Also keep in mind, it is not usually the actual records that are being transcribed, but the creation of an index to the records, which is an entirely different thing when considering copyright infringements. And also keep in mind that a lot of records are in the public domain, such as census or civil records, and can (with a few limitations) be obtained or purchased by anyone. And yes, you are correct - the indexing, or whatever the transcription tasks are, many are being "outsourced". Sheila K. Sheila K.

Hi Guys, (long letter coming) I'm from Down Under, Interesting to read your comments re the above. My wife and I have written two books on our family history (wife's side).350pp and 500pp. 15 yrs of research. Every sentences in the books are annotated. Cost a small fortune in Certs etc. Initially we had our data on the web inviting others to contact and contribute. Alas! Information was taken and put on various sites as that persons work. Alas! some of the info was wrong as we were still researching. Alas! data had to be taken off and put into minimum format. We had no objection initially to place data on net to ensource (new Word) information. If people (researchers) acknowledge where they obtain their information, then I have no qualms. I periodically troll the net with key words and find who has copied, (believe it or not from a photocopy of our books). I send these people a polite (stern disapproval) to remove the data when I ascertain that it is a direct infringement of MY copyright. The real problem is how to install ETHICS into these people. This is a topic which would raise a huge debate. Do we send these people rude emails (possibly breaking some law) or do we live with it. I say send emails without the rude bits. Copying of reels depends on the final use of the information gained. Again it is the Ethics of the copier which is in essence. I have copied a full diary of a convict ship to Oz. The transcription has taken two years..I contacted the Archives to publish a book and have the O'K which then becomes my copyright. (very difficult to read film, only available to read, book is not for public viewing). In all we are really talking about ETHICS and unfortunately many people have none. The copying of 10% as O'k is C ontrary R ecording A pproach to P ussyfooting copyright, this ideal is instilled as a right. Again it is the ETHICS of the copier which is paramount. Publish and be damned, don't publish and be lost, our choice. Regard Wal

Fellow Researchers: Great discussion and points. My goal is for my family, in the very broad sense, will know their family history. Can you imagine if your research is found hundreds of years from now, online or in some archive--and because of your work--and your sharing and publishing, others will know your family's history? People have shared their work with me and I have benefitted by it and I have shared with others--and they may display that data. Sharing is good. The National Genealogical Society has Standards for Sound Genealogical Research and two of them are relevant: Standards for Sound Genealogical Research Recommended by the National Genealogical Society Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently:... use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them. state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work. The full standards are below: http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/standards_for_sound_genealogical_research Good hunting! Dan On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Rae Harvey wrote: > I have to say, I'm really appreciative of the work done my others > online. I > certainly don't take it, but I refer to it as a source to give me > clues. As > a beginner it's been invaluable but I DO wait until I've proven the > link > myself. It has caused trouble too. I've seen 10 family trees online > with my > ancestor Johann Carl Liebich who came to Australia on the Sophia. > All the > trees state his father as Wilhelm Liebich who arrived 3 years > earlier on the > La Rochelle but I am yet to confirm this relationship myself so I'm > refusing > to add Wilhelm to my tree for now. > > When I first started I put EVERYTHING online including the death > certificates etc I purchased. I'm now working offline but will > continue to > add names (without the proof) to my online tree for others to refer > to in > future. > > I'm blown away by how lazy some people are though. Name collecting at > ancestry.com seems to be out of control and it's funny when you look > at a > tree and see the same person added in 3 times with three different > mothers > cause they've just added willy-nilly. What a waste of time and how > unrewarding it must be. Rae > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

My understanding was that those hired transcribers were outside the US - mainly Asian countries - which is why there are so darn many mistakes with the English names. Not sure how accurate that is - but would help explain some of the errors I have found - <<<Ancestry did not necessarily get most of their stuff for free. They have hired transcribers to transcribe the records so that they can be searched. They do use volunteer transcribers for some projects - I'm one of them. >>>

