Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries. Programming bug, FS decision or external Archive directi
Answers
-
gasmodels said: Adrian - thanks for the comment regarding the data protection laws. It makes it clear why I could not see the 1939 image and there was limited information on the parents on the Find My Past site.0
-
robertkehrer said: I forwarded the information and the post to the correct internal team and was told a review of the right would take place. I do not have any insight on how long that may take.0
-
MaureenE said: Thank you gas models and Tom for looking at digitised microfilms available to church members and confirming that actual FamilySearch microfilms have been digitised, and the contents are available to church members
I assume therefore that what church members can see on their home computers will be the same file accessible by non church members at Family History Centers.
The main issue for this topic is now what what set out in my original post above, the non availability of these FamilySearch digitised microfilms at Affiliate Libraries, noting that this appears to be a fairly recent restriction. This affects non LDS church members only, as church members can view these records on their home computers.
Robert Kehrer in his post above of July 25, 2018 1.05 said
"I forwarded the information and the post to the correct internal team and was told a review of the right would take place. I do not have any insight on how long that may take".
Hopefully this review will be positive for patrons of Affiliate Libraries, because in many areas of the world, Family History Centres are limited in actual numbers, or provide limited hours when they are open.
In fact Family Search says
"You can also look to see if there’s an affiliate library that serves your area. These facilities now offer SIMILAR ACCESS to records as a family history center and have extended hours of operation". (My emphasis)
This wording is from the Family Search page
"The family history center in my area has few computers and is only open a few hours per week, what can be done?"
https://www.familysearch.org/ask/faq#...
Robert, will the internal team advise you of the outcome of this review so you can in turn inform us?0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Robert and Maureen - could I add that there are at least 2 points to consider.
1. As Maureen points out, the restriction on these India Office images so that they can no longer be seen at Affiliate Libraries.
2. The restriction also appears to apply to images that are not even on FindMyPast - these are the registers that FindMyPast either by accident or design didn't film at all. As a result, these are available to no-one outside the LDS Church. (I would point out that if the Affiliate Library has its own access to FindMyPast then Restriction 1 is immaterial apart from these films which will remain inaccessible. I really can't believe that this was intended)
I think that there is a 3rd, which looks similar to 2 - the later post 1915 birth images and post 1930 marriage images which are mixed up with burials of the same era on the same films. These are not on FindMyPast for privacy reasons and I'm not asking for them to be on FamilySearch either, for the same reason. In fact, I'm not sure what FS should be doing with those films.0 -
Tom Huber said: "what church members can see on their home computers will be the same file accessible by non church members at Family History Centers."
Not necessarily true. There are instances where I have had to sign in on a FHC computer to allow a non-member patron to view some digitized images. This is not common, but it does happen.0 -
Tom Huber said: "I'm not sure what FS should be doing with those films."
The films themselves can be viewed at the Family History Library in Salt Lake, or any facility that has a copy of the film. This is exactly as it was prior to no longer shipping films to centers. If the film is restricted from being viewed, then it will be available only at the FHL in Salt Lake (and possibly several other major Family History facilities that are extensions of the Library -- I really don't know what restrictions are involved for those major research facilities).0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Indeed, Tom. It's more the privacy angle I was thinking of - how do you deal with mixed data on a film when browsing it? Whatever you do, it won't be easy...0
-
MaureenE said: Robert Kehrer on July 25, 2018, 1:05 said
"I forwarded the information and the post to the correct internal team and was told a review of the right would take place. I do not have any insight on how long that may take".
Has this review taken place? Any update would be appreciated, as I have been contacted regarding this matter.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: As I replied about a month ago, I had been contacting the record custodians of some German Protestant records about the reasons they had imposed restrictive conditions on viewing their records through FS.
Today I finally received a reply from a staff member of the archive the Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau, part of which stated:
Dear Mr. van Helsdingen,
Due to the terms of the contract which was made between the Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau and the LDS church, the LDS church is not allowed to show digitizations of the EKHN church books on their page FamilySearch or in Family History Centers, even not for members of their church. The LDS church was only allowed to use the microfilms outside of Europe in their Family History Centers.
And yet these records ARE available on FS (example: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...), but only to members of the LDS church.
So despite all the assurances we have been given about FS adhering to restrictions imposed by record custodians, and also that any restrictions that discriminate between LDS and non-LDS are due to the requests of record custodians, it appears that neither is correct for these particular records.1 -
A van Helsdingen said: What angers me most about this is that FS, on it's own initiative and without reference to any conditions set by record custodians, established access conditions that were discriminatory against people not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If the Evangelical church in Hessen and Nassau had not given them consent to put their records online, presumably because the contract was made long before the internet, then FS should have contacted them to re-negotiate and update the contract, rather than breaking the contract and hoping no-one would realize.
