Does FamilySearch hold the rights of publication relating to IGI records?
It has been noticed recently that certain IGI records cannot be found in a search from FamilySearch public accounts. Likewise, inputting certain batch numbers often produces a "No Results" outcome.
Is anyone able to confirm whether outside bodies have rights in determining how FamilySearch makes this material available online? That is, is FamilySearch still subject to the same restrictions in publishing (some or all of) its IGI records as applies to its other collections?
Answers
-
We have discovered that some of the links in the IGI collection are not working. This issue has been reported to the Engineers and they are working on it.
We are sorry for the inconvenience this causes, and hope this issue will be resolved soon.
Best wishes!
0 -
To my knowledge IGI (International Genealogical Index) was exclusively created/built by 'FamilySearch'. Therefore I don't think there are any other entities having publication rights - so there shouldn't be any restriction on FamilySearch publication? There might be changes by FamilySearch in the index due to interactions with other entities (commercial or private) - but no I don't have access to any FamilySearch internal information concerning IGI - all that I know is public: https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/5
The wiki (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/International_Genealogical_Index_(IGI)_-_FamilySearch_Historical_Records) does interestingly state:
Image Visibility
Whenever possible FamilySearch makes images and indexes available for all users. However, rights to view these data are limited by contract and subject to change. Because of this there may be limitations on where and how images and indexes are available or who can see them. Please be aware some collections consist only of partial information indexed from the records and do not contain any images. For additional information about image restrictions see Restrictions for Viewing Images in FamilySearch Historical Record Collections.
So I don't know exactly what this means - perhaps the portion of indexed records has some contractual stipulations attached? I don't know but apparently likely. I especially wouldn't know how it might relate to collections indexed subsequent to IGI (same collections just indexed different times?).
Additionally if you currently 'Browse all collections' and sort by 'Last Updated' you will see IGI as the latest updated... interesting ... perhaps this suggests a 'troubleshooting' step for users to take (check the latest collections updated to see if it reflects a change in whatever 'problem' they are experiencing). At least this could indicate whether Familysearch 'maintenance' is the cause...
This relates to a previous Suggested Idea - to let users know when 'maintenance' on collections is being done. If all maintenance is done during posted maintenance times (I see a banner notification usually during the late evening informing of maintenance) then there should not be an issue during non-maintenance times (excepting platform/server issues?) - but if maintenance is ongoing in the background - without notification (it appears this occurs too but I haven't had any reply on Suggested idea) - how are users to know if the issue is maintenance-based or server-based? FamilySearch can do as they wish - but transparency might help inform users on some issues ... I guess it just depends on where priorities are - if they are constantly 'fighting fires' then I doubt they will get to some issues ...
0 -
That exact same boilerplate appears on nearly every FS wiki page, so I don't think it really says anything about the IGI in particular -- but I will note that the second I in IGI stands for index, i.e. FS's rights are not to the originating images, but to the index entries based on them.
(Makes one wonder: is misindexing considered a creative endeavor? Does FS have extra-special rights to all of the errors in the IGI?)
0 -
I think yes - FamilySearch's rights to their indexes would be fairly 'exclusive'. That's why the quandary with this thread ... What is being changed in the old IGI - or what is being removed from view (or the view of some)? Mod cjtoblers response seems to just indicate problems in linkages ... My response was to address Paul W's questions that were not addressed ...
0
