Too restrictive?

I was visiting with a friend who was frustrated by his familysearch memories being rejected when he felt that those memories were important to the history of his family. He felt that even though his memories are available to the "public" that the people viewing his memories would be his family and posterity. One of his rejected memories was a newspaper article regarding the death of one of his ancestors who was "shot in the chest by a shotgun blast". Too graphic? — but it's an important part of his family history. Another rejected memory was a photo of his own father standing with other soldiers around a downed Nazi aircraft. Certainly a photo that tells a story, but he can't share it on familysearch. I don't blame him for his frustration. It would be nice if everyone's family history was completely Polly-Ann-ish, but real life isn't always uplifting and pretty. Does anyone else agree that perhaps FS is a bit over-protective?
Answers
-
Yes, there are restrictions for photos. When a photo is restricted, the person who uploaded the photo is sent an email. When photos are first loaded, they are scanned by computer. If someone feels that the photos should be allowed, then they should reply to the email, as instructed in the email, giving pertinent information about the photo. The photo will then be reviewed by a person. Many times, the photos are accepted after the human review. If not accepted, an explanation will be given. I would recommend if your didn't reply to the email, he should.
3 -
The newspaper article may be a copyright concern, depending on date etc., maybe consider adding it as an URL instead (perhaps archiving with archive.org or whatever first, so it has the best chance of remaining available). (And, again depending on dates, either item may possibly have privacy concerns.)
1 -
Please remember FamilySearch is viewed worldwide, so the feelings of others have to be considered. Whilst the plane in question might have a Nazi symbol attached, the crew were very possibly not Nazis, just ordinary young Germans acting on the orders of their government, in the same way as those in the Allied forces were generally conscripted rather than volunteers. Otherwise, FamilySearch appears to have these rules in order to respect the views of many of its patrons who do not wish to see events associated with deaths (especially violent ones) displayed on this website.
2 -
@Paul W @John Raymond Cox @MandyShaw1 @Wayland K Adams
I just wanted to send a THANK YOU out to all individuals on this discussion…"Restricted Photos" is an important question that many users wonder about. And the answers were insightful and helpful. Many thanks again for helping our Community!
1 -
FamilySearch should implement a warning/consent feature instead of deleting important historical images. Many of the images on here are no longer preserved elsewhere.
0 -
@mayimagpie Family Search does have the warning consent feature. When a photo is marked as restricted an email is sent to the person who posted the photo telling them the photo is restricted and will be removed in 30 days. During the 30 days, the person should respond to the email for further clarification and review.
1 -
No data store should ever be assumed by its users to be permanent. Libraries burn down, websites go bust, databases get corrupted or hacked, organisations decide they can no longer justify maintaining something, users lose access to their accounts for one reason or another. People need to keep local copies of their materials. FT lets you share things more widely and give them structure, which is great, but it's not a replacement for your own archive.
1 -
I toally agree that everyone should have their own backup of their family data.
That being said - the whole point of FS memories is an archive that will still be here when you and I are dead and gone. something that will still be here for generations to come.
The organization that is FamilySearch has been around for more than 100 year - I expect it to be around for the next 100 years and more. FamilySearch has a long term vision and with data redundancy and backup with long term preservation in mind.0 -
Understood @Dennis J Yancey, but if FS doesn't want a particular image in its store it will always be entitled to remove it, whether immediately or some time later.
0 -
For two weeks I receive the kind of warning email. Its leads to a 404 error. Two times a day.
Of course I reply and the restriction is always removed. The reply, always the same seems automatical.
My memories are all jpegs of old handwriten officials acts in french. I am a bit fed up. What can i do to stop the bot ?
0 -
can you point us at a past example that has now been cleared?
does the item have what could be interpreted as a "water mark"? that is one thing that flags the system
0 -
I have never been cleared, the european FShelp center always told me that the warning was a mistake.
But you are right anyway
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/GRJW-N9M These three ones where resricted by the bot in error according to the help center.
0