If it is a USGenWeb site, Rootsweb will issue a new password to a new coordinator once it has been determined that the site is abandoned, or if they communicate directly with the owner of record and that person says they no longer want the site. I have had to remove a couple Town Coordinators that I had appointed. Rootsweb wouldn't honor the hierarchy of the USGenWeb. What it came down to was that the old coordinator could keep the site, if they so desired. Then, Rootsweb would only set up a new town site. At that point, the only thing that could be done was to require the old coordinator to remove the USGenWeb logo as they were then in violation of copyright. Even at this, it was unlikely anything would be done if they didn't remove it. USGenWeb simply doesn't have the funds or legal actions such as copyright infringement. You may notice a problem here. The old site, being well established, is in the various search engines. Setting up a new site requires getting a lot of other sites to change links and to somehow get the new URL into the search engines at least as high as the old site. I have not seen anything on what is going on but have heard that USGenWeb and Rootsweb are in negotiations. I'm sure a fair amount of this has to do with Ancestry.com slapping their banners on almost everything. They certainly ruined my personal site, which I PAID for. I believe some of the negotiation may be about the need to honor the structure of the USGenWeb. I hope some of it is. As for Freepages and the personal sites, I think the only way would be to write Rootsweb using the deceased's e-mail of record telling Rootsweb to remove the site. John In loving memory of our son, Brennan. 11/10/88-5/31/01. http://john-slaughter.rootsweb.com/Brennan.html MA-Bay-Colony list moderator USGenWeb County Coordinator Essex County, MA - http://www.rootsweb.com/~maessex Middlesex County, MA - http://www.rootsweb.com/~mamiddle USGenWeb Town Coordinator Ipswich, Essex, MA - http://www.rootsweb.com/~macipswi > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] What happen's when a webmaster dies? > From: "Anderson" <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, December 17, 2007 4:33 pm > To: <[email protected]> > Recently, a friend who had a website passed away and his family is trying to manage many things, including taking down the website as they have no interest. This makes me think about our Rootsweb sites......what happens if a webmaster dies? Would the family notify Rootsweb and have them take the site down, or would they find someone else to take it over??? > If there is a policy on this, I haven't been able to find any reference to it on the Rootsweb site. > Any ideas? > Sharon > > ------------------------------- > 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

Oops sorry on both counts! Thanks for the advice Marie. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] List not responding Marie- Are you asking about *THIS* list or another one? I ask because this list is for assistance for RootsWeb webmasters--it isn't an all-purpose Help list. That said--have you written for help to the admin of the list you need help with? Try contacting the admin by writing to: [email protected] replacing the generic word LISTNAME with the actual name of the list. Good luck! Joan ------------- I've sent two messages to a list and re-subscribed to the list but I get no reply and my messages don't make it to the archives for that list. I received a posting to that list as late as the 16th. Marie. **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ------------------------------- 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

Recently, a friend who had a website passed away and his family is trying to manage many things, including taking down the website as they have no interest. This makes me think about our Rootsweb sites......what happens if a webmaster dies? Would the family notify Rootsweb and have them take the site down, or would they find someone else to take it over??? If there is a policy on this, I haven't been able to find any reference to it on the Rootsweb site. Any ideas? Sharon

Marie- Are you asking about *THIS* list or another one? I ask because this list is for assistance for RootsWeb webmasters--it isn't an all-purpose Help list. That said--have you written for help to the admin of the list you need help with? Try contacting the admin by writing to: [email protected] replacing the generic word LISTNAME with the actual name of the list. Good luck! Joan ------------- I've sent two messages to a list and re-subscribed to the list but I get no reply and my messages don't make it to the archives for that list. I received a posting to that list as late as the 16th. Marie. **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

I've sent two messages to a list and re-subscribed to the list but I get no reply and my messages don't make it to the archives for that list. I received a posting to that list as late as the 16th. Marie.

