Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries. Programming bug, FS decision or external Archive directi
Answers
-
MaureenE said: To recap on the background to this topic:
I am interested in the records for the British In India period.
For many years there were FamilySearch microfilms of records from the British Library in London, which could be viewed at both Family History Centres and Affiliate Libraries.
When these films were digitised, for a period ALL the British Library digitised microfilms could be viewed at both Family History Centres and Affiliate Libraries However, about July 2018, there was a change, when a significant subgroup were withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries, and could only be viewed at Family History Centres if you were a non church member (church members have home access)
The subgroup which were withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries appear to be those series of records for which SOME BUT NOT ALL are available on findmypast.
Series of records from the British Library which do not appear on findmypast continue to be available at Affiliate Libraries.
There does seem to be a connection between the withdrawal of certain series of records from Affiliate Libraries and findmypast,
I live in Australia where the number of Family History Centres is relatively small, and they generally have restricted hours. The importance of records being available at Affiliate Libraries, which generally have longer hours, is perhaps greater than in USA which has relatively more Family History Centres.
In addition many people who spent time in British India came to Australia, so it is important for their descendants' research that access to these records is also possible at Affiliate Libraries, and is not limited to FamilySearch Centres
Robert Kehrer (Official Rep) July 18, 2018, 8 months ago said
"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".
As mentioned on another post, there appears to be a bug that the links to the film records and the films don't work. This is an ADDITIONAL (and perhaps intermittent) problem.
However, the main purpose of this post is to try to get viewing restrictions changed, so that these records may ALSO BE ACCESSED AT AFFILIATE LIBRARIES, not just at Family History Centres.0 -
Phil Jeffrey said: Would you give some that fail in the affiliate or point me to the catalog page that has the ones that fail in an affiliate ? Robert is on a new assignment so I'll have to do some poking around to find out what is going on. The 2 that are in this post work so I need some that you know fail in your affiliate . Can you also tell me exactly what message pops up ? Right now I am guessing a right changed but I am not sure if that is a bug, mistake or contracts changed.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: I suppose to get access restrictions changed you will need to contact the British Library.
I have long noticed how English Archives will always contract out digitization of their records to a company like Ancestry or FMP, rather than building their own website to view their records (such as ScotlandsPeople or the various state BMD websites in Australia).
Certainly I understand their need for money, but it is justified for Government Archives to, as appears to be happening to these India records, cave in to demands that FMP sets?. Can they not keep their records on FS (though understandably restricted to FHCs AND Affiliate Libraries) and keep their contract with FMP?. Granted, FMP might pay them slightly less if FS opens up the records to Affiliate Libraries, but the British Library would be better fulfilling it's responsibilities as a custodian of national treasures to preserve the records and make them accessible to the public. AL access would lead to less in-person visits to the originals in London which would undoubtedly preserve them better and save the Library some money.0 -
MaureenE said: Phil, I am a non church member. Church members have access on home computers.
I believe all the films in the following catalogue entries give a message that the films for non church members are only available at a Family History Centre. This is a change which happened about July 2018, previous to that they were also available at Affiliate Libraries.
"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."
The records all come from the British Library in London.
Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c... 521 films
Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Madras, 1698-1948
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c.... 142 films
Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bombay, 1709-1948
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c.... 164 films
I'm sure I can find more catalogue entries if required.
When you can actually get the above record statement, (rather than the additional problem of an message saying "Image Unavailable. This image is unavailable for online viewing at this time") there is a banner saying words along the line
"Films provided courtesy of Findmypast".
This is an incorrect statement as a LDS church member confirmed that they could see the images, and they were FamilySearch microfilm images, and not images from findmypast.
However there is a findmypast connection, in that SOME of the records in the above series which FamilySearch microfilmed and since digitised are available on findmypast. Findmypast separately filmed the records they display, however FamilySearch has records which findmypast does not.
Other record series from the British Library on FamilySearch, where there is no findmypast connection, are available at both Affiliate Libraries and Family History Centres. I am saying that from past experience as I cannot currently access any information.
Example record series Bengal Army muster rolls and casualty returns, 1716-1860
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
EVERY film I attempt to access in this series says
"Image Unavailable. This image is unavailable for online viewing at this time". This bug is SO ANNOYING. It means I cannot find out anything about the access conditions.