Apparently the no camera policy varies from library to library. As of last summer, I was told by the librarian at the local LDS family history library, that I would have to bring a camera in order to make a copy. This library has a broken film printer and has been told that it will not be repaired because of costs. Bringing a camera was highly recommended over the hand copying method. Helpful hints on how to use that camera in the film viewer were also offered. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Armstrong Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] film reels and the info As a volunteer (and non-church member) librarian at my local LDS family history library, I can inform you that from time to time, Salt Lake sends around a reminder that cameras are not allowed in their libraries. This is usually because a new court case has arisen. As regards copyright, this varies from country to country. In America, I'm aware that it's open slather on old records after they been released to the public by the authorities. However, in other countries Copyright is retained by the authorities. I'm not in a position to comment on the German attitude to copyright of their old records. However, in Britain, the Crown or the Church still owns the copyright and if you want to publish a transcription (except a small exert), you need to obtain approval (which is not difficult to do). The LDS negotiate with the copyright holders of the original records to do what they do. Some records that they microfilm cannot be circulated to libraries outside of Salt Lake because of agreements they've reached with the copyright holders. By abusing the 'fair usage' rule in the LDS libraries, you jeopardise the access of the LDS to future record collections which would be to the detriment of us all. In a public library, some of the photocopying costs will be passed on as royalties to the copyright holder, in just the same way as a radio station pays royalties to broadcast music. As I said in my previous email, breach of copyright is stealing someone else's income. Also, Copyright automatically exists from the moment of creation. There doesn't have to be a statement claiming it. If you have any doubts about LDS library rules, email SLC for clarification. David Armstrong Maylands, Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Bobbie To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] film reels and the info Since I started this discussion, I must tell you that the librarians at the FHL are aware that people, myself included, are copying pages to cd's and flash drives. In fact, photo copying a page at the FHL is fine with everyone also. I know they charge for the paper and ink/toner, but they do not charge for the pages. If you are copying a whole microfilm, that is a different story and should probably be in violation of copyright laws. You are allowed to copy some pages from books at a library as long as you are not selling the copies or copying the whole book. My local library has a similar setup to what is available at the FHL and they allow some copying for family research purposes. No copying is allowed for the purpose of selling what you are copying. Whether you copy something to a cd or flash drive where there is not extra cost or you are paying for a paper copy, I see no difference as long as you are not copying a whole book or microfilm and not selling what you have copied. I have visited a lot of libraries in at least 9 of the United States that allow you to make copies of a few pages for a nominal fee to cover the costs of copying. You are just not allowed to copy a whole book or film. As to whether there is a copyright, on the old records there is probably not a valid copyright, but, on the microfilm of the record, the LDS may very well have a copyright issue. But, the LDS is doing this microfilming so that records are not lost and I have been told that they are not concerned about minimal copying. As to online, I am sure that there will be a disclaimer regarding what is copyrighted or not. What about all the records on Ancestry.com? They may hold a copyright but they also allow you to print pages of the census. Bobbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.11.56/2058 - Release Date: 04/14/09 06:17:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 63 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Ancestry did not necessarily get most of their stuff for free. They have hired transcribers to transcribe the records so that they can be searched. They do use volunteer transcribers for some projects - I'm one of them. What most people don't realize is how expensive it is to host a website whether it be "free" or a paid membership. Every website needs disk space, the computer servers, network connections, electricity and a data center where the server is housed. While we have not had to pay to use the message boards on rootsweb, they certainly haven't been free. They are paid for by donations and the irritating advertisements that you see whenever you access the site. It costs $ for the electricity and network (phone line) everytime a visitor goes to a home page, clicks a button or hits the enter key to obtain any type of information. People need to realize that the "free" sites aren't really free - somebody is paying for the infrastructure that makes that site possible so that people can have access to the information. If you happen to patronize any of the advertisers, then in a round about way, you are paying for the site.

I post as little as possible. what they get for free, they should given for free.  btw, didn't they get most of their stuff, for free, from LDS??? Stan B. --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Robert Lipprandt <[email protected]> wrote: From: Robert Lipprandt <[email protected]> Subject: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites.... To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 6:34 AM Carolynn touched on something that I have been avoiding/thinking of for over the past 14 years of my research into my five major families of interest. Back in the old days, I almost (notice I said almost) put all my research and findings on Rootsweb (before it was purchased by Ancestry). Since the purchase, the various family group information has been moved to Ancestry and used for it's various pay per view links. This makes me uneasy at it has taken so much time and effort (and finances in some cases) to obtain.

