List Newsletter 01JUN2018 1. Introduction 2. Discussion Topic 3. List Reminders 3. Looking for a Moderator —————————————————————— 1. Introduction My name is Dee and I’m the list admin for this and many other lists. If you receive this message multiple times that’s why. The lists at Rootsweb are working again! Yay! Please begin utilizing this list so it isn’t deleted! Each month or so I’ll be sending out a message to my lists to remind everyone that you’re here and to post to the list. —————————————————————— 2. Current Discussion Topics: Answer either one or both! ———— 1. Tell us a little about yourself. 2. What is your number one piece of advice to new researchers? ———— I’m inviting everyone to post to this list. You don’t have to answer the discussion question. You can post your questions, triumphs, problems, etc.. —————————————————————— 3. List Reminders Please remember, stay on-topic with the list. (I’m not a strict admin, I don’t mind chit chat at all, especially on smaller lists such as this one. Just try to keep it to the actual list topic as closely as possible. Please remember, no sales through this list. —————————————————————— 4. Looking for a Moderator I am searching for a moderator to help me out with this list. You should be very familiar with the topic of this list and be willing to learn how to admin using the mail list program through Rootsweb. If you’re interested, please send me an email at pcmom@aol.com <mailto:pcmom@aol.com>. —————————————————————— I hope you all have a wonderful day! Dee Admin GenLady http://www.genlady.com <http://www.genlady.com/>

I have to thank everyone for their assistance, both on-list and off-list. I particularly note the suggestions that maybe the transcribed info is not right, or was given incorrectly, or as Barbara suggested, the groom gave his grandfather's name for whatever reason - he may indeed have simply been a surrogate father! I did rather jump to conclusions, and I'm grateful to have that pointed out. I shall mull over your collective opinions, and come to what I hope will be a balanced, truthful, objective presentation of the facts, taking into consideration the feelings of the family. Very nice to have such intelligent input, it was exactly what I was after. Thank you. Jennie

