Folks, you are free to disagree with another's opinion(s) on this list. Courteous disagreement equals intelligent discussion of the issues, and may (or may not) result in the changing of opinions. However,you are not allowed to denigrate the opinions held by others, or apply disparaging labels to either the opinions or the people who hold them. Be polite -- and watch the adjectives! Pat Asher List Admin
I think copyright is still a civil matter. It would be up to the newspaper to complain. Copying newspaper articles is pretty routine. Especially death notices and obituaries, and reports about crime. I wouldn't worry about it. Hard to say if it was them holier than thou trumpeters complaining, or if it was relatives upset that you'd include the negative information. Actually knowing about relatives and ancestors who got into trouble, overdosed, and committed suicide is valuable information; it can be how someone puts together a family pattern of mental health issues, which are strongly genetic. I have mild and vague bipolar disorder that wasn't diagnosed for 20 years because the family history was concealed from me, and the things that should have given it away were concealed all around. I'm pretty much a fire breather when it comes to making that information public. Anyone who needs information pertinent to family mental health history should be able to readily find it, regardless of whether relatives are willing to directly share it. We need to drop the medieval attitudes about mental health issues in this society while we're at it. Don't even start with holier than thouing at me about it. Just drop the attitudes. Now, I know people are going to harrumph, and, just so you know, I'm going to ignore you. Miscarriages are another matter. Some of the more correct among us, some of the same people harrumphing about copyright issues, include ALL births in their genealogical data. Just sigh and ignore it. There are those who will battle about anything; probably my favorite is people screaming that actual e-mail shows up in their mailboxes, and when they subscribe to mailing lists, not every post that comes to their mailbox directly interests them, but since they are very proper people I guess they feel they have to read it, or something. I get a thousand e-mails a day and some days I read three of them. Today, most women don't share a pregnancy until it shows, people. No bump, no news, no foul! Not even if you're the Dutchess of Cambridge. Dora -----Original Message----- From: Wjhonson via Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:39 PM To: cageycat@gmail.com ; rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? Well not hurting the living is different from whether a person *can legally* post the information (without the threat of losing a lawsuit against them). -----Original Message----- From: JFlorian via <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> To: LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? As a related topic, some people objected when I posted newspaper articles about conviction/jail time for someone convicted of a crime. The offender was long dead. I posted them, citing "public" -- AND the articles had NO info about the offender's family/descendants. In a more personal context, in my extended family, a 2nd husband committed murder-suicide. They had 1 son, who came home from school at age 8 and found his mom and step-dad's bodies. Though the "8 yr old" was now in his 70s, I omitted the boy's name altogether and just said the mother was murdered. The current 3 living generations will know the story. I didn't feel it appropriate to reopen pain for that man. In another...my family... a cousin's family had a 19 month old. The baby drowned in the family pool. It destroyed the family--the parents divorced, blaming each other. I simply put the baby's death date, the parent's marr and divorce dates, but nothing of what happened. No need to rehurt people. Women who have miscarriages or SIDS also are painful subjects. My sister wanted her 8 mo old fetus stillborn listed, because they named the baby for the funeral. A cousin who went thru a SIDS death wanted me to tell her son's story.... another cousin with the same experience wanted me to omit her baby's birth even! In many ways, "it depends" is often the only real answer. I try to not rehurt the living. Judy ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-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 ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Copyright is a very controversial subject, people. I know there are a lot of holier than thou people out there who, God knows why they're even doing family history research, since they are too holy to believe in ever actually sharing or using information. And they love to thunder like the Voice of God at the Judgement Day. Laws, and ethics, and whatever else they can come up with to thunder about. I feel strongly that noone owns family history, and my web sites explicitly say my information is public domain. So there. There is not one way to feel about using other peoples' information or how to use it. So noone needs to be acting holier than thou. There is more than one way to interpret copyright law, as well. Did the trumpeters here even know that while stories can arguably be copyrighted (depending on the story and on how it's repeated), genealogical facts cannot be copyrighted. They're public information. Doesn't matter who published what that contains them. Are people due credit? Yes - in theory, but under some circumstances, including self defense, one might not bother. If Jane Smith might sue me if I use information I got from her web site, I'm certainly going to use the web site, but I might not wave a red blanket in front of the bull by saying where I got it! So much for holier than thou trumpeting. If you want respect you're JUST going to have to give it. Dora -----Original Message----- From: JFlorian via Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:54 AM To: Wjhonson Cc: PastTracker ; LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Subject: [Bulk] Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] ROOTSWEB-HELP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3--Issues abt. copyright Will, I was responding to a totally different perspective, that of common sense and boundaries. You seem more