As a volunteer (and non-church member) librarian at my local LDS family history library, I can inform you that from time to time, Salt Lake sends around a reminder that cameras are not allowed in their libraries. This is usually because a new court case has arisen. As regards copyright, this varies from country to country. In America, I'm aware that it's open slather on old records after they been released to the public by the authorities. However, in other countries Copyright is retained by the authorities. I'm not in a position to comment on the German attitude to copyright of their old records. However, in Britain, the Crown or the Church still owns the copyright and if you want to publish a transcription (except a small exert), you need to obtain approval (which is not difficult to do). The LDS negotiate with the copyright holders of the original records to do what they do. Some records that they microfilm cannot be circulated to libraries outside of Salt Lake because of agreements they've reached with the copyright holders. By abusing the 'fair usage' rule in the LDS libraries, you jeopardise the access of the LDS to future record collections which would be to the detriment of us all. In a public library, some of the photocopying costs will be passed on as royalties to the copyright holder, in just the same way as a radio station pays royalties to broadcast music. As I said in my previous email, breach of copyright is stealing someone else's income. Also, Copyright automatically exists from the moment of creation. There doesn't have to be a statement claiming it. If you have any doubts about LDS library rules, email SLC for clarification. David Armstrong Maylands, Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Bobbie To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] film reels and the info Since I started this discussion, I must tell you that the librarians at the FHL are aware that people, myself included, are copying pages to cd's and flash drives. In fact, photo copying a page at the FHL is fine with everyone also. I know they charge for the paper and ink/toner, but they do not charge for the pages. If you are copying a whole microfilm, that is a different story and should probably be in violation of copyright laws. You are allowed to copy some pages from books at a library as long as you are not selling the copies or copying the whole book. My local library has a similar setup to what is available at the FHL and they allow some copying for family research purposes. No copying is allowed for the purpose of selling what you are copying. Whether you copy something to a cd or flash drive where there is not extra cost or you are paying for a paper copy, I see no difference as long as you are not copying a whole book or microfilm and not selling what you have copied. I have visited a lot of libraries in at least 9 of the United States that allow you to make copies of a few pages for a nominal fee to cover the costs of copying. You are just not allowed to copy a whole book or film. As to whether there is a copyright, on the old records there is probably not a valid copyright, but, on the microfilm of the record, the LDS may very well have a copyright issue. But, the LDS is doing this microfilming so that records are not lost and I have been told that they are not concerned about minimal copying. As to online, I am sure that there will be a disclaimer regarding what is copyrighted or not. What about all the records on Ancestry.com? They may hold a copyright but they also allow you to print pages of the census. Bobbie

Nancy, I'm glad you posted your message. I started one that said almost the same thing, but decided to scrap it. [email protected] wrote: > Ann wrote: > > > I agree, misinformation is worse than no information at all. > > On the other hand, misinformation, if researched, may lead to sources and documentation to support "your" individual or family.... > > When I first began searching for my grandfather's parents and siblings, I learned that one of my 2nd or 3rd cousins had done some genealogy, supposedly having traced his/our line back to Germany, and then coming forward again to?living relatives there.? I contacted him with a few specific questions.? He called me and began sharing information over the phone.? I busily made notes of the things he told me.? I wanted to verify for myself the information he shared.? Based on what he told me, I began to research and?was able to learn that lots of the?information?he shared was not true, based on govt. records and other information.? Those people he visited in Germany who were supposedly family members may not, in actuality, have been descendents of his/our gggrandparents.? > > His misinformation, for me, was better than no information at all.? It pointed me in a direction to begin?searching.? I'm sure it's not always so.? I think it depends on whether we consider every piece of information that comes our way as fact/truth or whether we investigate further to find evidence to help support/verify the information. > > Just my thoughts as a not-so-advanced family historian. > > Nancy M. > > > >> > > I agree, misinformation is worse than no information at all. > > Ann, > in not So Sunny South Fla. at the moment. > -- Mona Houser [email protected] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monajo/

I agree with that. I post obits - when I am down in the dungeon at the library scrounging old newspapers for rellies - I try to take a copy of the whole page of obits if possible. And then I post them on the appropriate site. Not the obit - but the facts - John Doe was born, he married, he died. don't give info on living - just a sentence that more info can be obtained in the complete obit found in The Daily News, February 30, 19XX. Those interested can see the paper, contact me, or someone else in the area to get the whole shebang. What I object to is erroneous information - mother's mother's cousin's second wife who says my grandfather was an alcoholic - and not one of his children ever ever saw him take a drink (is that a closet drinker??) and the researcher who put this on her world connect site isn't even related to this side of my family. She put it under the title of family lore!! And this researcher posted that one of my parents was adopted - which is correct - but she has the wrong parent. These kinds of people are a detriment to good genealogy research! And removes my post it notes. Perhaps I just had a very bad experience - and followed the advice of a poster on one of my mailing lists - never ever ever go to that file - it will just anger you and make you unhappy. I don't - but it is always there for the world to see. But it made me much more considerate and a much better genealogist - I definitely stay away from the National Enquirer type of genealogy. The sun has come out and I must be on my way A great day to everyone! gypsy <<<One other thing to consider, of course, is that *facts* cannot be copyrighted. The format, the layout, and accompanying text can be copyrighted.>>>

