Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries. Programming bug, FS decision or external Archive directi

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I wrote in another thread on July 16, 2018 14.41, which for convenience I will copy here in part

“I believe that viewing conditions have become more restrictive recently, in that at least some digitised microfilms which could previously be viewed at an Affiliate Library, in addition to a Family History Centre, cannot now be viewed at Affiliate Libraries I think this is quite a recent happening, which I only became aware of when I looked up some records just now.

I am interested in India in the days of the British Raj. Many of the microfilms, and hence digitised microfilms, are copies of records from the British Library in London. These records have a camera icon, with a key above.

Up until very recently, for non LDS members they were viewable at either a FamIly History Centre, or an Affiliate Library. Now for non LDS members the message indicates they are only accessible at a Family History Centre. What is the rationale for taking away access from an Affiliate Library?

An example of such records is "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948"
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
The sample records within this series I looked at said
"To view these images you must do one of the following:
• Sign in to Familysearch.org as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Access the site at a family history center". “
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

I have done some further catalogue research which reveal inconsistencies.

Some records originating from the British Library continue to be accessible at Affiliate Libraries. The group of records from the British Library which cannot be accessed at an Affiliate Library are all church records, however some other church records from the British Library can be accessed at Affiliate Libraries.

In fact I found some church records which were in two parts, an Index to the records, and the actual records. The Index could only be viewed at a Family History Centre, but the records could be viewed at an Affiliate Library.
St. Helena baptisms, marriages, and burials, 1767-1835
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
Macao baptisms, marriages and burials, 1820-1833 ; Whampoa burials, 1820-1824
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
Fort Marlbro baptisms, marriages and burials, 1760-1825
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
Prince of Wales Island baptisms, marriages and burials, 1805-1829
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

In other threads on this Forum, it is generally stated that access conditions are set by the owner of the records.
I cannot believe that the British Library would impose access conditions that differed between an Index to a group of records, and the records themselves.

I would also be surprised if the British Library made a distinction between church records and other types of records.

Most, but not all, of the records which cannot be viewed at affiliate Libraries have been indexed, and after the indexing, images became available on Findmypast (subject to privacy restrictions). However the church records which continue to be available at Affiliate Libraries have also been indexed, and images are available on Findmypast. (I cannot see a pattern here).

This leads me to believe that the decision to withdraw access for some records from Affiliate Libraries is either a CONSCIOUS FAMILYSEARCH DECISION, OR A PROGRAMMING BUG.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Baptisms, marriages, burials v.1-3 1767-1835 must be viewed by both members and non-members at a Family History Center. I just checked and cannot view the records at home and I'm a member.

I have run into this before, not only with FamilySearch materials, but also Ancestry materials, where LDS membership doesn't have any meaning for certain records. You need to use the Ancestry Institution or have a paid membership in Ancestry to access those records.

I just checked and all of the films impacted include St. Helena, Macao, Fort Marlbro, and Prince of Wales Island. They can only be accessed at a FHC (or, according to the note, at an affiliate library -- I suspect the library has to apply for that kind of access.)

LegacyUser

Paul said: Maureen

The problem is, we all have to speculate on the true reasons. FamilySearch seems quite happy for us to quote the, "Access is controlled by the record owner / custodian" line, but naturally there is no evidence provided for this. I say "naturally" because the other thing we come been conditioned to accept is that the "company confidentiality" factor is behind the reason details for specific, restricted display conditions is never revealed.

In some cases, I believe a genuine glitch / bug has caused the availability conditions to suddenly change. In one instance, I had been looking at a particular set of records at an Affiliate Library all day before suddenly being denied access. These records are now stated as still being available at these establishments (instead of just a FHC). In another case, a whole collection relating to one English county became unavailable. I put this down to a major company having just acquired the rights to display these records. However, within days they were able to be viewed again - in this case (as had been the situation previously) they could be viewed at home!