concerned about whether someone can sue a poster (which wasn't what PastTracker posted about at all). Being sued also isn't my concern. Genealogy is a hobby that respects people's lives enough to stop and document those lives. If we don't extend and uphold that respect to include common sense boundaries about appropriateness, we shouldn't be doing the hobby. And as to suing, a litigant can't get blood from a turnip. Lawyers don't pursue cases where the "defendant" has an empty wallet. But, again, an empty wallet doesn't mean we shouldn't have ethics about how we handle info about a person's life, no matter how suit-proof we think we are. Judy ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Will, I was responding to a totally different perspective, that of common sense and boundaries. You seem more concerned about whether someone can sue a poster (which wasn't what PastTracker posted about at all). Being sued also isn't my concern. Genealogy is a hobby that respects people's lives enough to stop and document those lives. If we don't extend and uphold that respect to include common sense boundaries about appropriateness, we shouldn't be doing the hobby. And as to suing, a litigant can't get blood from a turnip. Lawyers don't pursue cases where the "defendant" has an empty wallet. But, again, an empty wallet doesn't mean we shouldn't have ethics about how we handle info about a person's life, no matter how suit-proof we think we are. Judy
PastTracker, Thank you for posting about another way that family can feel hurt and privacy invaded. How can an outsider post a "memorial" when they have nothing to remember or memorialize? Isn't that specifically for family? I lost my sister in 2003 and one "outsider" did something similar except instead of a memorial, she posted details and attacks on my sister arising from a personal issue she had with my sister. Their argument occurred when the woman tried to 'seduce' my sister's husband; obviously, my sister reacted to this invasion into her family. Imagine my shock when I found my sis's obit posted by this woman, who wrote lies and attacked my deceased sister! By the way... within 6 months after my sister died, this woman showed up at my sister's house, drunk, and when my bro-in-law answered the door, found this person *nude* on his porch. Judy
In Missouri all of the death certificates are online that cover, 1910--1963, this year we will work on 1964 and they will go up. I think as "searchers" we should use some common sense when doing some things. I lost my oldest sister a few years ago and after a few weeks I was on FAG and someone who did not know my sister or any of the family had put up a memorial for her, her obit. etc. on the day she was buried. I was so hurt and mad that she did that but I find several in my own neighborhood who do not work, but they can copy every name and date from the cemetery book and put up a memorial and add the obit asap when we lose a neighbor. I find that tacky, I sure don't know 55,000 people and even if I knew a 10th that many I would not remember their names. Sometimes we don't like the rules but copyright has to be remembered and maybe slap a hand once in awhile. lol Kay--I'll shut up now Wednesday, January 7, 2015, 10:58:48 PM, you wrote: > Yes, the information may have come from the newspapers.. Those > are open to the public. If it was > information from the death certificate then it would only be > information if the state law didn't have > the death records closed. In Oregon you can get a copy of the > death certificate from the State Archives > after 50 years > (I think it is 50). > -----Original Message----- > From: rootsweb-help-request <rootsweb-help-request@rootsweb.com> > To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 3:17 pm > Subject: ROOTSWEB-HELP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 > Today's Topics: > 1. Public files?? (Barbraseb@wmconnect.com) > 2. Re: Public files?? (Wjhonson) > 3. Re: Public files?? (JFlorian) > 4. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) > 5. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) > 6. Re: Public files?? (Peter and Connie Bradish) > 7. Re: Public files?? (Wjhonson) > 8. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:47:22 -0500 > From: Barbraseb@wmconnect.com > Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <198f6.1a3c13d1.41df0369@wmconnect.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records > is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a > column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to > genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on > the > tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is > just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others > might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to > remove it. > Thanks for any advice. > </HTML> > ------------------------------ > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:01:58 -0500 > From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: Barbraseb@wmconnect.com, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <8D1F8DCB1237F2F-12F0-940C6@webmail-vm059.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > When a person dies, they lose any privacy rights they may have had. > Full Stop. > No one can sue over disclosures you make on behalf of a dead person. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barbraseb via <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 1:47 pm > Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records > is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a > column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to > genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on > the > tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is > just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others > might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to > remove it. > Thanks for any advice. > </HTML> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > > ------------------------------ > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:36:11 -0500 > From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, "LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com" > <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > > <CAE5hz-BZf5p8D1PnVRJ0VxLSHVrZB27pdnKTNdCnr8mVfU31uA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has > "rights" to their privacy, regardless. > However, is the person objecting to: > 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" > ---or--- > 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? > If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates > #2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an > issue. > If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? > My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // shouldn't > have this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often offer an > explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please everyone. IF > someone has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, especially > through offering them the space on my website to clarify or add info > . > Judy > ------------------------------ > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:37:22 -0500 > From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <377813.47942.bm@smtp117.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > At 05:01 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >>No one can sue over disclosures you make on behalf of a dead person. > Wanna bet? > Your dismissal of the concerns of the poster are premature. > Pat Asher > ------------------------------ > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:38:18 -0500 > From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <839426.87084.bm@smtp116.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > At 04:47 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >>Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records >>is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a >>column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to >>genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which >>is not on the >>tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is >>just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others >>might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to >>remove it. > The information on the tombstone is obviously public. There are very > few instances where it would not be. > A column/section of your website listing info "pertinent to genealogy > research" may or may not contain public domain information to which > you have the right to publish. We would need a specific example to > venture an opinion. > Pat Asher > ------------------------------ > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:38:20 -0500 > From: Peter and Connie Bradish <bradish@attglobal.net> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Cc: Peter Bradish <bradish.p@gmail.com> > Message-ID: <54ADB55C.70703@attglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > From what I have read if the information is public record, you can post > it. Public would be for something like a death certificate, obituary in > a newspaper, funeral death cards. I would also think that information > given to you from a family member (like in a letter or photos) would > also be OK. > Iffy would be medical records from hospitals or doctors. > What exactly is this person objecting to? Everything except the picture > of the tombstone? > She ought to look at Find a Grave. There is a great deal of information > (obits. photos) on some individuals other than just the tombstone. Or > Ancestry public trees which are full of information. > I am interested as I am in the process of posting some cemetery data to > our local genealogy site. I had planned to add obits, etc to each > tombstone picture. > Connie Bradish > On 1/7/2015 4:47 PM, Barbraseb via wrote: >> Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records >> is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a >> column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to >> genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on > the >> tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is >> just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others >> might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to >> remove it. >> Thanks for any advice. >> </HTML> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > ------------------------------ > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:02:15 -0500 > From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: cageycat@gmail.com, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <8D1F8E51D54CB58-12F0-94A0C@webmail-vm059.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. > Privacy vests solely in individuals > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>; LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > Cc: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com> > Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 2:36 pm > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has "rights" > to their privacy, regardless. > However, is the person objecting to: > 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" > ---or--- > 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? > If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates #2. I > have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an issue. > If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? > My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // shouldn't have > this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often offer an > explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please everyone. IF someone > has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, especially through offering > them the space on my website to clarify or add info > . > Judy > ------------------------------ > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:11:42 -0500 > From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <263584.1640.bm@smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > At 06:02 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >>A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. >>Privacy vests solely in individuals > Not correct. For example, see Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977. > Pat A. > ------------------------------ > To contact the ROOTSWEB-HELP list administrator, send an email to > ROOTSWEB-HELP-admin@rootsweb.com. > To post a message to the ROOTSWEB-HELP mailing list, send an email to > ROOTSWEB-HELP@rootsweb.com. > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the > email with no additional text. > End of ROOTSWEB-HELP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 > ******************************************** > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Best regards, PastTracker mailto:pasttracker@windstream.net --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Yes, the information may have come from the newspapers.. Those are open to the public. If it was information from the death certificate then it would only be information if the state law didn't have the death records closed. In Oregon you can get a copy of the death certificate from the State Archives after 50 years (I think it is 50). -----Original Message----- From: rootsweb-help-request <rootsweb-help-request@rootsweb.