Now I'm wondering if something similar is occurring in all collections that are restricted to LDS only. As I've said before I'm very skeptical that any secular archive or the archive of another religion would ever willingly agree to access conditions based on the LDS religion.
I'm now permanently and completely halting any further volunteer work for FS until this serious problem is resolved.1 -
A van Helsdingen said: I sent support a message about this 15 days ago, and have received no response. The records are still available online in breach of the contract signed with the Hessen EKHN archive.
And yet there is so much written both by FS and on this forum that FS takes the law and the record access contracts seriously, would remedy any breaches immediately, and would never dare to break them anyway.1 -
Tom Huber said: Wow. Evidently you have access to something that the rest of us users cannot access: The actual contract between FamilySearch and the record holders/owners of these records.
If you don't mind sharing, I'd like to see that contractual agreement, myself. Where did you access it? Over the internet, in person (either where the record owners have their copy, or Family Search), or by some other means?0 -
A van Helsdingen said: My source is the following paragraph of an email sent to me by their archivist Jana Otto, written in English on 6 September:
Dear Mr. van Helsdingen,
Due to the terms of the contract which was made between the Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau and the LDS church, the LDS church is not allowed to show digitizations of the EKHN church books on their page FamilySearch or in Family History Centers, even not for members of their church. The LDS church was only allowed to use the microfilms outside of Europe in their Family History Centers.0 -
MaureenE said: Regarding my original query, set out in the first posts of this topic, I repeat my later post of August 18, 2018 01:25, which sadly has not been answered in any way by any employee.
"Robert Kehrer on July 25, 2018, 1:05 said
"I forwarded the information and the post to the correct internal team and was told a review of the right would take place. I do not have any insight on how long that may take".
Has this review taken place? Any update would be appreciated, as I have been contacted regarding this matter."
It is now over two months since Robert Kehrer referred this matter.
Sad that there has been absolutely no response of any sort by any employee. Perhaps a sign of the regard in which this Feedback Forum is held?0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I can emphathize: a case I opened about access rights to Protestant church records in Hessen, Germany (see above) 15 days ago has not been responded to as well.1
-
Tom Huber said: So, then, what is this breach in the contract. Can you see the film images at FHCs in Europe? If so, then yes, that represents a breach of the contractual agreement.
If they can only be viewed outside of Europe, then there is no breach. You don't have all of the terms of the contract, so you we cannot tell if the agreement includes digitized images from the microfilms or not, but I suspect that the archivist was writing inclusively of the film, including the digital images of the film frames.0 -
Tom Huber said: The other question has to do with viewing images on home computers. The images should be restricted for all home computers that log in via their local ISP if they are located in Europe.
Note: Proxy servers can overcome local ISP restrictions and do so for many people who know how to use the proxy servers.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: "the LDS church is not allowed to show digitizations of the EKHN church books on their page FamilySearch or in Family History Centers, even not for members of their church"
The way I interpret it, the EKHN (Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau) has not given permission for any of their microfilms to be digitized and made available on FamilySearch. I assume by "page" she means "website". I'm not sure how it could be interpreted any other way, even when considering that English is probably the 2nd language of Jana Otto. And they have specifically clarified that this applies to both LDS and non-LDS and to computers within and outside FHCs.
"The LDS church was only allowed to use the microfilms outside of Europe in their Family History Center"
This makes it clear that the only places where their records can be viewed through FamilySearch are FHCs outside Europe. They also seem to have made a distinction between physical and digitized microfilm.
Not being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I can't directly test whether the contract is being broken, because when I attempt to view their records (see link above for an example) I get a message saying I must be logged in as an LDS member. This strongly suggests that were I a LDS member, I would be able to view them. That would be a breach of the contract
as I would be viewing the records in my home whilst their records were only supposed to be viewed in FHCs. Prehaps an LDS member on this forum who lives outside of Europe would like to test and confirm this?0 -
Tom Huber said: There are many cases that go unanswered, even among those sent to support. The only thing that can be done is to add to the case and ask that you be contacted regarding what is being done. You may even have to call support during business hours in Utah.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: MaureenE: I've just noticed that at the bottom of every page of records in the catalog there is a yellow button "Errors?"I don't remember seeing this before, so I think it has been added very recently. Perhaps reporting the problem there will get it sent directly to the right people.