Quite simply, I'm afraid we'll just have to tolerate the situation. It might be worth reporting as a possible glitch - maybe someone doing exactly this caused the collections to which I am referring to suddenly "reappear". Otherwise, I doubt we'll ever know the true reason(s) for what you and others are experiencing.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "I cannot see a pattern here"
No, me neither. Though I guess it is possible that stuff is in the middle of having its permissions changed and things might conform to a pattern later.

Just in case it's not clear, re Maureen's "some church records which were in two parts, an Index to the records, and the actual records". I can't see those indexes but I think that they are Indexes produced by official organisations, such as the India Office and should not be confused with the index to the images of the actual records, as compiled by FamilySearch. I can use the FS index to the images of the actual records here at home, but the images of the index compiled by the India Office or whoever it was, cannot be seen by me. (This is kind of weird - normally it's original images that are more restricted...)

I would suggest that another reason for restrictions, one that I've only just realised exists thanks to another thread, is where Ancestry, FMP and FS have agreed to co-operate (within the terms laid down by their own agreements with the holders of the originals) - in such a case Ancestry or FMP might place limits on the use of their own images. In particular they might be happy with images being seen at an FHC but not happy with them being seen at an affiliate library since they might want to sell that affiliate their own access. (But the pattern seen here doesn't seen to conform to that..??? )

Let me reiterate what I said elsewhere. I understand that people such as owners of original records may place restrictions on the use of their records for all sorts of reasons. I understand that online providers of genealogical data such as Ancestry or FMP or .... might want to protect their own revenue and so agree terms more restrictive than we would like.

I'd just like to be told, in general terms and subject to commercial confidentiality, the high level reasons for specific changes because at the moment we have no means of knowing whether a change is an error or not. (Because we have seen cataloguing errors - this is real life - it happens!)

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Having contributed just one item many, many years ago (before the age of home computers) to the Family History Library, I had to sign an agreement with respect to the donation and how it could be used by the organization behind the Family History Library (which, if I remember correctly, was the Genealogical Society of Utah -- the predecessor to the Family History Department -- which was still owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So agreements are involved, because I was party to one of them. Since the material was of general knowledge for the area, it held genealogical interest for those with ancestry among the Swiss Mennonites in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

The "no pattern" thing is typical when many separate agreements are involved.

I happened to be in Boise, Idaho, visiting the state archives. My wife and I had seen a newspaper article about how the archives was having their records filmed by Ancestry. While there, we asked one of the staff if everything was being filmed and the response was that only a portion of it was. They wanted visitors to use the facility. It was free and open to the public and the staff was super helpful in finding whatever we were looking for, we willing to make copies of things like prison records, clips from microfilmed newspapers, and so on. They also mentioned that the Library of Congress was working with their microfilm collection of old Idaho Newspapers to make them available on the LOC website https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/.

I also happened to be visiting the Oregon Archives in Salem, Oregon, obtaining copies of death certificates of my ancestors and relatives, and asked if they had considered having the material digitized. They mentioned that they had made arrangements with FamilySearch to digitize their records.

In both cases, official records are being digitized by at least two organizations. The state archives of both states are more than happy to have it done, but I am sure that both involve agreements between the digitizing organization and the owners of the official records. It is part of the preservation process of valuable public records that otherwise could be easily destroyed by fire or other catastrophic event.

Contractual agreements involving public (government) organizations (at least in the United States) should be a matter of public knowledge, but FamilySearch is not the organization to contact for access to such agreements.

LegacyUser

robertkehrer said: MaureenE,

Thanks for providing such a detailed description of the problem. That will help triage the issue. I have alerted the correct internal teams about your post and their initiated the review of the rights on these collections.

-Robert

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Thank you Robert.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I have had some correspondence with someone who believes the above situation is related to some sort of agreement between FamilySearch and FINDMYPAST, (who has digitised some, but not all of the records in question), and nothing to do with the originating Archive, the British Library.

