Of course, Tony, there is a cost to keep and provide archives for us, and it a glorious asset to us all that the service exists, not just here but in most of Europe and elsewhere. Perhaps it's a sign of a civilised society. I was referring to the incremental cost of taking a photograph with a digital camera. Such a cost is non-existent. Michael Walsby ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Pottrell" <editor@pyroport.com> To: <eng-somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras No cost to the archive? How about the cost of the archivist to go down to the archive, find the document(s) and give them to you, then take them back and file them away? It also means there's more money for them to maintain the records as well. I'd happily pay the £2 fee personally. I believe the London Met Archives charge a few quid also for camera use. T walsby wrote: > To produce a photocopy incurs the cost of machine wear, paper, and personnel cost > (my > experience of Somerset record office is that the staff do take more care to give > you > a good copy than some other record offices). So you pay for goods and services. > > There is no cost to the archive service for a researcher to use a camera. > "Falling > in line with other offices that already charge" is the same excuse that motroists > offer when caught speeding - everyone else does it, so why shouldn't I ? It's no > excuse at all. > > Michael Walsby > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J Collingridge" <sparrer@gmail.com> > To: <eng-somerset@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras > > > >> walsby wrote: >> >> >> >>> I wonder how they justify such a charge. Would they rather have >>> documents exposed to photocopying ? >>> >>> Or is it simply to make money, in which case can we expect the cost >>> to rise each year ? >>> >>> It certainly doesn't help relationships between researchers and >>> archivists. >>> >> No, I don't think it does help, but the record office is falling in >> line with other offices that already charge. It'll no doubt catch a >> few researchers out as well. >> >> I don't know that it's a money making exercise, although it probably >> will rise year on year. It would appear to be more a money >> replacement exercise since so many people now use digital cameras >> rather than ask for photocopies. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: >> I think Bob has hit on the central point...free public access... >> not to the buildings, but to the records themselves. These are >> public records. The public owns them, the archives conserve them >> and make them accessible -> Charani wrote : > Actually the public doesn't own them. That is an urban myth, I'm > afraid. They belong to the diocese who allows access to them and they > date from a time when Church and State went hand in hand, rather than > be two very separate entities as they are today. But Anglican parish registers & wills are only part of the archives. What about all the rest - e.g. Quarter sessions documents, Manorial records, Nonconformist records, Local Authority records (to which we have a legal democratic right to access) Commercial records, Academic researches, Material depostied by families because they contain information of wider interest, etc. And not forgetting material deposited by genealogists to help fellow genealogists in the future (to which we all owe a debt). So £2 a day is not excessive, but once a principle is breached, how soon before it rises to, say, £10 a day ? Concerning Anglican church records, I can see the argument concerning access to their modern records kept at a church, but going back before, say, 1837, our ancestors had no choice but to marry in church (unless they were Quakers or Jews) or to accept the church's authority over wills, to pay church rates, etc. Any claim that these are not effectively "public" records should be strongly resisted. Michael Walsby

No cost to the archive? How about the cost of the archivist to go down to the archive, find the document(s) and give them to you, then take them back and file them away? It also means there's more money for them to maintain the records as well. I'd happily pay the £2 fee personally. I believe the London Met Archives charge a few quid also for camera use. T walsby wrote: > To produce a photocopy incurs the cost of machine wear, paper, and personnel cost (my > experience of Somerset record office is that the staff do take more care to give you > a good copy than some other record offices). So you pay for goods and services. > > There is no cost to the archive service for a researcher to use a camera. "Falling > in line with other offices that already charge" is the same excuse that motroists > offer when caught speeding - everyone else does it, so why shouldn't I ? It's no > excuse at all. > > Michael Walsby > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J Collingridge" <sparrer@gmail.com> > To: <eng-somerset@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras > > > >> walsby wrote: >> >> >> >>> I wonder how they justify such a charge. Would they rather have >>> documents exposed to photocopying ? >>> >>> Or is it simply to make money, in which case can we expect the cost >>> to rise each year ? >>> >>> It certainly doesn't help relationships between researchers and >>> archivists. >>> >> No, I don't think it does help, but the record office is falling in >> line with other offices that already charge. It'll no doubt catch a >> few researchers out as well. >> >> I don't know that it's a money making exercise, although it probably >> will rise year on year. It would appear to be more a money >> replacement exercise since so many people now use digital cameras >> rather than ask for photocopies. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