I have used this button to report the record access issues/potential contract breach with the Hessen Protestant church records.0 -
MaureenE said: Thank you for advising, A van Helsdingen. I had not previously noticed the Errors button at the bottom of the catalogue pages.
This is a good initiative by the FamilySearch technical team.0 -
David Newton said: Well if Familysearch don't do anything about this in a decent amount if time there is another option: drop them in it with the EKHN directly.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: I did reply to EKHN and recommended that they directly contact FS about this. I also told them, if they didn't know already, that microfilms are no longer being distributed. The whole objective of me contacting them was to persuade them to change the restriction from LDS only to FHC/Affiliate Library's only.0
-
MaureenE said: On July 18, 2018 , see above post, copied
"Robert Kehrer (Official Rep) 8 months ago
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"
Sadly , no feedback what so ever since then. This is called a Feedback Forum, but regrettably FamilySearch does not seem to believe that Feedback is a two way process.
This topic is about how some records are only available at Family History Centres, not at Affiliate Libraries, for non church members, when in the past the microfilms were also available at Affiliate Libraries, and for a time these digitised records were also available at Affiliate Libraries.
I have seen recently on another Forum that the Family History Centre in London, England, currently located in the National Archives at Kew, is to close.
The advice , stated to be supplied by FamilySearch, but on another website
https://blog.eogn.com/2019/02/25/lond...
says:
"The National Archives has agreed to become a FamilySearch Affiliate Library, meaning that ACCESS TO ALL DIGITISED RECORDS on Familysearch WILL CONTINUE on PCs located in the reading rooms".
(my capitals)
This is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
If FamilySearch said that, it is a LIE.
Surely a church should make correct statements?
If the London Family History Centre is to close, probably it is an indication there will be more closures.
I would have hoped more records would be available at Affiliate Libraries not less, as has happened with the withdrawal of some digitised microfilms from Affiliate Libraries. What happens when there are only a few scattered Family History Centres remaining?0 -
Paul said: I agree with Maureen that Robert (or another FamilySearch employee) should provide users with some clarification over any action that is being taken to review the future availability of currently restricted material.
Like her, I have just discovered my "local" FHC, here in London, is to close. I just checked the current alternative, which although only 12 miles away will mean about an hours journey (each way) and is only open 1000-1200 M-F and 1000-1300 Saturdays.
I find I need at least 4-6 hours to achieve anything of value in my visits to an FHC or Affiliate library, so my research will definitely be adversely affected. Availability of more material at my local Affiliate library would be invaluable. So PLEASE review your current agreements (and the nature of future ones) to see if the organisations involved can't be persuaded to extend viewing rights to at least include Affiliates.
(The controversial subject of differing rights between LDS Church members and others has been discussed elsewhere.)0 -
MaureenE said: I alluded, on a recent topic, to the fact that some records, for non LDS church members, are not available to view at Affiliate Libraries, and are only viewable at FamilySearch Centres,
I am very disappointed that the last input by a Family Search employee to this topic was by Robert Kehrer (Official Rep) July 18, 2018, 8 months ago
"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".
Nothing has changed since then, no one from FamilySearch can even be bothered to provide any information what so ever. I can only conclude that Family Search has no interest in access by non LDS church members to restricted records. If this is so, why cannot FamilySearch be honest and advise this. so non LDS church members know what the situation is.
I am quite convinced in my own mind that the reasons the digitised microfilms mentioned above were withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries is something to do with the FamilySearch agreement with findmypast, and nothing to do with the originating archive, the British Library. As LDS church members have access on their home computers, FamilySearch seems to have no further interest in the access others have.1 -
Adrian Bruce said: Indeed. I am disappointed that an organization like FamilySearch cannot work out the technical and legal aspects here. I really can't imagine that stuff like that is coded in software logic, so I am presuming that the answer is in tables and files somewhere, which ought to make it more accessible.