That sounds so logical! A girl gives birth out of wedlock and the family protects the child- very simple. I have one where the mother died, the child was adopted by the sister and brother in law of the father on condition of a total name change and being told his father was his uncle. He eventually found out in a sort of strange way, though.Sue Joan Best wrote: > Several possibilities come to mind rather than the one you came up with. > First, this child was probably raised in his grandparent's home where his > mother also probably lived until her marriage. He likely thought of his > grandfather as a father figure. It is possible that his grandparents > adopted him or something to that effect. My grandfather's sister, from the > same period, had a child. His father was known but the circumstances are > murky. The mother's parents adopted the child who apparently always had the > mother's maiden name as his last name. I could well imagine that as a young > man he could have named his grandfather as his father [as technically he was > after the adoption] and his biological mother as his mother, even though, > technically, his grandmother was his "mother". In the dynamics of the > family I think he was encouraged to acknowledge his biological mother, but > not having a biological father around, and wanting to fill out the form so > that it showed a mother and a father, might fill it out as your family > member did. > > Another example, not quite as relevant: I adopted three kids from Colombia > and went through the adoption process there. Two were in their early teens > and I wanted them to keep their original name as I thought their self > identity was at stake. The government insisted on changing their names. I > readopted when we got back to the USA and we changed their names back. > Those records may well confuse future genealogists, although, in the > readoption papers I did spell out the reason for the change. > > A third example, again from my life. In 1961 I gave birth to a child. His > father and I were not married but lived together and he was present at the > birth. The form I had to fill out to record the birth asked whether or not > the child was legitimate or illegitimate. I checked legitimate, not because > it was true but because I did not want my child to go through life with a > birth certificate that identified him as illegitimate. It asked when and > where we were married. I wrote down a plausible date, stating it was in > Mexico. The point is that there are a lot of social pressures/reasons that > make people "lie" when filling out official forms. > Joan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jennie Towan" <jennie_max@bigpond.com> > To: <ethiCS-IN-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:43 PM > Subject: [ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY] Dilemma re sensitive information > > > >> Hi all >> >> I'm new to this list, and have joined because I would like some advice on >> how to deal with a 'dark secret' which has come to light. It concerns >> incest of course. When things like this come to light, how does the >> serious genealogist deal with it? I confess I am stumped. Bury it again? >> Father unknown? I would like to tell the story of a family who had a >> convict beginning, through to the generation previous to mine, but just >> have no idea of how this can be got around. A girl gives birth to a son, >> father unknown. The marriage cert of the son states father's name - the >> same name as his mother's father! Highly unlikely that anyone of the same >> name was 'passing by', and the girl was only 16. She went on to marry at >> 20 and have a large family. We are talking of a birth in 1874 and the >> marriage was in 1912. The people involved are no longer living, but there >> are offspring of the son of this union still living, albeit in their 80s >> now. Do I put the father's name as per t! >> he marriage cert in the family tree or leave it 'unknown'? I might add, >> the son of this union faced a charge of incest himself in later years. >> >> I suppose, if I put the father's name in the 'tree' people can draw their >> own conclusions, I have the marriage certificate to prove that I am only >> putting in info from a primary source. It still leaves me the problem of >> telling the story without it sounding totally sordid. Sigh!!! >> >> Cheers, Jennie >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-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 ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Several possibilities come to mind rather than the one you came up with. First, this child was probably raised in his grandparent's home where his mother also probably lived until her marriage. He likely thought of his grandfather as a father figure. It is possible that his grandparents adopted him or something to that effect. My grandfather's sister, from the same period, had a child. His father was known but the circumstances are murky. The mother's parents adopted the child who apparently always had the mother's maiden name as his last name. I could well imagine that as a young man he could have named his grandfather as his father [as technically he was after the adoption] and his biological mother as his mother, even though, technically, his grandmother was his "mother". In the dynamics of the family I think he was encouraged to acknowledge his biological mother, but not having a biological father around, and wanting to fill out the form so that it showed a mother and a father, might fill it out as your family member did. Another example, not quite as relevant: I adopted three kids from Colombia and went through the adoption process there. Two were in their early teens and I wanted them to keep their original name as I thought their self identity was at stake. The government insisted on changing their names. I readopted when we got back to the USA and we changed their names back. Those records may well confuse future genealogists, although, in the readoption papers I did spell out the reason for the change. A third example, again from my life. In 1961 I gave birth to a child. His father and I were not married but lived together and he was present at the birth. The form I had to fill out to record the birth asked whether or not the child was legitimate or illegitimate. I checked legitimate, not because it was true but because I did not want my child to go through life with a birth certificate that identified him as illegitimate. It asked when and where we were married. I wrote down a plausible date, stating it was in Mexico. The point is that there are a lot of social pressures/reasons that make people "lie" when filling out official forms. Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennie Towan" <jennie_max@bigpond.com> To: <ethiCS-IN-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:43 PM Subject: [ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY] Dilemma re sensitive information > Hi all > > I'm new to this list, and have joined because I would like some advice on > how to deal with a 'dark secret' which has come to light. It concerns > incest of course. When things like this come to light, how does the > serious genealogist deal with it? I confess I am stumped. Bury it again? > Father unknown? I would like to tell the story of a family who had a > convict beginning, through to the generation previous to mine, but just > have no idea of how this can be got around. A girl gives birth to a son, > father unknown. The marriage cert of the son states father's name - the > same name as his mother's father! Highly unlikely that anyone of the same > name was 'passing by', and the girl was only 16. She went on to marry at > 20 and have a large family. We are talking of a birth in 1874 and the > marriage was in 1912. The people involved are no longer living, but there > are offspring of the son of this union still living, albeit in their 80s > now. Do I put the father's name as per t! > he marriage cert in the family tree or leave it 'unknown'? I might add, > the son of this union faced a charge of incest himself in later years. > > I suppose, if I put the father's name in the 'tree' people can draw their > own conclusions, I have the marriage certificate to prove that I am only > putting in info from a primary source. It still leaves me the problem of > telling the story without it sounding totally sordid. Sigh!!! > > Cheers, Jennie > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think it depends upon what way you are using it. I am involved in co-authoring a major book. There are close to a thousand endnotes, and there is sensitive information. Since it is for the public and involves someone famous, I am writing about it in a way that makes it not noticeable. I don't want the public knowing this fact. I think it also depends upon the people to whom you are giving the information. I know everyone always says if it is a fact you should put it in, but I have heard professionals say that you do not have to included anything you do not want to be known. You should search out your heart and the hearts of those to whom the information may either be valuable or traumatic. Things get passed on in our molecules and genes, and there may be problems in peoples lives that this information would help clear up. Or the opposite might be true. And people do make mistakes on these records. That is always a possibility. Sue