Ann wrote: I agree, misinformation is worse than no information at all. On the other hand, misinformation, if researched, may lead to sources and documentation to support "your" individual or family.... When I first began searching for my grandfather's parents and siblings, I learned that one of my 2nd or 3rd cousins had done some genealogy, supposedly having traced his/our line back to Germany, and then coming forward again to?living relatives there.? I contacted him with a few specific questions.? He called me and began sharing information over the phone.? I busily made notes of the things he told me.? I wanted to verify for myself the information he shared.? Based on what he told me, I began to research and?was able to learn that lots of the?information?he shared was not true, based on govt. records and other information.? Those people he visited in Germany who were supposedly family members may not, in actuality, have been descendents of his/our gggrandparents.? His misinformation, for me, was better than no information at all.? It pointed me in a direction to begin?searching.? I'm sure it's not always so.? I think it depends on whether we consider every piece of information that comes our way as fact/truth or whether we investigate further to find evidence to help support/verify the information. Just my thoughts as a not-so-advanced family historian. Nancy M. -----Original Message----- From: Ann Hearin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 8:56 am Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites.... I agree, misinformation is worse than no information at all. Ann, in not So Sunny South Fla. at the moment. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:19:59 -0400 > Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites.... > > Same here. > > I have queries out there - but no where have I submitted my "whole" family > tree - > > I have had bad experiences with people taking my stuff and entering it - and > not entering it correctly. > > I learned of grandchildren I do not have - and learned things about my > grandparents and parents that are not true. All out there on the web for > everyone to see and finding no way to correct it. And as for the validity of > their claims - my father knows where he was born much more so than my > mother's mother's third cousin's second wife! Believe me! > > I have had to ask people to remove information on living people - some do > some don't. > > Am I mean and selfish? Maybe mean - but never selfish - I gladly share - > based on what others share with me. > > But I do not submit to websites - I am not comfortable not knowing where > that info goes and who benefits monetarily from my hard work. > > Just my take on the topic. > > Gypsy in dreary cloudy Michigan > > > << I have never added my information to anything on the web > I have given other people information and they have posted it and a lot of > it is wrong>>> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The USGENWEB provides volunteers with what to me is a?really helpful and fairly?clear overview of copyright law as it relates to genealogical resources at http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.shtml?.? There's also a link there to the US Copyright Office if you want even more info. Read down the entire page.? I think you're fine, but I'd suggest reading it carefully for yourself. Cheryl S.

One other thing to consider, of course, is that *facts* cannot be copyrighted. The format, the layout, and accompanying text can be copyrighted. So the facts that I have gathered and included in either a book or a website, are free to all (at our/their own risk, of course -- we all know we need to check it out for ourselves.) So if we post (or print) data, we really have no right to claim it as belonging only to us. That's what I've had to tell myself when I see my ancestors included in the databases of others on-line. Mona -- Mona Houser [email protected] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monajo/

http://www.castlegarden.org/destinations.html 6678 WISCONSIN

Hi, Can anyone please tell me what the destination number listed in the Castle Garden immigration records stand for? The number I received from my ancestor was 6678. Does this indicate a location where the person intends to settle? Thank you, Mike