Incidentally, I don't have a problem with the reasons being linked to FindMyPast - but, at least at one point, some of the withdrawn images were not on FMP either - correct me if I'm wrong, please. Either way, an answer about what's going on would be appreciated. Fixing it might be another issue, of course, if it's a combination of circumstances not allowed for.0 -
Phil Jeffrey said: I am not an official but I maybe able to give some information and maybe a little insight as I worked in records for awhile. This could be a couple of issues and unfortunately it's a case by case review. General statement is all films, images, books no matter were they come from (3rd parties, archives, governments, religious etc) have contracts associated with them. Those contracts specify what rights are and what can be shown. FS legal department does everything and I mean everything they can to make records public as the 1st priority. Often times that involves paying $$$ to make those records public and I mean lots of money. If they can't make them public then they go for FHC and Affiliates so at least you can view those records. Finally if nothing else works and the entities refuse to do anything or pull all access then FS suggests what about LDS only. That is the last resort and FS does everything it can to not have to do that. NOW digitization comes along and ALL contracts have to be reviewed again with the owners and many owners of records are now backing away from rights. Imaging trying to re-negotiate hundreds of thousands of contracts. I have seen so many places feel it's a threat to the money they charge so they limit them in some way so access is reduced. Records are also like a commodity as well so owners will try and get the max amount of money they can no matter who they have to go to, ie, FMP, Ancestry etc and then limit FS. NONE of this is FS fault we do the best we can and again 1st priority is public. Again owners restrict us and we have a system in place to just mange those rights per the contracts, period that's it. FS owns very little records and those are typically LDS records. The 2nd issue is 3rd parties ie. FMP , Billion graves, Findagrave etc. often change links to records and it's not 1 or 2 but thousands at a time and FS has to re-link those records and that's not an easy task because 3rd parties may re-order the images as well so you get "image not available" This is a constant battle with keeping in sync with 3rd parties. 3rd FS has multiple systems that govern rights and sometimes they get out of sync causing an issue with the records. 4th Many films and you see this in the catalog had 1-21 items.and when they were digitized they were digitized as all one image. When somebody comes along and says I want item 15 restricted it restricts the whole set. 4th some contracts have what's called GEO codes, meaning it can't be seen in Germany or Poland for example but other places ok. The rights matrix last I checked has 20 various rights and managing that can be a challenge. What is FS doing, We are working on a system that only has one place to keep rights, so no sync issues. We have another system that is breaking images down to an image level so we don't have the item 15 restricted that restricts the whole set. By the way this is the same system that is allowing "error corrections" on indexing records. By breaking them down by image level it means we can also fix blurry, fuzzy etc images without having to take the whole film/collection down. Legal is looking at finding ALL ways that we can open up records to more affiliates and removing as much "LDS only" as we can. Again this is up to the owners but legal has found some interesting ways to allow more access. I will say this is a very,very expensive venture and we charge nothing and the church as a whole pays for this. Please be patient as FS is doing the best we can with limited resources. Hope this gives a little more insight into the reasons and the obstacles FS faces.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Phil - thanks for that - there's some aspects in there that I'm not sure that I'd really thought about (e.g. different items on a film having different permissions, though I'd certainly thought about different dates at the image level resulting in "privacy" restrictions kicking in halfway through an item - which isn't, of course, possible in the current system. I think).
I also quite happily accept all the stuff at the "strategic" level about what FS is trying to do, within what bounds, and am grateful for your insights into the way forward.
But the point is that this started with a very specific issue - some specific stuff being withdrawn from access at Affiliate Libraries. Again, I don't have any issue with the principle that that might actually happen. But there were enough oddities with this particular issue to make us wonder if a whole bunch of "things" (I'll be no more specific than that) had been withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries under the impression that they were all on FindMyPast when they weren't - in fact they're now not a/v online anywhere outside an FHC, if I recall correctly.
Now I'm doing this from memory so it is possible that I've got something wrong, but we were promised a specific answer to this specific problem - and we've not got it. That really is the annoyance - communications, not permissions.
Rightly or wrongly (because I could be missing something) my impression is that either the query has ground to a halt, or the query has been answered with a quite possibly perfectly sensible "Because, in the current permissions scenario, we can't XYZ..." and no-one has passed the info back to us.0 -
Phil Jeffrey said: Sorry but this blog is all over the place so I tried answering as much as I can I tried all the links in the original post them all and they work so it's hard to say if it's still a problem. I checked our bug tracking system and don't see any open issues with FMP and affiliates. Affiliates have a different setup than FHC's and it's based on a whitelist we setup based on some internal information. If the Affiliate changes things and doesn't update the whitelist then the affiliate will have various access problems. I am not sure that happened as it's been long enough ago I can't reproduce it. If somebody can try and reproduce it and give me a link, DGS number or collection i'll be glad to check it out. This will have to be something with FMP, that says affiliates and that affiliate is approved for access. I do know at one point the links from affiliates were sending extra information (extra characters) to FMP and that caused an issue. We have also changed something on how images are accessed with FMP as well. Anyway I'll be glad to check out the original post.0
This discussion has been closed.