Hi all I'm new to this list, and have joined because I would like some advice on how to deal with a 'dark secret' which has come to light. It concerns incest of course. When things like this come to light, how does the serious genealogist deal with it? I confess I am stumped. Bury it again? Father unknown? I would like to tell the story of a family who had a convict beginning, through to the generation previous to mine, but just have no idea of how this can be got around. A girl gives birth to a son, father unknown. The marriage cert of the son states father's name - the same name as his mother's father! Highly unlikely that anyone of the same name was 'passing by', and the girl was only 16. She went on to marry at 20 and have a large family. We are talking of a birth in 1874 and the marriage was in 1912. The people involved are no longer living, but there are offspring of the son of this union still living, albeit in their 80s now. Do I put the father's name as per the marriage cert in the family tree or leave it 'unknown'? I might add, the son of this union faced a charge of incest himself in later years. I suppose, if I put the father's name in the 'tree' people can draw their own conclusions, I have the marriage certificate to prove that I am only putting in info from a primary source. It still leaves me the problem of telling the story without it sounding totally sordid. Sigh!!! Cheers, Jennie

I would just tell it straight, providing all of the factual information you can locate. You are under no obligation to draw conclusions in writing, though you might want to provide information about other circumstances: war, economic dislocation, isolation, etc. It is quite possible that the information on the certificate is incorrect. It could have been transcribed by someone who wasn't paying attention or who inadvertently copied the wrong name (we've all done that when we're filling out forms). If, after careful research you find that the picture is accurate, then you will have an opportunity to forgive the transgressors and be grateful that those affected were able to get on with their lives. That is something for which the entire family can be thankful. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: ethics-in-genealogy-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ethics-in-genealogy-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jennie Towan Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:44 PM To: ethiCS-IN-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY] Dilemma re sensitive information Hi all I'm new to this list, and have joined because I would like some advice on how to deal with a 'dark secret' which has come to light. It concerns incest of course. When things like this come to light, how does the serious genealogist deal with it? I confess I am stumped. Bury it again? Father unknown? I would like to tell the story of a family who had a convict beginning, through to the generation previous to mine, but just have no idea of how this can be got around. A girl gives birth to a son, father unknown. The marriage cert of the son states father's name - the same name as his mother's father! Highly unlikely that anyone of the same name was 'passing by', and the girl was only 16. She went on to marry at 20 and have a large family. We are talking of a birth in 1874 and the marriage was in 1912. The people involved are no longer living, but there are offspring of the son of this union still living, albeit in their 80s now. Do I put the father's name as per t! he marriage cert in the family tree or leave it 'unknown'? I might add, the son of this union faced a charge of incest himself in later years. I suppose, if I put the father's name in the 'tree' people can draw their own conclusions, I have the marriage certificate to prove that I am only putting in info from a primary source. It still leaves me the problem of telling the story without it sounding totally sordid. Sigh!!! Cheers, Jennie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry if this is a repeat as I sent the first response out under my private e-mail address and not the address I use only for my genealogy correspondence and am not sure if the first e-mail would get through... You wrote: "Do I include his first spouse and child in the family tree?" I too am only a family historian and not a certified Genealogist but I have published a two volume set regarding my family history which was well received not only by family but also by several Archives and Universities and am just about to publish a second book on family history. My rule of thumb was and is to only publish events which were/are recorded in the public record. That means that if cousin Charley tells me about how his great aunt had a child out of wedlock and gave it away then I would not publish this without vital records which could back-up the claim. After having said that what do you do after have shaken your family tree hard enough and a bad apple falls down? What do you do with it? Inevitably, you will come across information, which will plant you firmly in the middle of the moral fence. Should you publish what you know; what you think you know? Case in point: In one of our very recent family lines is the “common knowledge” that one of our cousins was a child molester. He was never charged or convicted of any crime but everyone ‘knows’ about him and what he was like and what he did. The women of this particular family kept themselves and their daughters away from him. He is dead but some of his ‘victims’ are still alive. What would you do? Would you write about the speculations? My personal opinion is that unless someone was convicted in a court by his or her peers for a crime I would steer clear of passing on that type of hearsay. However, even if the information is true and the person was tried and convicted for the crime then you have to consider the impact it would have on those still alive and who may have been victims by exposing this type of dark secret. What if cousin so-and-so was just a bit weird and there were and are no ‘victims’? Unless you can prove that someone committed a crime or was convicted of a crime then it is not only morally right to avoid speculation but you would/could be liable to prosecution. On the other hand, if the person was charged and convicted of a crime then one has to struggle with the moral obligation one has to those who are still alive. Maybe the best way would be to simply ask them and go by their wishes. Another moral dilemma; someone in the family is adopted but they do not want the rest of the family who do not already know about it to know. In two hundred years when your great (many times over) grandchildren go searching their heritage this would be of great value to them to know that the bloodline stops there and shifts elsewhere. So what do you do? It is my opinion that you honour the wishes of the living. It is far more important to respect those who are affected by disclosure now than to document something that someone in the future may or may not find useful. I have discussed this topic with others and the comment has come back that one does not have to distribute this information but one should document it so that it does not get lost. The problem with doing this is that eventually we all die. When we die someone else will then be in possession of ‘the truth’. Then what? Will they too feel the moral responsibility to honour and respect confidential information. It is for this reason that when I do know something for certain about someone but have been asked specifically not to divulge the information out of respect for the living then I have opted not to document that information anywhere at all. The future generations will have to work it out for themselves. And then your case, where you have found a whole other family which the 'new' family knows/knew nothing about. You have proof of this other family but don't know whether you should publish the facts as they may be disturbing to the new family. Why don't you ask them how they want this information handled regarding publication? Like I said, the future generation will have to work some of this out for themselves. Judy