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 3:17 pm Subject: ROOTSWEB-HELP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 Today's Topics: 1. Public files?? (Barbraseb@wmconnect.com) 2. Re: Public files?? (Wjhonson) 3. Re: Public files?? (JFlorian) 4. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) 5. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) 6. Re: Public files?? (Peter and Connie Bradish) 7. Re: Public files?? (Wjhonson) 8. Re: Public files?? (Pat Asher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:47:22 -0500 From: Barbraseb@wmconnect.com Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <198f6.1a3c13d1.41df0369@wmconnect.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on the tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to remove it. Thanks for any advice. </HTML> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:01:58 -0500 From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: Barbraseb@wmconnect.com, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <8D1F8DCB1237F2F-12F0-940C6@webmail-vm059.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" When a person dies, they lose any privacy rights they may have had. Full Stop. No one can sue over disclosures you make on behalf of a dead person. -----Original Message----- From: Barbraseb via <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> To: rootsweb-help <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 1:47 pm Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on the tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to remove it. Thanks for any advice. </HTML> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:36:11 -0500 From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, "LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com" <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CAE5hz-BZf5p8D1PnVRJ0VxLSHVrZB27pdnKTNdCnr8mVfU31uA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has "rights" to their privacy, regardless. However, is the person objecting to: 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" ---or--- 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates #2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an issue. If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // shouldn't have this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often offer an explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please everyone. IF someone has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, especially through offering them the space on my website to clarify or add info . Judy ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:37:22 -0500 From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <377813.47942.bm@smtp117.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:01 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >No one can sue over disclosures you make on behalf of a dead person. Wanna bet? Your dismissal of the concerns of the poster are premature. Pat Asher ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:38:18 -0500 From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <839426.87084.bm@smtp116.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:47 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records >is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a >column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to >genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which >is not on the >tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is >just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others >might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to >remove it. The information on the tombstone is obviously public. There are very few instances where it would not be. A column/section of your website listing info "pertinent to genealogy research" may or may not contain public domain information to which you have the right to publish. We would need a specific example to venture an opinion. Pat Asher ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:38:20 -0500 From: Peter and Connie Bradish <bradish@attglobal.net> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Cc: Peter Bradish <bradish.p@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54ADB55C.70703@attglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed From what I have read if the information is public record, you can post it. Public would be for something like a death certificate, obituary in a newspaper, funeral death cards. I would also think that information given to you from a family member (like in a letter or photos) would also be OK. Iffy would be medical records from hospitals or doctors. What exactly is this person objecting to? Everything except the picture of the tombstone? She ought to look at Find a Grave. There is a great deal of information (obits. photos) on some individuals other than just the tombstone. Or Ancestry public trees which are full of information. I am interested as I am in the process of posting some cemetery data to our local genealogy site. I had planned to add obits, etc to each tombstone picture. Connie Bradish On 1/7/2015 4:47 PM, Barbraseb via wrote: > Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records > is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a > column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to > genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on the > tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is > just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others > might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to > remove it. > > Thanks for any advice. > </HTML> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:02:15 -0500 From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: cageycat@gmail.com, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <8D1F8E51D54CB58-12F0-94A0C@webmail-vm059.