That's called Common Sense, something that this government is not renowned for....... But I agree it would be great indeed. Regards, Steve -------------------------------------------------- From: "FreeReg" <FreeReg@edickens.supanet.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:51 AM To: "FreeReg SOM Mail list" <ENG-SOMERSET-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: [ENG-SOM] Photographing > To take the discussion further, wouldn't it be a great help if, having > taken photos, it was a requirement to donate a copy to Somerset Records > Office. If properly referenced, and this should not be difficult, then > very soon it would be possible to access these images online and the > original documents would not need handling at all. > > Eric > FreeREG Executive > ___________________________________________ > Eric J Dickens > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

To take the discussion further, wouldn't it be a great help if, having taken photos, it was a requirement to donate a copy to Somerset Records Office. If properly referenced, and this should not be difficult, then very soon it would be possible to access these images online and the original documents would not need handling at all. Eric FreeREG Executive ___________________________________________ Eric J Dickens

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: egdal Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12944.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thanks for your reply - thats great! Next step will be to find owners of The Ship Inn, Parlock Weir mid 1950´ Regards Egdal Denmark Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Abroad ,I think at Versailles you could either pay to use your camera or pay to deposit it while you looked round .Nice little earner . Brad Rogers wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:31:16 -0400 > rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: > > Hello rbccstrr@aol.co.uk, > > >> The camera license fee is small, but as a policy, it does seem to >> contravene the spirit of the free access rule without any >> > > How? Access (i.e. *viewing*) is still free. It's only copying that > attracts a charge. > > Having said that, I disagree with the philosophy of charging to use > one's own equipment, but that's a different issue. > >

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:31:16 -0400 rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: Hello rbccstrr@aol.co.uk, > The camera license fee is small, but as a policy, it does seem to > contravene the spirit of the free access rule without any How? Access (i.e. *viewing*) is still free. It's only copying that attracts a charge. Having said that, I disagree with the philosophy of charging to use one's own equipment, but that's a different issue. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" I'll tell you something, I think that you should know Rich Kids - Rich Kids

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: adeleearnshaw Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12944.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The pub was called The Ship and I had a family member who worked there in late 19th Century. There is also the Anchor Hotel. These are at Porlock Weir; there is also a Ship Inn in the village of Porlock which is a couple of miles away........... Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: nadineburns1 Surnames: Norman Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12951/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am seeking info pertaining to James Norman, b. Taunton abt. 1811. The 1851 census has James in the Wilton gaol; I am interested to find out more detail regarding his incarceration, but am not sure how to go about this from overseas. Any advice would be much appreciated. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: VNMIM Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12946.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Suggest you might contact Celia Mycock. Celia is the resident expert for this area. Her email is celiam@supanet.com She is very helpful. Valerie Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

The requirement to buy a licence to use a camera at the record office has one other bonus: a means of keeping track on who's taking pictures of which documents. It can help with copyright issues. And it could help defray the costs of conservation. Not many record offices/ archives/ local studies etc actually own the documents in their care: anything from the Church of England is owned by the bishop/church, and its presence in the record office is a matter of care not ownership. Many businesses have put their records into the safekeeping of a record office, but they still retain ownership. Some organisations require that a letter of permission be obtained from them before a researcher may access records deposited in the RO. None of these kinds of material is "freely available to the public" and they are certainly not owned "by the public". Church records still retained by the parish church must be kept in "suitable conditions"; I believe each diocese has the right to inspect the room where the pcc has decided they will store their records, and if it isn't up to scratch to demand that it be made so. A parish's retention of their records allows them to charge the standard fee for a search, to cover the inconvenience to them of allowing a researcher onto their premises and providing a member of staff to oversee them. Insurance policies would be null and void if staff member was not present (at all times). Oh, yes, the fees are set by Synod, not by the vicar on a whim! As to the question of document handling, it is useful that members of the public not used to handling fragile paper or parchment etc be told to wear gloves: that prevents their mucky greasey finger marks from being transferred to the paper - which works in their favour as some documents are incredibly mucky, so the gloves get dirty not their hands! However, I have to say that handling documents frequently enables one to judge more easily the state of the material. Having helped to flatten, clean and reference several thousand old Wills (and still counting) I can say that whilst I started off with gloves, I now work bare handed, though hands do need washing before eating a sandwich (and after of course!). One can be more gentle without gloves, but only with a great deal of practice - even once a month is insufficient, needs to be weekly or even daily. So to be on the safe side conservators ask that when the public handle documents they wear gloves - it emphasises the need for extreme care. AND always use a recommended document rest - cushions, foam etc, and the right kind of weights if necessary. Not sure taking pictures actually helps care of the document, but having attempted to film my grandfather's file at TNA with my digital camera, I'm about to write for a quote for them to scan it for me, my own results were unsatisfactory. Whether with a licence or for free, taking pictures of documents is a very skilled art, and I don't have that skill. JK