Mess with CSS - don't know if anyone has posted this before, but this site has a box where you can experiment with CSS and see how it will look. http://www.tizag.com/cssT/cssid.php

You can use password central to have the info sent to you. If you are sure you have the right info already, have you thought about maybe it's blocked by your firewall or popup blocker? I think the last time I visited the Guestbook editor, my Norton was blocking access. I had to add www.rootsweb.com to my "trusted sites" inside Norton -- then I could access the GB editor. Judy On 12/15/07, Shari Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I need to delete an entry in our guestbook. However, our account > information (email address, password) is not accepted. I'm not sure if > the problem is the email address, the password, neither or both. The > information I entered, by copy & paste, was sent to me in June, 2006, > by RootsWeb when I tried to clean up our guestbook and had the same > problem. As well as our current email address, I've tried the email > address we used to register several years ago and the only other address > we ever had besides the current one. I sent a message to HelpDesk on > Dec. 7, but have had no reply. Whom do I contact to retrieve our > information for accessing our guestbook editing? > > Shari @ BHS >

I need to delete an entry in our guestbook. However, our account information (email address, password) is not accepted. I'm not sure if the problem is the email address, the password, neither or both. The information I entered, by copy & paste, was sent to me in June, 2006, by RootsWeb when I tried to clean up our guestbook and had the same problem. As well as our current email address, I've tried the email address we used to register several years ago and the only other address we ever had besides the current one. I sent a message to HelpDesk on Dec. 7, but have had no reply. Whom do I contact to retrieve our information for accessing our guestbook editing? Shari @ BHS

Sheila Hanna wrote: ><snip> It does bother me to know that, 100 years >from now, no one will know that this child existed unless they know >precisely where to look for him. Nevertheless, all we can do is the >right thing in the present > > <snip> I guess this can be said to be a prime factor in genealogical research and data recording. However, as we know there are many other ways to find someone beyond an internet posting. A picture on a web site might not have any meaning, or even existence 100 years from now. One can hope that the other forms of data recording and maintenance will be the core of, and satisfy the future genealogist's focus. There will still be, hopefully, death records, cemetery records, etc. to make finding someone who died in the 1990's a whole lot easier than one who died in 1790, or even 1890. Jeff Owens P.S. Also, another consideration: All persons should be aware that once something is posted on a web site, and then removed that it doesn't necessarily 'fade into oblivion'. Check out the, "Wayback Machine" at www.archive.org (I just checked for one of my personal web sites, and there are 22 different iterations dating back to 1999.) Maybe the old caveat, "Never put it in writing" needs a thought before one posts anything anywhere.

Thank you Derick and Pat for your helpful and supportive comments and advice. For those who are interested, the woman who made the request sent me some additional info. Among the details she shared were the fact that she believed the hospital was to blame for her son's death and the fact that, even ten years later, she still visits his grave daily. Given the extraordinary circumstances and despite the fact that both I and the Society are certain that we were within our legal rights to post the photos, I removed the photo and the child's name from our website immediately after receiving the new info. Once I explained the situation to the Society, they agreed that this was the right choice. While I did receive a lot of information explaining why the posting of the photos was legal, I think this was a situation where the need for compassion was stronger than the needs of the genealogical community to have access to such info. It does bother me to know that, 100 years from now, no one will know that this child existed unless they know precisely where to look for him. Nevertheless, all we can do is the right thing in the present and I do feel that we've done that. Hopefully, we've all learned one or two things from this experience. Happy holidays to all! Sheila

At 10:19 AM 12/12/2007, Sheila wrote: >I was just wondering >if anyone had encountered this issue before and whether anyone knew the >answer to the question of legality as any precedent in this area might make >us (and other sites as well, I should think) reconsider posting such photos >entirely. > >Sheila Sheila, I believe the general state of the law is that privacy can not be claimed for anything disclosed in a public record or place. Some time ago, I wrote an article about the subject, with input from a certified genealogist who is also an attorney. http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/privacy/ The article is directed specifically to those who claim their names are private, but I believe the same principles of law would apply to tombstones in a public cemetery. The gravesite and the tombstone belong to the person or persons who purchased them; but by choosing to erect a tombstone in full view of the public, there is no trespass involved in the taking of the photograph, and the stone can be freely photographed. Saying such a photograph is an invasion of privacy is akin to claiming privacy for the information published in a newspaper obituary, regardless of whether the circulation reaches 500 or 500,000 people. Personally, I would respect the emotional pain that prompted the request for removal, but I do think many folks have totally unrealistic ideas about what constitutes "privacy". And I must also add the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer so neither the opinions in this message or the article constitute legal advice. Pat