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. Privacy vests solely in individuals -----Original Message----- From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>; LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Cc: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has "rights" to their privacy, regardless. However, is the person objecting to: 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" ---or--- 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates #2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an issue. If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // shouldn't have this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often offer an explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please everyone. IF someone has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, especially through offering them the space on my website to clarify or add info . Judy ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:11:42 -0500 From: Pat Asher <pjroots@att.net> Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <263584.1640.bm@smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 06:02 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. >Privacy vests solely in individuals Not correct. For example, see Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977. Pat A. ------------------------------ To contact the ROOTSWEB-HELP list administrator, send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the ROOTSWEB-HELP mailing list, send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of ROOTSWEB-HELP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 ********************************************
Sorry I didn't make it clearer. All it said was that both husband and wife drowned in the Philippines. I do not know where the info came from because it was sent by the person who did the survey of the cemetery, but he loves doing genealogy research and is very thorough. Apparently. his source was incorrect or he made a mistake. It did not mention any circumstances or decendents. The daughter of the deceased said they died in Guam. I changed it, but she does not want anything that is not on the tombstone mentioned. I do not believe this simple statement hurts anyone. I have ignored any further objections. </HTML>
The publisher, e.g. newspaper, holds official rights. A family member can share etc, but there's a huge difference between that and making a large collection of obits of unrelated people, like we do as webmasters. Just to clarify, I have permission from the owners of my county's newspaper to repost any item from just before 1800 up through 2003. In part, they gave this permission because Google got a hold of a large chunk of years so they are already on the net. All you need to do is contact the paper and ask... many do give permission on certain dates. They also see it as bits of advertising for them... every time I list the source, giving the np's name. My comments, however, were about a "family's" privacy, as individuals (living), and hurtful content. What we use should never hurt anyone, and I believe I should err on the side of caution if someone is living. I don't post birthdate, for example, if alive. One submitter sent me SS numbers for even living people... I removed them. On the other hand, I'm also saying sometimes with "the public" we need to clearly state our boundaries. If we know our "rules" and can clearly give a reason for what we do online, most people accept it. I cannot please everyone, though. Judy
In this area an obituary is written by a family member. Who else has the information? The publication of the obituary is paid for by the family. I would think obits are the property of the family of the deceased. Catharine -----Original Message----- From: wigenwebcc via Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 6:37 PM To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] {ROOTSWEB-HELP} Public files?? > > > From what I have read if the information is public record, you can post > it. Public would be for something like a death certificate, obituary in > a newspaper, funeral death cards. I would also think that information > given to you from a family member (like in a letter or photos) would > also be OK. > Iffy would be medical records from hospitals or doctors. > What exactly is this person objecting to? Everything except the picture > of the tombstone? > She ought to look at Find a Grave. There is a great deal of information > (obits. photos) on some individuals other than just the tombstone. Or > Ancestry public trees which are full of information. > I am interested as I am in the process of posting some cemetery data to > our local genealogy site. I had planned to add obits, etc to each > tombstone picture. > Connie Bradish I was told by my local newspaper that obituaries are not public record. They are written by newspaper staff and as such, if they will be used as written, then you need to have *written* permission from the paper to do so. Hope this helps! wigenwebcc > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
At 05:36 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has >"rights" to their privacy, regardless. > >However, is the person objecting to: >1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" >---or--- >2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? > > >If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates >#2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an >issue. Judy, while I agree with you that public information is public, families may have valid reasons to request restrictions to that information, whether #1 or #2. I also agree with you that we, as genealogists interested in making information freely available, should not cave to every request for removal. We need to listen and evaluate, which is what we should always do as serious researchers. Not every family story is "pretty," but sometimes it needs to be told. OTOH, the telling just for the sake of telling is not always necessary or even helpful. Pat A.
