Digitized film restricted to FamilySearch staff only
I traveled to the FamilySearch library specifically to look at a restricted film. It does have a DGS number, but the catalog record clearly shows the 35mm film icon, meaning it is restricted. The microfilm was missing from the cabinet. Staff at the library were actively removing films from the drawers. One staff member indicated the film had been uploaded to Images. She logged into her account and brought the film up with the DGS number. When I logged into my account and repeated the search, the film could not be found. I suspect the digitized films are only available to FamilySearch staff.
This is incredibly frustrating, not to mention the expense of travel to look at a restricted film and not be able to do it. Even more frustrating, this film was an index with no risk of privacy because of the span of years. I know there are contractual obligations, but since the films are actively being removed from the library, there has to be some kind of option to look at them.
General Index to estates, 1820-1929 (Lauderdale County, Alabama)
Film DGS 7736933
Nearly ALL the films for Lauderdale County are restricted and my fear is that no one will be able to look at them once the microfilms are completely removed.
Answers
-
Before physically removing the films, perhaps the staff should view their general availability by using a public account, rather than their Church one. Except, maybe they believe the restriction applied to the public on viewing a digital image applies to the public viewing the 35mm version held at the Library, too.
0 -
This article may be useful: https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/microfilm-microfiche-and-CDs
From the FAQs in that article:
What if I can’t view the film digitally at the Library?
Certain films have limited access, such as being required to have a FamilySearch account and/or be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you meet the requirements but still can’t view the film, look for a physical copy in the Library’s cabinets. If the physical copy is not available, unfortunately we can no longer order a copy from the FamilySearch Archives. You will need to wait until digital access is made available in the future.
Lauderdale County AL has their own site for access to probate records. The contract between them and FS may contain restrictions because of Lauderdale's own site, with a fee structure.
3 -
Yes, I know about the restrictions and I've read the article linked. This situation seems more problematic then a well, shrug of the shoulders, so sad too bad kind of thing. Incredibly irresponsible of FamilySearch to lose or pull a microfilm and cut off access from a form of the record that IS allowed by the current contract. (They should also not sign a contract with such severe limitations for historic state government records in which the government can't legally claim copyright or restrict in the first place. It's great the films were filmed, but pointless if they can't be viewed).
My only option at this point is to travel to Florence or hire a genealogist in the area to look at the films for the county. Neither option is feasible considering I need to look at all of them.
0 -
Oh, and if anyone happens to come across this, the link to probate records above is for Lauderdale County, Mississippi. My query is for Lauderdale County, Alabama which does not have an archive with online access.
0 -
Firstly I need to say that I have the utmost sympathy for @melanes and anyone else who is trying and failing to access data for similar reasons. Researchers should not need to raise calls to check the availability of stuff at their destination. We have computers, why does FS not use them? Even if the information is not on public display, it should be available in a staff only system as a minimum. That's what catalogues and configuration management systems are there for. FS staff should be able to produce the precise contractual details on request, not take refuge in woolly phrases like "Contractual restrictions..."
Having said that, re
"... government can't legally claim copyright or restrict in the first place. ..."
While I am not familiar with the precise contractual situation in the US, I would suggest that this is not a matter of the archive claiming copyright. They hold the originals, they are entrusted with their care and that means, if the situation is anything like the UK, they have total control over who they grant access to, and under what conditions. This isn't a copyright issue, it's a contractual one. Freedom of Information will grant individuals access to individual records but that doesn't apply to organisations who want to publish the full registers. FS have no option about signing contracts with severe restrictions - if they don't sign, they won't get any access.
5 -
A very basic problem, apart from contractual issues, is that there are two catalogs, but unless you have been following happenings on the website you would never know.
The main, but "out of date" catalog appears under Search at the top of the website. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS CATALOG HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR YEARS.
There is another catalog for the FamilySearch Library. The only way I know how to locate it is to go to the bottom of the FamilySearch website, click on Site Map, click on Salt Lake City FamilySearch Library (which is under the heading Locations which to me suggests it is about geographical details), then click on Collections, then click on Search our Catalogs. Finally at the end of all that you come to a page which explains about the two catalogs
How is a casual visitor to the website supposed to know this?