If I may share a story about children who died long before their due time, I'd like to share a brief story about how I have taught my granddaughter about the finality of death and the legacy we leave behind with grave stone inscriptions. My granddaughter has always been a thoughtful person but I never realized how much until she accompanied me while I was surveying a cemetery and she helped me record the grave stone inscriptions. I had my camera and wanted to take a picture of her beside the gravestone that she felt had the most meaning to her. Her story is at: http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/touching.htm --Derick

Dr. Robert Stesky wrote: > Cheryl, > > >>Lately, I've been seeing an awful lot of sites with a >>"customized" doflicky in the URL box before the URL. >> >>Anyone know how to do that? Could RW put up one of our green >>and purple trees on their sites, or the USGenWeb logo on those? > > > In your index.html page, add the line: > > <link rel="shortcut icon" href="xxxx.ico"> > > between the <head> and </head> statements, where xxxx.ico is the name of a 16x16 > pixel icon file. In this case, the icon file is in the same directory as the > index.html file. If it isn't, add the appropriate subdirectory name. > > Here's a link to one of many pages that explains the procedure: > http://www.davesite.com/webstation/html/favicon.shtml. > > Cheers, > Bob GREAT!! Thanks, Bob, and others who replied privately or were answered privately. Cheryl -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.

just google url icon for instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favicon was the word I tried to remember Hugh W On 12/12/2007, singhals <[email protected]> wrote: > Lately, I've been seeing an awful lot of sites with a > "customized" doflicky in the URL box before the URL. > > Anyone know how to do that? Could RW put up one of our > green and purple trees on their sites, or the USGenWeb logo > on those? > > Cheryl > > > -- > There should be no attachments on this message, unless I > specifically mentioned them above. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks main blog GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Sheila, I agree with Judy, mostly. I generally do not post information of any kind beyond 1900 without expressed permission. I'm sure prior information might affect someone but the chances are less likely. But, for example, a published book has been placed in the "locked" section of our library because a descendant objected to the fact that their great - whatever was illigatimate. Solution for you if the mother in question will not agree to have the picture on the web site - edit the photo. Either cut the stone out completely or use a "clone" function to obliterate the name and dates. Kathy -- Kathy Summers 112 Carriage Walk Lane Hendersonville, NC 28791 888-423-2246 828-692-3602 [email protected] www.ksummers.com ---------------------- Original Message: --------------------- From: "Judy Florian" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Headstone photos on website Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:04:46 +0000 > Hi Sheila, > > It's not that it's illegal---actually, to me, the question of legality is > far from the real issue. Much of what we do as genealogists is not > illegal----but we do risk unintentionally hurting people. > > For the woman, it is much more likely a "privacy" issue and simply, that the > death of her child is still extremely painful. Quite understandable. It > also may feel to her like you have put "him" on the site. > > And IF (I say IF) there were any other "issues" at the time of pregnancy, > birth, or at the death of a child, that whole time in a woman's life can be > so confusing, painful, maybe even shameful etc. Maybe the "dates" show that > a pregnancy was before a marriage--still an issue for many people. Maybe > she got married and never told her husband of the baby? Maybe the death > occurred as an accident which ended up splitting the family apart? For > example, in my family, a toddler drowned in the family pool. Each parent > slipped into blaming the other for not watching the baby better--- the death > caused the parents to divorce because neither parent could handle the grief > together. In another family of mine, the couple had 