I have had the same thing happen when I was first starting my research and learning about genealogy. I uploaded my family tree, mistakes and all, to rootsweb where it morphed into someone else's 'work'!. I wouldn't have minded so much if the guy would have asked my permission - or acknowledged that it wasn't his work, research or even his family! So now, if I feel like it, I'll add a post-it to a bit of incorrect info with the corrected info - and I've never uploaded my work again. You are right, Wal, it is a matter of ETHICS. Elaine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annie & Wal" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites and reels > Hi Guys, (long letter coming) > I'm from Down Under, > Interesting to read your comments re the above. > My wife and I have written two books on our family history (wife's > side).350pp and 500pp. 15 yrs of research. > Every sentences in the books are annotated. Cost a small fortune in > Certs etc. > Initially we had our data on the web inviting others to contact and > contribute. > Alas! Information was taken and put on various sites as that persons > work. Alas! some of the info was wrong as we were still researching. > Alas! data had to be taken off and put into minimum format. > We had no objection initially to place data on net to ensource (new > Word) information. > If people (researchers) acknowledge where they obtain their information, > then I have no qualms. > I periodically troll the net with key words and find who has copied, > (believe it or not from a photocopy of our books). I send these people a > polite (stern disapproval) to remove the data when I ascertain that it > is a direct infringement of MY copyright. > The real problem is how to install ETHICS into these people. > This is a topic which would raise a huge debate. Do we send these people > rude emails (possibly breaking some law) or do we live with it. I say > send emails without the rude bits. > Copying of reels depends on the final use of the information gained. > Again it is the Ethics of the copier which is in essence. > I have copied a full diary of a convict ship to Oz. The transcription > has taken two years..I contacted the Archives to publish a book and have > the O'K which then becomes my copyright. (very difficult to read film, > only available to read, book is not for public viewing). > In all we are really talking about ETHICS and unfortunately many people > have none. > The copying of 10% as O'k is C ontrary R ecording A pproach to P > ussyfooting copyright, this ideal is instilled as a right. Again it is > the ETHICS of the copier which is paramount. > > Publish and be damned, don't publish and be lost, our choice. > > Regard Wal > > > >

Basically, Copyright Law allows you to copy about 10% as "fair usage", when it's being used to support your research, or to review something. Copying anything in its entirety that is still subject to copyright is definitely out. Copyright Law varies from country to country, although there has been efforts to harmonise it internationally. The Law that applies is the Law of the country where the Copyright is held, not where you happen to be when you do your copying. Finally, if you breach copyright, your are stealing another person's income. In family history research terms, this can have a severe impact on the viability of projects to make archival records more readily available for us to use in our research. You can kill the goose that lays the golden egg! One Family History Society in England that undertaken a great of transcription and publishing of old records in booklets and on microfiche, and relied on the income generated from the sales, reported a massive 30% to 40% drop in their revenue as a result of copyright breaches with the advent of the internet and mailing lists. David Armstrong Maylands, Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Bobbie To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] film reels and the info I just joined this group so I may have missed what led to this post. My local Family History Library and my County Library both have computers attached to a microfilm machine. You may save pages to a cd, flash drive, etc. I am assuming that it would not be proper (legal?) to copy the whole film, but if you only copy pages that have your ancestors on them, it should be okay in my opinion. There is no charge for doing this. I do not know where you are as far as what films you are viewing, but I hope this helps you in some way. Bobbie

I agree, misinformation is worse than no information at all. Ann, in not So Sunny South Fla. at the moment. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:19:59 -0400 > Subject: Re: [PRUSSIA-ROOTS] Genealogy sites.... > > Same here. > > I have queries out there - but no where have I submitted my "whole" family > tree - > > I have had bad experiences with people taking my stuff and entering it - and > not entering it correctly. > > I learned of grandchildren I do not have - and learned things about my > grandparents and parents that are not true. All out there on the web for > everyone to see and finding no way to correct it. And as for the validity of > their claims - my father knows where he was born much more so than my > mother's mother's third cousin's second wife! Believe me! > > I have had to ask people to remove information on living people - some do > some don't. > > Am I mean and selfish? Maybe mean - but never selfish - I gladly share - > based on what others share with me. > > But I do not submit to websites - I am not comfortable not knowing where > that info goes and who benefits monetarily from my hard work. > > Just my take on the topic. > > Gypsy in dreary cloudy Michigan > > > << I have never added my information to anything on the web > I have given other people information and they have posted it and a lot of > it is wrong>>> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This same issue came up several months ago. According to the Family History Center in Salt Lake City they do not own the copyrights on the material on the microfilms/fiche. The place where they filmed the material has the copyright, i.e. the church, county or state records office or archives, etc. Making copies of pages from films at a FHC is no different than if you had gone to the actual courthouse and xeroxed a copy of the same document from the actual book. These documents are considered to be in the public domain. I have gone to many a courthouse and either had them make copy of records for me or I copied them myself. Non-govermental materials are different. There you have to get permission to copy the material. At some churches they would xerox a copy of the page for me and at others would only allow me to transcribe the information pertaining to a particular person. The general rule is that you can make a copy as long as it is for your own private use. You can not reproduce a document in a book that you sell or on a web site you may have. To do so you would have to received written permission from the party owing the material, else you are violating the copywrite laws.

Gees- I didn't think I could get this deep into the horse petudies by copying the whole film. OOPS! All I would like to do is give someone a place to look. When I see a surname posted-I look it up in what I've compiled. If it's there-I send them an email and refer to the film. Great hunting everyone.....Carolynn