In a message dated 13/06/2004 Pam (pfallonc@btinternet.com) writes: > > All law and directives are open to interpretation, they are not > prescriptive. > > I think not including family trees or notes without written permission > is too strict *IF* you honour the 100 yr rule. Would DGFHS accept > and make available pedigrees that finish at 1904? I'll contact them > obviously rather than leave the question hanging. Can't speak for DGFHS Council, but I can say what my view is. The Pedigree Charts I referred to do not fit this question being asked. Being pedigrees they start with the submitter and trace his/her ancestry backward, so inevitably they and contain a lot of data post 1904. We can use only because the person submitting the data has given written permission for such data to be accessed by other researchers. The data is not in the public domain it is accessed only through DGFHS. We make it available to DGFHS members by written request. All existing members were notified about this change in policy about a year ago, all new members are given details in their new memer's pack. http://www.dgfhs.org.uk/dgfhs/pdgr-chrts/pdgr-ndx.htm explains this in detail. As I said in an earlier email, we are examining all the earlier material with similar content. I don't know anyone at DGFHS who wants to discard good genealogical research material. But as Irene said, DGFHS do not have the capacity to act as an Archive. A group of vounteers have been given the task of examining lots of old material, like copies of researches reports done for or by members. The aim is to retaining documents that are considered to be of value to future researchers. They have the unenviable task of deciding which documents to keep and which to consign to the shredder. Indexed material and material where sources can be verified will be high among the deciding factors on what to keep. The story doesn't end there though. Where ownership can be identified, a way will have to be found to authenticate the use of this material in terms of the Data Protection Legislation, otherwise we can't use. Incidentally, there isn't much leeway for interpretation with Data Protection Laws, the penalties for getting it wrong make it a risk few Societies are willing to take. As for hundred year rules or fifty year rules and the like, I believe these apply these apply mainly to government bodies -- most genealogist view them as excusses for not opening up the public archives they eant to see now. The hundred year rule certainly doesn't apply when MIs are recorded and published. The cut-off date is generally decided by the transcriber and publisher. I personally favour a fifty-year cut off date. Others don't bother about any cut-off date. The legislation I refer to above doesn't apply in this case because an MI is already in the public domain. As I said, I've no authority to give a DGFHS 'ruling' on anything, these are my views. I hope the above adds something of value to the discussion. Best regards to all, Sandy