3 sons over time.... > each died of SIDS before age 2 yrs (God I can't imagine that pain and > horror.) They also could not deal with each other's profound grief and > later divorced--- just seeing each other reminded them of the boys who died. > > None of us know the CURRENT lives we either touch or interfere with by > putting someone else's family and life story ON the Internet. Plus, there > are millions of people who still don't like how the Internet can so > powerfully enter private areas of a person's life. > > If it was my site, I'd respond compassionately to her. I would GENTLY > SUGGEST to her that keeping the photo on the website would be like a > memorial to her son and that I as a webmaster would be honored if she > allowed me to leave his monument's photo there. BUT I would state also that > I never want to hurt any living family members just to do genealogy, and so, > I'd be willing to remove the photo if she still wants that. I'd say > something also about "Would it be okay with you if I leave just his name in > that spot, in memory of him?" (It wouldn't be hard to insert his name in > the table/cell where the photo is now.) I'd carefully and honestly write > from your heart about WHY you do this work (to honor the families of others; > to celebrate the lives of deceased persons), and that you take your "work" > very seriously--that you never want others to feel your work exploits > anyone, or hurts anyone. All you can do is try to connect with her, one > woman to another, one mother to another... explain your work... offer her > choices... and then, respect and honor what she wants you to do. > > Is it really worth hurting someone just because you believe genealogy gives > researchers a legal "right" to post anything on anyone? No, I don't think > genealogists have any "legal rights" when it comes to causing other people > pain. My grandma used to say "Just the facts, Ma'am--- but don't focus so > much on 'facts' that you're willing to HURT someone in that family." I > learn a lot of family "secrets" in my searches-- but that doesn't mean I > have to publish them all because they are "facts." > > Webmasters should remember --- IF a researcher REALLY wants to find info, > that person CAN contact the cemetery themselves. Losing a photo or many > gravestone photos is just fine--- especially if leaving those on the Web > HURT a relative. It's not our right to decide WHY it hurts the family, or > whether the family SHOULD feel hurt or offended. As "guardians" of other > people's lives and genealogy, we must respect the LIVING. Her son's > monument will be there for future researchers to find-- it is not imperative > to be in a collection on the Internet---especially when it causes the Mother > unneeded pain. > > Judy Florian > > > On 12/12/07, Sheila Hanna <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In the "just when you think you've heard everything" category, I just > > received an e-mail from someone who is apparently quite upset that the > > website that I manage for a genealogical society has a photo of her son's > > headstone (along with hundreds of other headstone photos). She wants it > > removed immediately. The stone in question is for a little boy who lived > > only one day and who passed in 1997. > > > > I just received her e-mail this morning and haven't yet mentioned it to > > the > > genealogical society. While I'm fairly certain that they'll just have me > > remove that one photo to avoid any potential hassles with this woman, I'm > > wondering if anyone else has ever encountered this problem. It seems to > > me > > that a headstone would be fair game for photos and I can't imagine any > > precedent or law that would make photographing and posting a headstone > > image > > on a website illegal. In theory, if she'd wanted to avoid anyone knowing > > where her son was buried or any of the details that appear on the stone, > > this mom wouldn't have put a big engraved rock in a public place to > > commemorate him. Since the cemetery is open to the public, she would have > > to expect that others would see the headstone. > > > > Has anyone encountered this question before? Does anyone know whether > > such > > a complaint would have any legal standing? > > > > Sheila > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

