Automatic catalog unlocking
Many collections relating to vital records are locked waiting for 100 years for births and 75 years for deaths and marriages to pass. There are collections still blocked despite this period having passed. Personally, I am still waiting for the release of the births of 1922 in the province of Bari. Soon those of 1923. I hope that the new catalog will implement the automatic release of catalogs after the legal deadlines.
I imagine this is a problem with many other catalogs. Can anyone ask to familysearch managers for it to be unlocked?
Thanks
Answers
-
we are almost at 2024 but the Bari catalogs relating to the births of 1922 are still blocked despite the fact that 100 years have passed. I imagine this is a problem with many other catalogs. Can anyone ask to familysearch managers for it to be unlocked?
Thanks
0 -
The 100-year limit is not automatic. Availability of records depends on the specific contract between FamilySearch and the record holder.
1 -
In the case I mentioned, i observed 1920 and 1921 births were unlocked between May and June of 2020 and 2021. After theirs 100-year limit. Waiting for 1922.
That they must be authorized year by year by the holder seems absurd to me. However, I hope for an automatic unlock for each collection with a defined block deadline.
0 -
As life expectancy increases, many authorities are extending the limit to protect the privacy of the living. For example, New York City recently increased the limit on access to births to 125 years and deaths to 75 years.
0 -
As a minor point, I would suspect (indeed, I would hope) that the access conditions are held outside the catalogue in a separate "database of access conditions" that would obviously depend on the catalogue(s).
But the main point from @tonybacco is surely sensible - the release dates should be entered into the "database of access conditions" when the stuff is catalogued in the first place, and then release dates should be interrogated on the fly (i.e. on each access). Yes, it is possible that things are altered over the years but contracts work both ways - if NYC agree release dates of 100y after the event for a block of data, then they would need to raise a contract variation to extend the privacy to 125y (or whatever). That variation would then be "obvious" and should be progressed by those controlling the "database of access conditions".
The flaw in my pious hope is that I'm not sure that there is any such "database of access conditions" - I fear that it's simply a stack of spreadsheets. I say this because we have had instances of data being inaccessible for reasons that make no sense - e.g. one lot of 150y old data being visible, another lot of 160y old data not being accessible.
It would be interesting to get a full explanation that has more detail than "It's complicated..."
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 We've never been given any insight into contract conditions. I doubt seriously that will change.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile said:
"We've never been given any insight into contract conditions. I doubt seriously that will change"
Yes indeed - but just to clarify - I'm not expecting to be told what the contract conditions actually are. Rather it's about how those conditions are handled. Is there a database or is it just a stack of spreadsheets and there's a reminder in someone's diary to release films X, Y, Z for general use - except that the someone in question left 6 months ago?
0 -
And I don't think you'll get any of that. Ever. Even the websites where we have paid subscriptions don't share that kind of information.
0 -
"... Even the websites where we have paid subscriptions don't share that kind of information. ..."
Perhaps - the obvious example that springs to my mind is the 1939 Register on FindMyPast where FMP have (admittedly fairly loosely) explained that they will periodically (the "period" is not defined 😉) open / unredact those entries that have previously been redacted - either 100y have passed since the subjects' birth or death certificates or their equivalents have been provided.
I'm also fairly certain that I've seen in various Record Office Catalogues, the legend "Closed until 2030" or whatever. That makes it clear.
Maybe I'm being unfair and I'm not comparing like with like. But I've seen too many issues like the OP's point about 1922 records to have total confidence in FS's processes and procedures.
0 -
There seems to be an assumption that FamilySearch already has all these images just waiting to be released and only needs to flip the switch on X date. That MAY be true, in some cases, but not always. For example, the Irish Roman Catholic registers were filmed in the 1980s. At that time, the Church would only allow filming through 1880, for the protection of privacy for the living (100-year rule). Unfortunately, there has been no further filming of those registers, so there's nothing there to be released in that series. Yes, other entities have filmed some later Irish RC registers, but those are behind a paywall.
2 -
Good point @Áine Ní Donnghaile - we do need to distinguish those cases. In the case of the Bari registrations highlighted by the OP, the 1922 and 1923 films are in the Catalogue. Don't remember if the Catalogue contains anything beyond those dates for Bari so the first two years are a permission setting job, I think. At some point after, the films of images on FS run out so it's a different job of work entirely.
1