rbccstrr@aol.co.uk wrote: > I think Bob has hit on the central point...free public access... > not to the buildings, but to the records themselves. These are > public records. The public owns them, the archives conserve them > and make them accessible. Actually the public doesn't own them. That is an urban myth, I'm afraid. They belong to the diocese who allows access to them and they date from a time when Church and State went hand in hand, rather than be two very separate entities as they are today. They are public accessible records rather than public records. The diocese could have their own record office and keep it closed. That the diocese r3ecord office is also the county record office is a bonus for family historians and genealogists. They could nevertheless insist that the registers should not be made available to the public. As it is, those registers not placed in the diocese archive but remain with the incumbent of the church can be searched for a fee. Some incumbents charge that fee, some charge a partial fee, some don't charge at all. The diocese could extend that and insist that anyone wishing to view those registers held at the diocese record office should pay the same fee. > There are conservation as well as cost > issues related to photocopies which makes a reasonable charge > proper. Camera use spares this layer of wear and tear on the > records, as well as saving staff time and equipment. [...] The camera license fee is small, but as a policy, it > does seem to contravene the spirit of the free access rule without > any conservation or administrative or cost reason to justify it. You've contradicted yourself there. You say, correctly, that using a camera reduces the wear and tear on the documents. Researchers also tend to wear gloves which the staff don't when making the copies. Then you say that a camera permit appears to contravene the spirit of free access without a justifiable reason, yet you've already highlighted the fact that using a camera helps conserve the documents, as well as saving the staff costs (freeing them to concentrate on other aspects of their jobs, inc conservation) and wear and tear on equipment. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

A very interesting discussion. While it would, of course, never happen, could a diocese make the decision to sell their records to a private collector or even burn them (theoretically)? At what point does a collective interest/need supersede the wishes of an individual owner? Godfrey & Merry Ellis OPCs for Crewkerne & Timsbury in Somerset

I think Bob has hit on the central point...free public access... not to the buildings, but to the records themselves.  These are public records.  The public owns them, the archives conserve them and make them accessible.  There are conservation as well as cost issues related to photocopies which makes a reasonable charge proper.  Camera use spares this layer of wear and tear on the records, as well as saving staff time and equipment. There are other reasonable and sensible rules about how one makes a record of public information.  Pencils not pens. Silent keypads on personal computers.  The camera license fee is small, but as a policy, it does seem to contravene the spirit of the free access rule without any conservation or administrative or cost reason to justify it.  Rebecca -----Original Message----- From: Bob Hunter <rmwhunter@blueyonder.co.uk> To: eng-somerset@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras I don't think this charge is unreasonable; one of my primary desires is that ur historical archives are kept in good condition and looked after by well ewarded, well trained archivists. If, in this present climate of pressure n government and local government spending, it is necessary to pay what, in ll fairness, is a very modest fee to copy records in order to support the rchives, then I for one am prepared to do it. It is only reasonable, that hilst society through its taxes, pay the bulk of the cost of maintaining he archives, that those who access the archives and use the resources of eading rooms, archivist's time, etc. should pay something extra. Perhaps t would be better to charge a £2.00 entrance fee to use the archives, but hat probably breaks the rules of free public access to museums etc. Bob > Message: 6 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:09:39 +0200 From: "walsby" <walsby@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras To: <eng-somerset@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <001201c8d9d0$55c9e9a0$c6affac1@PC302132836219> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original To produce a photocopy incurs the cost of machine wear, paper, and personnel cost (my experience of Somerset record office is that the staff do take more care to give you a good copy than some other record offices). So you pay for goods and services. There is no cost to the archive service for a researcher to use a camera. "Falling in line with other offices that already charge" is the same excuse that motroists offer when caught speeding - everyone else does it, so why shouldn't I ? It's no excuse at all. Michael Walsby ----- Original Message ----- From: "J Collingridge" <sparrer@gmail.com> To: <eng-somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras > > walsby wrote: > > >> I wonder how they justify such a charge. Would they rather have >> documents exposed to photocopying ? >> >> Or is it simply to make money, in which case can we expect the cost >> to rise each year ? >> >> It certainly doesn't help relationships between researchers and >> archivists. > > No, I don't think it does help, but the record office is falling in > line with other offices that already charge. It'll no doubt catch a > few researchers out as well. > > I don't know that it's a money making exercise, although it probably > will rise year on year. It would appear to be more a money > replacement exercise since so many people now use digital cameras > rather than ask for photocopies. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------ To contact the ENG-SOMERSET list administrator, send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the ENG-SOMERSET mailing list, send an email to ENG-SOMERSET@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of ENG-SOMERSET Digest, Vol 3, Issue 426 ******************************************** ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Katemanley1 Surnames: Keevil Timbrell Taylor Alford Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/3995.3.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I have a family tree With Job Keevil of Trowbridge at the top! He was married to? Timbrell and had 2 children Eleanor and Jane who dies in 1849. Jane married John Taylor of Trowbridge who were my great great great grandparents! My aunt Anne Taylor, who is now 87 has gathered quite a lot of information. Please let me know if this links in with you! Yours Kate Manley Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Bev Some on Fromeresearch Site Some on Frome Yahoo Group Early Baptisms today gone on my Family Website. (These are a first draft by Peter Hillier and not yet checked - more to follow) 2008/6/29 Stuart Powell <bevfarthing@hotmail.com>: > are the somerset Nunney, prs online anywhere? > > > Bev > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Jim - http://www.payman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk Owner - Somerset Hundreds Groups (Contact Off List for Details) see also: http://www.fromeresearch.org.uk and http://www.opcdorset.com