In Denmark there is a 10 year closure on deaths as public data obviously take the image down for now and make a tactful apology Hugh W On 12/12/2007, Susie Barkley <[email protected]> wrote: > Well said, Judy > > On Dec 12, 2007 8:03 AM, Judy Florian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Sheila, > > > > It's not that it's illegal---actually, to me, the question of legality is > > far from the real issue. Much of what we do as genealogists is not > > illegal----but we do risk unintentionally hurting people. > > > > For the woman, it is much more likely a "privacy" issue and simply, that > > the > > death of her child is still extremely painful. Quite understandable. It > > also may feel to her like you have put "him" on the site. > > > > And IF (I say IF) there were any other "issues" at the time of pregnancy, > > birth, or at the death of a child, that whole time in a woman's life can > > be > > so confusing, painful, maybe even shameful etc. Maybe the "dates" show > > that > > a pregnancy was before a marriage--still an issue for many people. Maybe > > she got married and never told her husband of the baby? Maybe the death > > occurred as an accident which ended up splitting the family apart? For > > example, in my family, a toddler drowned in the family pool. Each parent > > slipped into blaming the other for not watching the baby better--- the > > death > > caused the parents to divorce because neither parent could handle the > > grief > > together. In another family of mine, the couple had 3 sons over time.... > > each died of SIDS before age 2 yrs (God I can't imagine that pain and > > horror.) They also could not deal with each other's profound grief and > > later divorced--- just seeing each other reminded them of the boys who > > died. > > > > None of us know the CURRENT lives we either touch or interfere with by > > putting someone else's family and life story ON the Internet. Plus, there > > are millions of people who still don't like how the Internet can so > > powerfully enter private areas of a person's life. > > > > If it was my site, I'd respond compassionately to her. I would GENTLY > > SUGGEST to her that keeping the photo on the website would be like a > > memorial to her son and that I as a webmaster would be honored if she > > allowed me to leave his monument's photo there. BUT I would state also > > that > > I never want to hurt any living family members just to do genealogy, and > > so, > > I'd be willing to remove the photo if she still wants that. I'd say > > something also about "Would it be okay with you if I leave just his name > > in > > that spot, in memory of him?" (It wouldn't be hard to insert his name in > > the table/cell where the photo is now.) I'd carefully and honestly write > > from your heart about WHY you do this work (to honor the families of > > others; > > to celebrate the lives of deceased persons), and that you take your "work" > > very seriously--that you never want others to feel your work exploits > > anyone, or hurts anyone. All you can do is try to connect with her, one > > woman to another, one mother to another... explain your work... offer her > > choices... and then, respect and honor what she wants you to do. > > > > Is it really worth hurting someone just because you believe genealogy > > gives > > researchers a legal "right" to post anything on anyone? No, I don't think > > genealogists have any "legal rights" when it comes to causing other people > > pain. My grandma used to say "Just the facts, Ma'am--- but don't focus so > > much on 'facts' that you're willing to HURT someone in that family." I > > learn a lot of family "secrets" in my searches-- but that doesn't mean I > > have to publish them all because they are "facts." > > > > Webmasters should remember --- IF a researcher REALLY wants to find info, > > that person CAN contact the cemetery themselves. Losing a photo or many > > gravestone photos is just fine--- especially if leaving those on the Web > > HURT a relative. It's not our right to decide WHY it hurts the family, or > > whether the family SHOULD feel hurt or offended. As "guardians" of other > > people's lives and genealogy, we must respect the LIVING. Her son's > > monument will be there for future researchers to find-- it is not > > imperative > > to be in a collection on the Internet---especially when it causes the > > Mother > > unneeded pain. > > > > Judy Florian > > > > > > On 12/12/07, Sheila Hanna <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In the "just when you think you've heard everything" category, I just > > > received an e-mail from someone who is apparently quite upset that the > > > website that I manage for a genealogical society has a photo of her > > son's > > > headstone (along with hundreds of other headstone photos). She wants it > > > removed immediately. The stone in question is for a little boy who > > lived > > > only one day and who passed in 1997. > > > > > > I just received her e-mail this morning and haven't yet mentioned it to > > > the > > > genealogical society. While I'm fairly certain that they'll just have > > me > > > remove that one photo to avoid any potential hassles with this woman, > > I'm > > > wondering if anyone else has ever encountered this problem. It seems to > > > me > > > that a headstone would be fair game for photos and I can't imagine any > > > precedent or law that would make photographing and posting a headstone > > > image > > > on a website illegal. In theory, if she'd wanted to avoid anyone > > knowing > > > where her son was buried or any of the details that appear on the stone, > > > this mom wouldn't have put a big engraved rock in a public place to > > > commemorate him. Since the cemetery is open to the public, she would > > have > > > to expect that others would see the headstone. > > > > > > Has anyone encountered this question before? Does anyone know whether > > > such > > > a complaint would have any legal standing? > > > > > > Sheila > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks main blog GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Thanks to all for the well-thought-out responses. I have forwarded the woman's e-mail on to the Society whose website I manage and the final decision will be theirs. I did send the woman a personal response, apologizing for upsetting her, albeit unintentionally, and explaining why so many genealogical websites include headstone images and/or info and the valuable info they can provide to historians and genealogists. Of course, I also pointed that, as a mom myself, I understand the grief that seeing the image might have brought upon her and pointed out that again, as a mom, I think it would make me feel good to know that someone was telling the whole world that my son did exist and made a difference in the lives of his family. Since I don't know what her response will be, I did also explain, as delicately as I could, the public nature of headstones and the info they contain. I am expecting that this will be irrelevant as the Society whose site I manage will probably just have me take the photo down. That would be my choice as well, unless the woman reconsiders based on the insights I offered in my response to her. Ethically and morally, I completely agree with the vast majority of the comments you all made. I was just wondering if anyone had encountered this issue before and whether anyone knew the answer to the question of legality as any precedent in this area might make us (and other sites as well, I should think) reconsider posting such photos entirely. Sheila