How difficult would it be to put this link and a short explanation at the top of the main Catalog which you are directed to under Search on the Home pagePerhaps @melanes you could could write to the FamilySearch Library (using the emails in ) pointing out that you made a useless trip because you were unaware there was a second catalog (Your microfilm of interest does not appear to be listed at all in the second catalog) Perhaps the Library would take more note of someone who has been grossly inconvenienced by not knowing there was a second catalog.
2 -
"They hold the originals, they are entrusted with their care and that means, if the situation is anything like the UK, they have total control over who they grant access to, and under what conditions. This isn't a copyright issue, it's a contractual one. Freedom of Information will grant individuals access to individual records but that doesn't apply to organisations who want to publish the full registers."
Generally speaking, a US government entity can't exert copyright over government records, nor restrict access except for privacy issues related to living people in specific instances. The repository can assess reasonable fees associated with access, but the fees can't be excessive or abusive to the point of deterring people (a point of litigation in many instances). The records in question are for an index of historic wills and probates in which privacy is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for decades. That's not to say US government entities still try to find ways to restrict access by asserting such things or restrict as part of a money-making scheme. FamilySearch still signs the contract even though the restrictions are not necessarily legal in the US. Such contracts make access so difficult, there is no point in having digitized the records in the first place. Certainly the situation in this case. Digitization of government records, including full registers, does not assert a new copyright (also a point of contention). Nonetheless, FamilySearch does not push back nor renegotiate these contracts over time, at least they have never made it known. So my original assertion is still valid in that these records should never have been restricted in this way in the first place.
As to the two catalogs… I'm not sure the second catalog has been officially launched. It is accessible and I have looked at it, but it is obviously not being promoted. And yes, it is frustrating to have spent the time and expense to look at a restricted film at the one of two places in the world to look at it and not be able to look at it.
0 -
As expressed earlier, I feel the matter is not being helped by FamilySearch staff withdrawing physical copies of (16mm / 35mm) films, providing there are still readers available at their establishments, of course. You have not offered proof that the film in question had been removed by staff: they appear to have been doing so generally on the misunderstanding that researchers were freely able to view digitised copies of the material online. However, I believe FamilySearch does have a general policy of removing microfilms from its establishments - which is hindering access to restricted material, of course. I can understand the problems with continuing maintenance of microfilm readers, but surely the films should be available at the main FamilySearch Library (and other FS establishments) as long as they do have working readers.
(Incidentally, I don't know the situation in the U.S., but libraries and record repositories in the U.K. - including my local Affiliate - continue with their provision of microfilmed material, in spite of the reported problems with maintaining / repairing the readers.)
0 -
"You have not offered proof that the
film in questionhad been removed by staff"I'm not sure of your point. The film was not in the drawer, whether removed by staff or someone else doesn't matter. The solution was to look at the film in question in Images. A staff member demonstrated finding the film in question while logged in with their username. I was not able to under my login. While this was going on, staff were ACTIVELY removing films from the drawers using a list. The staff member said they were removing these films because they had been digitized and that they would be available under Images. They were removing films from the drawers that I needed to access for the film in question. I had a list of films to look at that were marked as restricted by FamilySearch, meaning the only way to look at the films was in person at the FamilySearch library. There seems to be a conflict between microfilm access and similar access under Images. The standard reply is "the contract" but it appears existing access is being removed before new access is being renegotiated. Until new access is granted to the digitized form, the physical access to the films should remain.
The FamilySearch library in SLC has new microfilm readers that connect to computers. Repair of these devices is not currently a problem.
0 -
I have not seen any indication that Community posts are read by staff from the FamilySearch Library, or that relevant Community posts are passed on by Community moderators to the FamilySearch Library. I believe that the only way for your valid complaints to reach the FamilySearch Library is to email the Library yourself.
I also believe that what you were told at the Library, that you would be able to access the films through the category Images is incorrect, as to date the only films which are accessible through Images are films which would otherwise be available on home computers. The category Images has never contained films which had a viewing restriction to them.
0 -
I'll have to differ with that last comment since I regularly access restricted images at my AL or FSC through or
1 -
That's interesting @Áine Ní Donnghaile. How did you know to try that? Has there been a blog or something similar that sets out that change?
In any event, it cannot be something that is generally available, as the original poster was not able to access the records she was interested in, even though she/he was at the FamilyHistory Library, (assuming she/he was signed into the FamilySearch portal).
0 -
I often work with unindexed restricted records at the FSC or AL. It seemed reasonable to try the Images portal to access them.
"Generally available" depends on the access level assigned to the DGS.1