Hi . I agree , the Somerset Record Office copies are great . Their service is great also . Laurie ----- Original Message ----- From: Charani To: eng-somerset@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-SOM] Som. Rec. Office to charge for use of cameras walsby wrote: > To produce a photocopy incurs the cost of machine wear, paper, and personnel cost (my > experience of Somerset record office is that the staff do take more care to give you > a good copy than some other record offices). So you pay for goods and services. Which is normal. > There is no cost to the archive service for a researcher to use a camera. I think that is the crux of the matter. The Record Office is actually losing revenue, albeit a very small amount. Photocopies cost 40p per page. A daily camera use permit is £2.00. If people are using a camera then the chances are they are going to make more than 5 shots. After that they are in pocket. There will still be people who will want photocopies. I know when I've been at the Record Office, there's invariably been three or four people there using cameras, myself included, even though I'm transcribing documents. That said, I also get photocopies. The last batch I had done (which cost me over £100) included some bound indentures which couldn't be completely copied. That means my husband is going to have to come to the record office with me to take images of the missing parts. There'll be more than £2s worth of images needed. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to sort the documents out before the change comes in. > "Falling > in line with other offices that already charge" is the same excuse that motroists > offer when caught speeding - everyone else does it, so why shouldn't I ? It's no > excuse at all. I don't think that's a valid comparison. There's an inherent risk that someone will be killed by a speeding driver. There's no such danger from a camera permit :)) "Falling in line" is a reason not an excuse and I think it will become common across all Record Offices that currently allow the use of cameras. The alternative is a blanket ban on cameras. One of the archivists at SRO did tell me there are concerns about the possible damage photocopying does to documents. So it may well be that all photocopying of documents will stop. Where are the choices then? Transcription or camera. That means there will be a drop in revenue which has to be made up somehow. No doubt the Record Office believes that £2pd/£8pw/£50pa is adequate given the savings on paper and electricity they'll make, esp with the cost of electricity set to rise significantly during the remainder of the year. I think, overall, researchers will be better off. It's not as if the photocopying of documents has been totally withdrawn (yet). -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1524 - Release Date: 28/06/2008 7:42 PM

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: JulieKey44 Surnames: Key Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12949/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am looking for my husband's original immigrant ancestor to the US or the British Caribbean. Our YDna group of Key men were in the US in the late 1700's and possibly in the British Caribbean in the mid 1600's. We are looking to match a Key surnamed male in the UK. Thank you. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: JulieKey44 Surnames: Key Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.som.general/12948/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am looking for my husband's original immigrant ancestor to the US or the British Caribbean. Our YDna group of Key men were in the US in the late 1700's and possibly in the British Caribbean in the mid 1600's. We are looking to match a Key surnamed male in the UK. Thank you. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.