A shorter answer Ethics is not unakin to courtesy. Clearly your correspondant did not wish to identifiy their previous marriage and child. It would be courteous to comply with their desire for this to remain hidden. Would it be ethical? Depends on your sense of ethics. I wouldn't reveal it because that would be discourteous. . On the other hand you could always ask them what their preference was. Perhaps it was an oversight, perhaps deliberate, but asking will give you the answer. However, I suspect that you already know what you SHOULD do, other wise you wouldn't have asked the question. Bill On Jun 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Catudal wrote: > Sorry if this is a repeat as I sent the first response out under my > private e-mail address and not the address I use only for my genealogy > correspondence and am not sure if the first e-mail would get > through... > > You wrote: "Do I include his first spouse and child in the family > tree?" > > I too am only a family historian and not a certified Genealogist but I > have published a two volume set regarding my family history which was > well received not only by family but also by several Archives and > Universities and am just about to publish a second book on family > history. My rule of thumb was and is to only publish events which > were/are recorded in the public record. That means that if cousin > Charley tells me about how his great aunt had a child out of > wedlock and > gave it away then I would not publish this without vital records which > could back-up the claim. > > After having said that what do you do after have shaken your family > tree > hard enough and a bad apple falls down? What do you do with it? > Inevitably, you will come across information, which will plant you > firmly in the middle of the moral fence. Should you publish what you > know; what you think you know? > > Case in point: In one of our very recent family lines is the “common > knowledge” that one of our cousins was a child molester. He was never > charged or convicted of any crime but everyone ‘knows’ about him and > what he was like and what he did. The women of this particular family > kept themselves and their daughters away from him. He is dead but some > of his ‘victims’ are still alive. What would you do? Would you write > about the speculations? My personal opinion is that unless someone was > convicted in a court by his or her peers for a crime I would steer > clear > of passing on that type of hearsay. However, even if the > information is > true and the > person was tried and convicted for the crime then you have to consider > the impact it would have on those still alive and who may have been > victims by exposing this type of dark secret. What if cousin so-and-so > was just a bit weird and there were and are no ‘victims’? > > Unless you can prove that someone committed a crime or was > convicted of > a crime then it is not only morally right to avoid speculation but you > would/could be liable to prosecution. On the other hand, if the person > was charged and convicted of a crime then one has to struggle with the > moral obligation one has to those who are still alive. Maybe the best > way would be to simply ask them and go by their wishes. > > Another moral dilemma; someone in the family is adopted but they do > not > want the rest of the family who do not already know about it to > know. In > two hundred years when your great (many times over) grandchildren go > searching their heritage this would be of great value to them to know > that the bloodline stops there and shifts elsewhere. So what do you > do? > > It is my opinion that you honour the wishes of the living. It is far > more important to respect those who are affected by disclosure now > than > to document something that someone in the future may or may not find > useful. I have discussed this topic with others and the comment has > come > back that one does not have to distribute this information but one > should document it so that it does not get lost. The problem with > doing > this is that eventually we all die. When we die someone else will then > be in possession of ‘the truth’. Then what? Will they too feel the > moral > responsibility to honour and respect confidential information. It > is for > this reason that when I do know something for certain about someone > but > have been asked specifically not to divulge the information out of > respect for the living then I have opted not to document that > information anywhere at all. The future generations will have to > work it > out for themselves. > > And then your case, where you have found a whole other family which > the > 'new' family knows/knew nothing about. You have proof of this other > family but don't know whether you should publish the facts as they may > be disturbing to the new family. Why don't you ask them how they want > this information handled regarding publication? Like I said, the > future > generation will have to work some of this out for themselves. > > Judy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ETHICS-IN- > GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm inputting my family information on genealogy software program that will eventually be on a website. I recently discovered through sending away for information from New York State that a cousin, recently deceased, had a first wife he did not include in the family chart form he provided to me. On further investigation there is also a child produced from that marriage. This happened in the mid 1950's. Do I include his first spouse and child in the family tree? As far as I can gather his children from his second marriage have no idea of his first family. I am not a professional genealogist. I'm just the family historian! Help!