Wjhonson wrote: > Not sure if you areagreeing with me or disagreeing with me. > This ruling holds for legal entities (corporations) and does not apply > to "families" > > > Not sure where the distinction about 'families' came into it. However, open records are open records, and posting info from same is more a matter of propriety rather than legal issue. Dead people don't lose all rights regarding their info. One place to read about it: http://people.howstuffworks.com/lose-right-to-privacy-when-you-die1.htm We are delving into a complicated subject and the example first referred to has not been established. I doubt it is of any significance. If it was me, I'd leave it were it was and wait for some kind of lawsuit before doing anything. Unless there is a direct copyright question also involved. One note about obituaries. Most of them are copyrighted and the property of the original publisher. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of any real pursuit of lawsuits to recover damages or prevent republication on genealogy sites. They are, in fact. rampant. Jeff Owens
Well not hurting the living is different from whether a person *can legally* post the information (without the threat of losing a lawsuit against them). -----Original Message----- From: JFlorian via <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> To: LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? As a related topic, some people objected when I posted newspaper articles about conviction/jail time for someone convicted of a crime. The offender was long dead. I posted them, citing "public" -- AND the articles had NO info about the offender's family/descendants. In a more personal context, in my extended family, a 2nd husband committed murder-suicide. They had 1 son, who came home from school at age 8 and found his mom and step-dad's bodies. Though the "8 yr old" was now in his 70s, I omitted the boy's name altogether and just said the mother was murdered. The current 3 living generations will know the story. I didn't feel it appropriate to reopen pain for that man. In another...my family... a cousin's family had a 19 month old. The baby drowned in the family pool. It destroyed the family--the parents divorced, blaming each other. I simply put the baby's death date, the parent's marr and divorce dates, but nothing of what happened. No need to rehurt people. Women who have miscarriages or SIDS also are painful subjects. My sister wanted her 8 mo old fetus stillborn listed, because they named the baby for the funeral. A cousin who went thru a SIDS death wanted me to tell her son's story.... another cousin with the same experience wanted me to omit her baby's birth even! In many ways, "it depends" is often the only real answer. I try to not rehurt the living. Judy ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> > > From what I have read if the information is public record, you can post > it. Public would be for something like a death certificate, obituary in > a newspaper, funeral death cards. I would also think that information > given to you from a family member (like in a letter or photos) would > also be OK. > Iffy would be medical records from hospitals or doctors. > What exactly is this person objecting to? Everything except the picture > of the tombstone? > She ought to look at Find a Grave. There is a great deal of information > (obits. photos) on some individuals other than just the tombstone. Or > Ancestry public trees which are full of information. > I am interested as I am in the process of posting some cemetery data to > our local genealogy site. I had planned to add obits, etc to each > tombstone picture. > Connie Bradish I was told by my local newspaper that obituaries are not public record. They are written by newspaper staff and as such, if they will be used as written, then you need to have *written* permission from the paper to do so. Hope this helps! wigenwebcc >
As a related topic, some people objected when I posted newspaper articles about conviction/jail time for someone convicted of a crime. The offender was long dead. I posted them, citing "public" -- AND the articles had NO info about the offender's family/descendants. In a more personal context, in my extended family, a 2nd husband committed murder-suicide. They had 1 son, who came home from school at age 8 and found his mom and step-dad's bodies. Though the "8 yr old" was now in his 70s, I omitted the boy's name altogether and just said the mother was murdered. The current 3 living generations will know the story. I didn't feel it appropriate to reopen pain for that man. In another...my family... a cousin's family had a 19 month old. The baby drowned in the family pool. It destroyed the family--the parents divorced, blaming each other. I simply put the baby's death date, the parent's marr and divorce dates, but nothing of what happened. No need to rehurt people. Women who have miscarriages or SIDS also are painful subjects. My sister wanted her 8 mo old fetus stillborn listed, because they named the baby for the funeral. A cousin who went thru a SIDS death wanted me to tell her son's story.... another cousin with the same experience wanted me to omit her baby's birth even! In many ways, "it depends" is often the only real answer. I try to not rehurt the living. Judy
Wjhonson via wrote: > A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. > Privacy vests solely in individuals > > > *Since when does a legal entity have privacy rights? * By Kristen J. Mathews <http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/kristen-mathews/> on September 30th, 2009 Posted in FOIA <http://privacylaw.proskauer.com/articles/foia/> Since the Third Circuit said so, in its September 22, 2009 decision in AT&T v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 084024) <http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084024p.pdf>. Most privacy practitioners would not consider a legal entity to have privacy rights. Rather, a legal entity may have trade secrets or contractual confidentiality protections. However, in its novel holding, the Third Circuit found that a corporation (AT&T) was protected by an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552.html> that applies to unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Specifically, FOIA exempts records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of /personal /privacy (emphasis added). This exemption, combined with FOIAs definition of person to include legal entities, enabled AT&T to successfully argue that a corporation has a right to privacy. (After all, the court said, it would be very odd indeed for an adjectival form of a defined term not to refer back to that defined term.) As a result, AT&Ts competitors have not been able to obtain information about an FCC investigation of AT&T regarding AT&Ts alleged overcharging of some of its customers. Whether this ruling will be followed in other FOIA cases, or used to expand the concept of privacy rights under other statutes, remains to be seen. For now, when submitting information to regulators in connection with investigations, companies should consider submitting such information as confidential, since doing so could help the company to later challenge attempts by competitors or other third parties to obtain such information from the regulator under FOIA.