In support of his opinion, he has pointed out for a typical record, no longer available at an Affiliate Library , the message is

If you then click on OK, you get the message This image courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd

Above record is from Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
Bapts., marrs. v. 20-21, 1828
British Film 498958 5136992

I must admit this was a great surprise to me. We are talking about digitised microfilms, the microfilms in existence long before the Findmypast images were released. (The Bengal records just referred to were filmed 1966-1967 according to the catalogue entry. The Findmypast images were filmed by Findmypast prior to introduction early 2014).

In addition, and perhaps most importantly in this general series of Church records from the British Library India Office collection, there are known instances when some groups of records have not been filmed by Findmypast due to fragility or other reasons, including restricting for some years. So if it is true that these digitised FS microfilms are effectively not available AT ALL, but "default" to the Findmypast records, some images are effectively now not available at all on FamilySearch. I think this is BAD OUTCOME, even worse than my initial concern that some records were not now available at Affiliate Libraries.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Hm. If FS has digitised images of records that FMP have not filmed / digitised, and is directing people to FMP instead of revealing its own images, then I would suggest that the records in question

(a) need to be identified (as a matter of historical research) and

(b) negotiations need to be put in place to tell FMP that, as they have not digitised them, then they cannot be subject to the agreement that directs FS traffic to FMP.

But do we actually know that some of the "Please go to FMP" images are genuinely not on FMP?

LegacyUser

Ainslie Sharpe said: In a few weeks I am to give a presentation on researching British ancestors in India to a Family History Society which is a recognised Affiliate Library. I would really appreciate clarification of this situation as soon as possible.
I know from early research with films of Madras in particular, that many of these records have not been digitised by FMP.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I think that specific details would help the FS guys identify the issue - I think that they need to be told the LDS / FS film number(s) of a sample of stuff that FMP have not digitised but FS have. Then the situation with those films can be established.

LegacyUser

Ainslie Sharpe said: I haven't had a chance to look at my research in depth, but one film in particular is the LDS Film #506597 Madras Bapts, Marriages, Burials 1815-1818 v-6. When searching Family Search the record for which I am searching is found, but there is no record on FMP. However, Family Search directs me to FMP film #4011636, with the pop-up advice that it can only be viewed at the Family History Centre. Why are we diverted by Family Search to FMP to view records that aren't included in FMP's own search results? Why aren't these records available when you have a subscription to FMP?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Re Ainslie's investigation: I've double checked and have written this out here in case it's easier for the FS guys to spot.

FS DGS number 4011636, aka FS film 506957, is indeed "Baptisms, marriages, burials v. 6 1815-1818" in "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Madras, 1698-1948". (No I don't know what a DGS number is).

I can confirm that from my (non-LDS) UK-based laptop, the images for the film are locked off with the message:

"To view these images you must do one of the following:
" Sign in to Familysearch.org as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
" Access the site at a family history center."

I can't confirm that it's not accessible at an affiliate because the only one I know is 160m away. It also claims "Images courtesy of FindMyPast".

The film is indexed on FS and I can access the index.

Sample FS index entry (which also says "no image available"):
Susannah Abbott
India Births and Baptisms
Name Susannah Abbott
Gender Female
Christening Date 07 Jul 1816
Christening Place Poonamallee, Madras, India
Father's Name William Abbott
Mother's Name Susannah

"India Births and Baptisms, 1786-1947," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1... : 10 February 2018), Susannah Abbott, 07 Jul 1816; citing Poonamallee, Madras, India, reference ; index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 506,957.

I cannot find her in FindMyPast's "British India Office Births & Baptisms". Indeed, I can't find any Poonamallee, Madras baptisms after roughly July 1815 (Archive ref. N-2-5, Folio 580) for several years. But maybe there aren't any.... As I can't work out how to browse the India Office stuff on FMP, I can't check closer to see if there are missing references.

However.... Take a look at these adjacent films from the FS catalogue in the same collection as our missing person:

Baptisms, marriages, burials v. 4-5 1809-1815
Film 506956
DGS 5137384
The film before the one above - one sample baptism is visible on FMP

Baptisms, marriages, burials v. 6 1815-1818
Film 506957
DGS 4011636
The one referred to above - not on FMP

Baptisms, marriages, burials v. 7 1818-1821
Film 521880
DGS 5137652
The film after the one above - one sample baptism is visible on FMP

It sticks out a mile to me that the DGS number (whatever it is) of the invisible volume is way different. I tried another film with one of those odd numbers:

Baptisms, marriages, burials v. l 1698-1783
Film 463296
DGS 4011639
Only a sample of one but again it was not on FMP.

It therefore might be that the DGS 401xxxx series are the films that were filmed by FS, were not filmed for whatever reason by FMP, but have been excluded from visibility at affiliate libraries possibly by request of FMP for the protection of their revenue. Which is an invalid request, I suggest because FMP don't get any revenue from films that they haven't filmed, imaged or indexed!

If anyone can make head nor tail of this, you're welcome to it, but the fact that the DGS numbers of the invisible samples are way out is interesting and possibly meaningful. If anyone in FS can work out what the significance of those numbers is.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: According to the LDS Catalog, film 506597 is Tax records, 1828-1838, for Hancock County, Ohio, so either the films have been renumbered or there's a transcription error. (I think it's 506957?)

See below for the rest of my investigation.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: From what I can determine, DGS is a number assigned to a Digital record set, regardless of the original source. Yeah, that's obvious, but it also says that whatever the original content available to the Family History Library was (film or access via a new contractual agreement with the record owners), that content has been digitized.

As has been pointed out, only about 10% of newly digitized content is being indexed during each year. As these are processed, they are added to various record collections. With over 300 teams in the field (that's the last number I saw), it is not surprising that so little is being indexed. There simply are not enough folks willing to do that.

And I'm one of them.

As long as there is no means by which my mistakes in reading (sometimes very) archaic handwriting can be corrected by a person who is more adept at deciphering the handwriting, I refuse to take part in what has become a travesty on the part of FamilySearch. What should have been a very high priority for the developers has been "years" in the making.

Even as late as last Roots Tech earlier this year, when Ron Tanner made a presentation, he showed what was then only a mockup.

With as many records being digitized/indexed, there is no excuse for not putting the development of a means to add to, correct, or change an index in the first or second slot of the prioritized list of features to be developed.

There are also people who are willing to contribute their efforts to FamilySearch. (See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... for an offer that has not even been acknowledged.)

Now getting off my soapbox...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I checked the digitized images for 506597 and they are indeed the Hancock County, Ohio, Tax Records, filmed in 1967. I agree, I think the 506957 was a typo on the part of Ainslie. As far as her questions, FMP will need to respond to them as to availability on their site.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Robert Kehrer has taken part in this thread (replying to MaureenE 3 days ago), so hopefully he is still following and might wish to come back once he has an "answer" to her specific issue. Otherwise, it would be good if he could give a general explanation of the background to agreements whereby FamilySearch (and its volunteers) seem to do all the work (filming, indexing) on a collection, then hand over publication rights to Find My Past.

The problem with criticising this situation too much is that things can work "both ways". Find My Past has paid for indexing of certain collections, but instead of retaining exclusive rights to these records (as would seem a fair entitlement) they have been made available to FamilySearch users. As a non-LDS person, I cannot see original images for free (from home) but have had enough information on the England & Wales census records (courtesy of FMP) to provide me with evidence / sources relating to many of my ancestors / relatives. (These usually include a transcription of the whole household, so are of really great help.)

Thank you Find My Past! (Possible response: "That's okay, our relationship with FamilySearch is not necessarily a financial one, but usually involves a lot of 'give and take'." Just speculating, but maybe that's how it works.)

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I suspect that each case will be different. In the case of my native Cheshire, the Cheshire parish registers etc are published generally on FindMyPast - never forget the expense of the software and servers to publish the stuff. Most of the images came from the LDS (filmed years before in Chester RO) and had been provided to Chester RO who managed the release with FMP of the records in Chester. I have an idea that many of the indexes were also provided by FS.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: For clarification,
The FamilySearch India indexes were produced from FamilySearch microfilms, (as you would expect). These were films from church records in the British Library India Office Collection.

When Findmypast introduced records from the British Library India Office Collection, these records were independently filmed and indexed by Findmypast, they did NOT use FamilySearch indexes.

One large group of records which are NOT on the Findmypast British Library India Office Collection as images, are baptismal records for those who were born from 1918 onwards, and marriage records from 1933 onwards. There are however very brief [Findmypast] indexes for these records. Unless you have access to the original records in London, the only way to view these records until recently was to view the FamilySearch microfilms. Now although the Catalog indicates these microfilms have been digitised it seems to be indicated (as detailed in earlier posts) that they are NOT ACCESSIBLE as the microfilm viewing defaults to non viewable Findmypast images. (I believe Findmypast may have filmed these, and they will be released in time, but they are currently not available).

A typical FamilySearch microfilm for church records for Bengal, Madras Bombay contains baptisms, marriages and burials. All the burial images are available on Findmypast. So a microfilm may contain baptisms and marriages where the equivalent images are NOT available on Findmypast, but the burials are. However the catalog and film image information is indicating the default images are findmypast for the entire microfilm, in spite of the findmypast default image being non existent for viewers.

In addition to the Madras records mentioned by Ainslie above, I have a note based on a researcher reporting this problem, that some or all of the following records were not filmed by Findmypast
Madras: Roman Catholic Returns of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials ‎ (1838-1839) IOR/N/2/RC/1-2 FamilySearch microfilm 530008 DGS 4035809
from https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
Roman Catholic returns of baptisms, marriages and burials, 1835-1856.

There was never information released either by the British Library, nor Findmypast, as to what records were not filmed by Findmypast due to record fragility, or indeed other reasons, so it is only when a researcher reports a problem we become aware of this.

I have been advised that someone has attempted to access some digitised microfilms (as discussed above) at an affiliate Library in Australia, which are now stated to be only available at Family History Centre, having ceased being available at an Affiliate Library, and CONFIRMS THAT THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE AFFILIATE LIBRARY.

LegacyUser

Ainslie Sharpe said: Sorry - obviously my fingers were not connected to my brain!

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: This is relevant to both this topic and the now closed https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

During that discussion the situation regarding access to records that are also on Archion was raised. Already having some questions I wished to ask Archion, I added to my email a question about the access requirements through FS.

Their first answer did not answer the question and instead referred me to contact FS directly. Their answer was of course the standard "the record custodian has 100% control over access" (not a direct quote)

After asking the question again and requesting a more specific answer I got this reply:

Hallo Alec van Helsdingen,

thank you for your request.
Unfortunately we can't say why some images on FamilySearch can only be accessed by members of the Mormon Church. We are not familiar with the FamilySearch policy because we do not work with this site.

If you still have any questions, please contact us again. The Archion team is happy to assist you.

Kind regards
Archion Team
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

(The response was actually originally written in English)

This reply seems to contradict the position of FS concerning record custodians and access arrangements on FS.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Um. I have edited my initial comment, because I have only just realised that I missed the point in my first response.

Archion are not the custodians of the Lutheran church data, so they wouldn't know what the agreement is between FS and that church and/or the archives holding the registers now. We suspect that this case is different because FS appears for whatever reason to be using images supplied by FindMyPast, so the original holder (The British Library) is probably not involved.

The position of FS on the rights of record custodians isn't their position - it's basic contract law (and seldom copyright law, as an aside).

The only way to progress anything, I believe, is to deal with specific instances, which is why I was keen to get film numbers for this subject.

In this case, it's not the general position that's at stake (in my mind) - though it would be nice to get that confirmed. It's why those 2? films have been excluded in favour of directing you to FindMyPast even though FindMyPast don't appear to have the stuff.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Adrian, when you say
"The only way to progress anything, I believe, is to deal with specific instances, which is why I was keen to get film numbers for this subject.

In this case, it's not the general position that's at stake (in my mind) - though it would be nice to get that confirmed. It's why those 2? films have been excluded in favour of directing you to FindMyPast even though FindMyPast don't appear to have the stuff."

are you asking for more information, or were you summing up? Just unclear as to whether you want any other information?

The records where the baptism and marriage are restricted by Findmypast because of date, are included in the Family Search series
"Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948" (526 microfilms in the series)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

"Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Madras, 1698-1948" (136 microfilms in the series)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

"Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bombay, 1709-1948" (164 microfilms in the series)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

As stated in an earlier post, a typical FamilySearch microfilm for church records for Bengal, Madras Bombay contains baptisms, marriages and burials. All the burial images are available on Findmypast. So a microfilm may contain baptisms and marriages where the equivalent images are NOT available on Findmypast, but the burials are. However the catalog and film image information is indicating the default images are findmypast for the entire microfilm, in spite of the findmypast default image being non existent for viewers.

A typical example from the Bengal records is FamilySearch record
Bapts., marrs., burs. v. 596-597 Apr-Jun 1939
Film 533201
DGS 5142043

If anyone has ready access to this record at a FamilyHistory Centre, or alternatively a FamilySearch Employee, could they please advise whether any of the baptisms and marriages are viewable, or whether the film defaults to 'Burials only" on Findmypast.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Maureen - I was summing up in the hope that someone from FS can investigate.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Hm. I don't know why film 533201 is "courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd." The material was filmed "by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1966-1967," long before Find My Past came into existence. Indeed before computers were anything approaching small enough to sit on a desk. Most filled rooms or considerable space in a room and had specific power requirements.

So, it would be nice if FS could look into why the images are courtesy of Find My Past, since they were not involved in filming the original work.

I agree with Adrian that someone from FS should, in my opinion, investigate and report back as to the situation for this particular set of records.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I wonder if the original FS images have been replaced by FMP images? By all accounts, the original FS filming covered more than the later FMP filming, which would explain why some records don't appear to have any images anywhere - the diversion, effectively, to FMP, has even applied to those films only in the FS collection.

Maybe - whatever the reason, it would be nice to get an explanation for this particular case and an investigation why some stuff can't be seen at all as FMP have neither index nor images. Here's hoping...

LegacyUser

Paul said: Robert Kehrer did become involved in this thread 6 days ago. Maybe he still hasn't received a response from the "correct internal teams" and/or an investigation is still ongoing.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: FS film with images from an FMP DGS??? Does that even make sense??

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: I did some looking and am confused as anyone else. I first looked at the earliest film Bapts., marrs., burs. v. 1, 1713-1754 5137420 I have an LDS account and could view the film from home. The first birth entry is for a Charles Adams born in 1713 in Calcutta. I was able to view the original at FamilySearch and also by using my Partner account at Find my Past - If I log in with a non-lds account at FamilySearch it says log in with LDS account or go to a Family History Center.

Next I attempted to look at Bapts., marrs., burs. v. 596-597 Apr-Jun 1939 and again I could view the originals at Family Search. the first birth entry in that film was for Anne Phelan born 20 April 1939 in Shillong. The Mother and Fathers names are provided however it is the mother married name. Using my partner account at Find my Past all I could locate was an indexed record which gave the basic birth information but only the surname of the parents. Mother and father were not provided and no image was available.

Like I stated at the beginning - not sure I learned anything and in general I am as confused about the situation.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Adrian, I looked at the image of film 533201 and the first image includes the original film number, so those images are from the original filming.

The only thing that I can think of is that the indexes were made by FMP, but that should not block access to the images. I can understand their wanting to recoup their costs for indexing the films (if not done by volunteers for them), but to claim that the images are courtesy of them is a blatant misrepresentation.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Agreed Tom. Confused I am then...

As an aside given that the data is baptisms, marriages & burials from 1939, I'm slightly surprised that you can see them anyway... FMP say "In compliance with data protection laws fewer details and no images are available for births dating to after 1915 and marriages after 1930. Full details are available to researchers who visit the British Library in person."