I'm inputting my family information on genealogy software program that will eventually be on a website. I recently discovered through sending away for information from New York State that a cousin, recently deceased, had a first wife he didn't not include in the family chart form he provided to me. On further investigation there is also a child produced from that marriage. This happened in the mid 1950's. Do I include his first spouse and child in the family tree? As far as I can gather his children from his second marriage have no idea of his first family. I am not a professional genealogist. I'm just the family historian! Help!

Sue- Originally, yes...the original copyright would have been the Met's provided the photos were taken as works for hire--we don't know that this was the case--but it is a possibility. Even though Mishkin and White had studios of their own and did other work--they may still have had a contract with the Met to produce photos for THEM as works for hire. This wouldn't have had an effect on their copyright to any OTHER photos they may have taken on their own. It would all depend on the type of contract or agreement they had with the Met. In either case, photos taken by either of these professionals would have been considered "published" when they were originally taken and distributed. So there would surely have been a copyright notice on them at that time. If the date of publication was prior to 1923 then the photos are now in the Public Domain and anyone can use them. If they were taken after that then check the chart at the link I posted to the list about when works pass into the Public Domain. Joan In a message dated 6/27/2008 1:56:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suemaxwell@comcast.net writes: If he was employed by them, then would the Met have the copyright? And if they did, the photos were so old, then would they still have the copyright? That interests me. I am not sure about this but I think some people connected with the Met had to pay Mishkin themselves, and some may have been paid by the Met. I can email the assistant archivist, as I know him, and ask him about this. I am now curious because what my relative did was connected with the Met, but I am not sure whether the Met paid for her photos or whether her father did. Sue **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

According to Bob Tuggle, Met could have used the photos anyway they wanted to. At this point the copyright does not exist I asked Mr Penino if they were done as works for hire, if Mishkin owned the copyright or if they did, and this is the answer I got. So I am not sure what that means. I did find out that the Met paid for photos that they wanted, but private photos were also done. I just sent him another email saying - it sounds like Mishkin owned the copyright, but the Met was free to use the photos- will see if he corrects me on that. Sue