Yes, Family has rights over their OWN information. For example, lets's say in a cemetery I find John Doughdoe born ca.1882 died Jan 6 1949 I find his wife, Mary, buried in another cemetery, so I link the info on 2 pages. But then, I go on to post info I found about John and Mary's kids, grandkids, great-grandkids. Every one of them have rights to not have their names and dates posted. For example, let's say John Jr, son, was born in 1931. Jr the son had a John and a Mary, both still living, with 9 kids between the brother and sister. Plus, Mary raised 2 foster kids who she later legally adopted when they were teens. I find info on 3 of the 9 kids plus info on one foster/adopted child. Just because their ancestors, John and Mary ____ Doughdoe have tombstone info, their living descendants still have rights to their OWN privacy. Obits get even trickier... the obit IS public info. But IF I knew a minor child was listed in a RECENT obit, I'd omit the MINOR child's info unless the family said ok. Judy On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. > Privacy vests solely in individuals > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> > To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>; LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com < > rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> > Cc: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com> > Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 2:36 pm > Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? > > I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has > "rights" to their privacy, regardless. > > However, is the person objecting to: > 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" > ---or--- > 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? > > > If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates > #2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an > issue. > > If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? > > My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // > shouldn't have this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often > offer an explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please > everyone. IF someone has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, > especially through offering them the space on my website to clarify or add > info > . > Judy > > -- -- WASHINGTON COUNTY PA WEBSITES::: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~florian/ http://freepages.school-alumni.rootsweb.com/~florian/the-rockdoctor/ Coordinator of the Washington County PAGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/
At 06:02 PM 1/7/2015, you wrote: >A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. >Privacy vests solely in individuals Not correct. For example, see Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977. Pat A.
A "family" has no privacy rights whatsoever. Privacy vests solely in individuals -----Original Message----- From: JFlorian <cageycat@gmail.com> To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>; LIST: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> Cc: Barbraseb <Barbraseb@wmconnect.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] Public files?? I don't know that rights die with a person. But the family still has "rights" to their privacy, regardless. However, is the person objecting to: 1. extra information that may -- or may not-- violate "rights" ---or--- 2. is she objecting to mixing tombstone data with other info?? If you clearly separate "tombstone info" from "other info", that negates #2. I have an "other info" column on Cemetery data. It shouldn't be an issue. If she's objecting under #1, what is her precise objection? My opinion: People can be demanding--- both ways: you should // shouldn't have this info! After hearing out their complaint, I most often offer an explanation, then ignore the hoopla. We will never please everyone. IF someone has a legit reason, I try to work it out with them, especially through offering them the space on my website to clarify or add info . Judy
From what I have read if the information is public record, you can post it. Public would be for something like a death certificate, obituary in a newspaper, funeral death cards. I would also think that information given to you from a family member (like in a letter or photos) would also be OK. Iffy would be medical records from hospitals or doctors. What exactly is this person objecting to? Everything except the picture of the tombstone? She ought to look at Find a Grave. There is a great deal of information (obits. photos) on some individuals other than just the tombstone. Or Ancestry public trees which are full of information. I am interested as I am in the process of posting some cemetery data to our local genealogy site. I had planned to add obits, etc to each tombstone picture. Connie Bradish On 1/7/2015 4:47 PM, Barbraseb via wrote: > Is it not true that birth/death records and any info given in those records > is open to the public? I have cemetery surveys on my websites and I have a > column for each listing in which I list available info pertinent to > genealogy research. I now have someone objecting to any info which is not on the > tombstone. The info has been on the website for years and apparently she is > just now discovering it. Since (I think) this is public info and others > might be benefiting from that genealogy info, I do not feel I am obligated to > remove it. > > Thanks for any advice. > </HTML> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSWEB-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >