certainly > plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. > > Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without impugning > us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for eleven > years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a database, > with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped many, many > people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e-mail that > contain all of my research notes, including record transcriptions. I have > sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked for one > penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query boards. I > currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley researchers. I > find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't think that > anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, mine." [It is > true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which are my own > creative work.] > > Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first saw what > Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to belabor > the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a > straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the format as it > last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a > genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up on its site > and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy-specific > the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained of finding > things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X-rated site.] > > > Sara Binkley Tarpley > > On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > > > > ---- > > Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make > > me > > have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are > > interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number > > of > > people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start > > screaming mine mine mine. > > > > Joan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanmccarthy36/ jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com

You may want to review the many excellent early posts in the archives of this site---especially towards the end when the site effectively went dormant. I'm not sure exactly what types of problems you are having, but as the posts in the archives make clear, information is not copyrightable. If you put information onto a web site, it can be freely used by anyone. Specific written text may be subject to copyright, but the information itself is not. And of course, typing in text that's out of copyright, secures you no copyright privileges. The folks who input Chalkley's, for example, did a very commendable job. But the work itself is out of copyright, and I believe anyone can use the text freely. (Though I think the polite thing to do is to acknowledge the immediate source of the transcription.) Of course, if you know someone has used your own writing verbatim, then that's another matter. I believe that the creativity involved in writing something yourself gives you copyright privileges. As I understand it the information still isn't copyrightable, but the text is. Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Jean McCarthy wrote: > I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is > there to help people with their research. However, as has happened > many times in the past, professional researchers take information from > my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that > annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. > > Jean McCarthy nee Moore > > On 31/08/2007, Sara Binkley Tarpley <sarabtarpley@gmail.com> wrote: >> Joan, >> >> You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to >> the actual >> URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of >> it, which >> was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid >> subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the >> material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the >> bottom of >> each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no >> use in >> properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for >> other kinds >> of information, such as death records, the source information >> names the >> specific record the information comes from and makes it possible >> to properly >> source data you use. >> >> Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to >> the cached >> image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to >> the actual >> page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. >> Furthermore, I >> know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the >> top; it is >> certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I >> am not sure >> that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not >> see it till >> later. >> >> In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link >> to the >> actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference >> between >> real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non- >> hyperlinked >> address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was >> certainly >> plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. >> >> Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without >> impugning >> us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for >> eleven >> years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a >> database, >> with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped >> many, many >> people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e- >> mail that >> contain all of my research notes, including record >> transcriptions. I have >> sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked >> for one >> penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query >> boards. I >> currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley >> researchers. I >> find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't >> think that >> anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, >> mine." [It is >> true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which >> are my own >> creative work.] >> >> Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first >> saw what >> Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to >> belabor >> the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a >> straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the >> format as it >> last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a >> genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up >> on its site >> and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy- >> specific >> the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained >> of finding >> things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X- >> rated site.] >> >> >> Sara Binkley Tarpley >> >> On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> ---- >>> Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that >>> doesn't make >>> me >>> have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who >>> supposedly are >>> interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the >>> greatest number >>> of >>> people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just >>> that, start >>> screaming mine mine mine. >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > -- > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanmccarthy36/ > > jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.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

Let me offer an alternative..... For any of us to assume that no profit will ever be made from the data we freely post is bordering on stupidity. It's also egotistical. It is almost akin to saying the ball is mine and you can't play with it. When we post data we have little to no control on who will use the data on an individual basis because we'll probably never know it was used. How many people will use the data then submit it to World Connect or a personal web site or one of the many other sites which will again be spidered by search engines, irregardless of whose they are. Well, the fact that ancestry had spidered and cached the data has the genealogical internet into a tail spin....but do any of the reason's why make sense? The bottom line given is they are taking data that was supposed to remain free and made an attempt to provide the data to their subscribers....paying and free. It's copyrighted? Is it a legal copyright? Just how many of us can afford to hire copyright attorney's? A copyright without the ability to back it up is like a teats on a boar hog....they're useless. Is it the caching? Everytime I visit a site my computer caches the site....so does most of our computers. An example-- I have a research project concerning the Emory/Hembree family on a web site. A locally well known and respected county historian and archivist used the data to write a history concerning a Cherokee man called Pathkiller. The article was published in their quarterly magazine which is either sold or provided to their membership. Danged if they didn't make a profit from the work. You know what, I was pleased as punch that he'd see the quality of the work that I'd aided with and want to use it. I've had my freely posted data, family trees used and abused just like the rest of you. Of course, I was unhappy about it at first and still not really satisfied with it since it was used incorrectly. BUT, I didn't let that stop me from continuing to provide data for those who need and want it. I'm not sure I know the answer to everyone's problem with ancestry since anyone who registers can access the data...it is as free as google or yahoo's is. AND all 501-c-3 websites are gone the data will STILL remain FREE because we have our web sites available. Joyce Gaston Reece

"Jean McCarthy" <jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com> >I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is > there to help people with their research. However, as has happened > many times in the past, professional researchers take information from > my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that > annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. What professionals get paid to do is find information for people who don't know how to find it or don't want to take the time to find it. In any event, I suspect you actually have no way of knowing if a professional has found and used information from your site. And, except in the most unusual of instances, a professional would use what is on a private web site only as a clue for finding the original record or other substantiation. Finally, if the professional did use information from your web site, then it surely would have been properly cited and credited. Why, in that case, would you be annoyed? Didn't you say that you "openly invite people to use what they want." What really annoys me are the folks who freely take from my web cite, improperly copy it, don't use the citations and then use just as if they had spent the years of research that I did. THAT is something to be annoyed about. Richard

> What professionals get paid to do is find information for people > who don't > know how to find it or don't want to take the time to find it. In > any event, > I suspect you actually have no way of knowing if a professional has > found > and used information from your site. And, except in the most > unusual of > instances, a professional would use what is on a private web site > only as a > clue for finding the original record or other substantiation. > Finally, if > the professional did use information from your web site, then it > surely > would have been properly cited and credited. Why, in that case, > would you be > annoyed? Didn't you say that you "openly invite people to use what > they > want." That seems like a very fair assessment. Well said > > What really annoys me are the folks who freely take from my web cite, > improperly copy it, don't use the citations and then use just as if > they had > spent the years of research that I did. THAT is something to be > annoyed > about. Regretfully, that is the nature of information use in genealogy. The vast majority of genealogists, sincere and dedicated as they may be, (or not) simply do not understand the significance of sourcing their information. Yet many of those who fail to source their information will complain incessantly about other people "stealing my stuff". Ultimately, none of us know of our own personal knowledge, anything about our ancestors prior to (roughly) 1800. And most of the information that we use has ultimately been obtained from some bone fide source---not a web page, not a family history, but some source documents contemporary with the persons we research---like their will. Those are the things that need to be cited, not someone's web page that provided the information---especially if that web page did not cite the source. Ultimately, what most people need to be using (and citing) are those primary (and usually public) records. If they are doing that than copyright is not an issue. its when they simply take information from someone's web page (particularly without citing it---and especially if they take the information verbatim) that fosters accusations of stealing, and copyright infringement. For the most part, in theory, copyright should never be an issue in genealogy---because the majority of the information needed originates (or should originate) in uncopyrighted sources---like pubic records. Bill