Cheryl, > Lately, I've been seeing an awful lot of sites with a > "customized" doflicky in the URL box before the URL. > > Anyone know how to do that? Could RW put up one of our green > and purple trees on their sites, or the USGenWeb logo on those? In your index.html page, add the line: <link rel="shortcut icon" href="xxxx.ico"> between the <head> and </head> statements, where xxxx.ico is the name of a 16x16 pixel icon file. In this case, the icon file is in the same directory as the index.html file. If it isn't, add the appropriate subdirectory name. Here's a link to one of many pages that explains the procedure: http://www.davesite.com/webstation/html/favicon.shtml. Cheers, Bob Bob Stesky Newsletter Editor and Webmaster History Matters Brockville & District Historical Society www.rootsweb.com/~onbdhs

At 09:42 AM 12/12/2007, singhals wrote: >Lately, I've been seeing an awful lot of sites with a >"customized" doflicky in the URL box before the URL. > >Anyone know how to do that? Could RW put up one of our >green and purple trees on their sites, or the USGenWeb logo >on those? ========= http://www.genealogy-computer-tips.com/favicon/ It's called a favicon. pat

The logic of the bereaved is impossible to understand in many instances. The best way to handle this situation is to simply comply with the request to remove the posting. (As should be done in any circumstance for genealogical data involving the individual requesting same about personal data, or immediate family -- it isn't about freedom of speech, or the already public nature of what may be requested, it's just a matter of courtesy.) I have seen requests to remove name and address info that is in the local phone book, or found elsewhere on the internet, so trying to understand any logic of why someone may feel that privacy, or other feelings, are comprimised can't be known. In this instance, the information or image of the stone is certainly inconsequential to the scheme of genalogical knowledge anyway. JMHO, Jeff Owens Sheila Hanna wrote: >In the "just when you think you've heard everything" category, I just >received an e-mail from someone who is apparently quite upset that the >website that I manage for a genealogical society has a photo of her son's >headstone (along with hundreds of other headstone photos). She wants it >removed immediately. The stone in question is for a little boy who lived >only one day and who passed in 1997. > >I just received her e-mail this morning and haven't yet mentioned it to the >genealogical society. While I'm fairly certain that they'll just have me >remove that one photo to avoid any potential hassles with this woman, I'm >wondering if anyone else has ever encountered this problem. It seems to me >that a headstone would be fair game for photos and I can't imagine any >precedent or law that would make photographing and posting a headstone image >on a website illegal. In theory, if she'd wanted to avoid anyone knowing >where her son was buried or any of the details that appear on the stone, >this mom wouldn't have put a big engraved rock in a public place to >commemorate him. Since the cemetery is open to the public, she would have >to expect that others would see the headstone. > >Has anyone encountered this question before? Does anyone know whether such >a complaint would have any legal standing? > >Sheila > > > >------------------------------- >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 > > > > >