Adding documents to Family Search
I have come across one of my Scottish ancestors recently and noted that there are no images available for births and marriages. I obtained these documents years ago from Scotland's People and would add them to Family Search if I knew how. Please advise.
Thanks, Jim Main
Answers
-
Yes, you can do it. Before doing so, I would suggest you read this thread regarding uploading purchased images to FamilySearch. https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/142170/document-images-in-memories
The instructions for uploading images to the Family Tree: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-upload-photos-or-documents-to-memories
0 -
Here is a link to the Copyright page of the ScotlandsPeople website. Am I understanding the position correctly in believing one is allowed to add up to 20 (purchased) images to another website (e.g. FamilySearch) without having to gain permission? (See Restricted Use section.)
0 -
Caveat - I am not a lawyer, solicitor, or barrister - but that's how I would interpret it.
0 -
@Paul W - I am also not a Lawyer. (IAANAL)
However, while I would agree with your initial reading, I would suggest that there is an issue with the text:
"Individuals and organisations can use up to a maximum of 20 (twenty) NRS Crown copyright images ... online use limited to a maximum of 20 images per website"
I believe that I can put up to 20 such images on my own blog - however, the restriction doesn't say "per user per website" but just "per website". If I were an evilly minded lawyer (IANAL) I would interpret that as "[FamilySearch] can use up to a maximum of 20 (twenty) NRS Crown copyright images ... online use limited to a maximum of 20 images per website".
You pays your money [lots of it!] and you takes your choice....
1 -
Yes, there is usually another interpretation to most statements! (Thank you, Adrian!)
In terms of England and Wales, the position doesn't seem too clear in the GRO terms & conditions, but elsewhere on the web there have been comments about a more relaxed attitude from the GRO - it appears they're quite happy to let us post images of their BMD certificates on Family Tree.
1 -
Yes, I am completely aware that separate jurisdictions are involved in this example. However, your initial response was not to the specific example of Scottish records. You made a generalised statement that, as I have shown, does not apply universally - in that various copyright holders are quite agreeable to allowing their material to be uploaded to Family Tree or other websites.
I agree with @Adrian Bruce1 there is some ambiguity in the terms of conditions of ScotlandsPeople, but if there is a real issue they have the opportunity to clarify the situation from what (to me) was an apparent agreement that individuals could go ahead and add a limited amount of its material to websites.
On the issue of FamilySearch terms & conditions being the obstacle, I have looked at their articles on the subject and concluded that again there should be no problem, as long as permission has been granted.
See https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-know-if-something-is-copyrighted and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/legal/familysearch-trees-submission-agreement?lang=eng. Also, https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/online-does-not-equal-free-copyright-issues-for-genealogy-part-one and https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/online-does-not-equal-free-copyright-issues-for-genealogy-part-2.
In summary, my comments about the GRO for England & Wales position were merely meant to be illustrative of the fact that (whatever the specific circumstances relating to the Scottish government agency) there seems nothing to back up your suggestion:
The copyright holder will not grant permission for the upload. Uploading them is almost certainly not fair use and it certainly isn't fair dealing. Uploading them is also against the FSFT terms of service.
It is clear certain copyright holders are willing to grant permission and "not fair use" might not be applicable if a Family Tree user uploaded just a few documents. It appears such uploading should not be against FSFT terms of service if full permission has been granted to the person wishing to add the material.
2 -
General topic comment/Idea: As yet there is no Family Tree Source element nor industry standard to attach permissioned use authorized signatures/stamp from the record owners/custodians. If such were an element and were either - always included or dependent upon database restriction optionally included (not all collections would need such an element) - such Source permissioned use could be included and reduce worry of any users. Specifically - posting restricted Sources to FamilySearch/Family Tree Memories should contain such permission if required.
To my extremely limited international legal knowledge - such permission could be obtained directly upon visit (by oneself/agent) to an archive or through similar internet communication processes. What I believe is legal - is to extract/document genealogical data (i.e. text of Source Notes - up to a transcription) from a Source - and include a citation to the Source/archive/collection. I believe generally such extraction of genealogical data is considered fair use.
In other words - you may not legally be able to include the image - but the extracted text/genealogical data/conclusions should be allowable. Your transcription/conclusions of a record I don't believe are restrictable - though you should give citations to records supporting such. Thus in my opinion - one of the first things that should be done while attaching potentially limited use collection images in Family Tree - attach a transcription of the record in Source Notes - if allowed (generally it should be fair use with the citation).
0