There would be many unknown factors in the situation you mention that could have an effect on the original copyright status of the photos you mention. First off, Mishkin could have been an employee of the Met if he was their official photographer. He may have been producing the photos as "works for hire" in which case the photos would have been originally copyrighted to his employer, the management of the Met. That is one instance in which the photographer might not have been the copyright holder. Joan In a message dated 6/27/2008 1:31:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suemaxwell@comcast.net writes: Well, most of the photos were taken by Mishkin, who was the official photographer for the Met. Also White did some; Mishkin has been dead for 76 years, so I suspect that the photos aren't copyrighted. For anyone interested in opera, it is a lovely book. And the Golden AGe of Opera was back in the early 1900's- so you have great photos of Enrico Caruso and all sorts of fascinating ones. These old photos hold up well- I have some and they look like they were taken yesterday. I really wonder what the difference is. I have colored photos that are fading, but my old black and white ones from the early 1900's are still in good shape. **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

Sue- Of course the *book* is copyrighted--and so will yours be I'm sure. As you know facts contained in the book are not copyrightable--the copyright extends only to original content. The photos included in the Opera book you reference below may or may not be copyrighted by the book's author or someone else as well--depending on who took them and when and a vast array of other factors. But whether or not the photos are copyrighted to the author of the book, someone else, or in the public domain, doesn't mean the BOOK itself isn't copyrighted. Joan In a message dated 6/27/2008 12:45:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suemaxwell@comcast.net writes: I have sitting next to me a book by the archivist of the Met, called The Golden Age of Opera. There are a ton of photos in it, and it is copyrighted. **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

I just wrote to the assistant archivist to find out how they did it. The opera book covers years from 1906-1932, but looking in it, there are photos from the 1800's, too.. Now, when the copyright says: "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form" wouldn't that include the photos, also? If I wanted to use a photo from the book, would I not need permission to reproduce it from the author, who wrote it in 1983? And he is still the main archivist for the Met. Sue

Sue- I hate to burst your bubble but most of what you describe you cannot copyright because it isn't something YOU created. You can only copyright your own words and original content (the structure of your book). Discussing the life and ancestry of someone (even someone who was famous or a celebrity) doesn't protect the facts you present or the ideas and conclusions you have come to. You may have discovered facts and drawn conclusions that no one else knew about before you publish them in the book, but they are still facts none the less and discovery doesn't equate to copyright. Copyright protects only your words -- your original text and graphics and formatting that you personally have created. Anything that didn't originate with you (or that you didn't specifically inherit the copyright to or purchase the copyright to) -- you cannot copyright. What you wrote earlier about the comments from your expert in photography copyright -- in order for someone to have filed for copyright of the family photos the photos couldn't have originally been published and the definition of "published" is a very loose one. If the photos were taken by professional photographers as you previously stated many were, then you can't copyright them now -- those were previously published. Even the family photos--if they were shared with others (they don't even have to have been sold--they could have been given to the public) previously--then you cannot claim any copyright to those either. Joan In a message dated 6/27/2008 11:53:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suemaxwell@comcast.net writes: The book is the life story of someone in my family ( and her ancestors) who needs to be officially put into the history of one of the arts. It is not a surname book. I am the only one that has all of the information on what she did, and my partner in writing will interpret what she did, as that is her expertise. I think you will enjoy it and I will tell you about it when it comes out. Right now I am not talking about it as there are too many creeps on the net. I am writing an article about how doing the research for it has changed my life. That will be in Crossroads Magazine- a genealogy mag. Not sure when their next issue comes out. Sue **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

If he was employed by them, then would the Met have the copyright? And if they did, the photos were so old, then would they still have the copyright? That interests me. I am not sure about this but I think some people connected with the Met had to pay Mishkin themselves, and some may have been paid by the Met. I can email the assistant archivist, as I know him, and ask him about this. I am now curious because what my relative did was connected with the Met, but I am not sure whether the Met paid for her photos or whether her father did. Sue

That is an interesting point, but I know he had his own studio, as did White. I think they just used him as he was very famous. He did photos of others's also. I have Mishkin and White photos- they look like they were taken yesterday. They are gorgeous. Sue

Well, most of the photos were taken by Mishkin, who was the official photographer for the Met. Also White did some; Mishkin has been dead for 76 years, so I suspect that the photos aren't copyrighted. For anyone interested in opera, it is a lovely book. And the Golden AGe of Opera was back in the early 1900's- so you have great photos of Enrico Caruso and all sorts of fascinating ones. These old photos hold up well- I have some and they look like they were taken yesterday. I really wonder what the difference is. I have colored photos that are fading, but my old black and white ones from the early 1900's are still in good shape.