I also have a feeling that perhaps LDS church members also had to view these records at Affiliate Libraries and Family History Centres, so perhaps the withdrawing of the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Parish Register transcripts from Affiliate Libraries is in some way connected with LDS church members being able to view them on their home computers. Hardly seems fair.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: A point I forgot to add in my post concerning the appropriateness of the British Library to enter in such contracts with FMP and FS is whether it is moral for the British Library to agree to contracts giving Latter Day Saints greater access to their records than others. I understand that the UK has legislation (the Equality Act 2010) prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion. This would appear to be fairly clear instance of a government-run body breaching that law. Note I'm not blaming FS, but rather the British Library.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: ScotlandsPeople, in any of its forms, has never been built by the Scottish government, but always by a contractor. I don't know for certain, but the BL documents we are talking about, will almost certainly only be available on microfilm at the BL.0
-
Juli said: It's not really religious discrimination. It's much more akin to hitting the paywall on Ancestry or MyHeritage.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: Actually all contracts are with "Family Search International" this is a non-profit group that yes is sponsored by the church but is independent.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: Thanks for the great details. . Let me do some testing and see what I can find out. Were you at home, FHC or Affiliate ? What operating system and browser ? None of these should make a difference but it just helps me do correct troubleshooting.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: Prior to "Family Search International" contracts were between "Utah Genealogical Society" and it was on again off again as being part of the church sponsorship and in fact many old films are still under that group. Really depends on time frame as to when the UGS was independent or not.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: I tried them in 3 locations and I don't get a message. I wonder if the affiliate you are using is having issues. Anyway to go farther I would need to have it reproducible.0
-
MaureenE said: I am at home, using Safari Version 12.1 (12607.1.40.1.5) on an iMac. I am in Australia (currently Australian Eastern Standard Daylight Time, which is GMT + 11hours).
When you say you don't get a message, which specific message are you referring to?0 -
Phil Jeffrey said: They all worked with no error or popups, but it was PC based. Let me try it on a Imac.0
-
MaureenE said: A van Helsdingen, said, June 10, 2019 20:02, in a post on a related topic
"Affiliate Libraries - Four recent Blogs. Records which are not available at Affiliate Libraries"
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"I noticed that many of these collections with a LDS/FHC restriction are also on FindMyPast (with FMP credited as the source of the images), so I strongly suspect that FMP has decided to take away AL access for non-LDS"
I strongly also suspect that the reasons the microfilms I mention above, summarised in my post above of March 26, 2019 https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... , have been withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries (which effects LDS church members) has something to do with the relationship with FINDMYPAST, and nothing to do with the originating Archive (in this case the British Library)
I would also like to emphasise that while some of the records in the series mentioned above are available on findmypast, FamilySearch has records which are NOT on findmypast, so it is not simply a matter of saying look at the records on findmypast.
If the removal of some records from Affiliate Libraries is unconnected with arrangements with findmypast, I would like to see a simple statement to this effect saying it is untrue, from a FamilySearch employee. If such a statement is not made, I believe it casts doubts on all the statements which have been made implying the restrictions are imposed by the originating Archives0 -
A van Helsdingen said: A quote from my email from the Leicestershire RO "Senior Archivist" yesterday (whose Anglican church records are on FMP, and on FS are FHC/LDS only)
"We cannot comment on their [FamilySearch's] access policies, but we have not placed any additional restrictions on the online availability of the records"
I suppose the statement "We cannot comment on their access policies" could mean 1 of 2 things:
1. FS's access policies were not authorized (at least directly) by the Leicestershire RO and they know nothing about them. So FS's repeated statements that all restrictions were imposed by record custodians would be a lie.
2. They are not allowed, due to their contracts with FMP and FS, to comment- I think this is intransparent and UK citizens and taxpayers deserve better.
I agree with MaureenE that FMP is likely to be responsible for restricting access as per their partnership with FS. The record custodians probably signed contracts that gave FMP broad powers to regulate access to the documents.
I have now made a Freedom of Information Access request to the Leicestershire RO asking for details about their arrangements with both FindMyPast and FamilySearch. I've asked, if possible, for the text of the actual contracts. They have 20 working days to respond now.0 -
Phil Jeffrey said: My experience in general as this comes up all the time with Archivists is the clerk whoever people talk to doesn't know what the contract was so they just give a blanket statement. You really need to talk to the legal person who does contracts.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: This was the Senior Archivist for Access and Information. She should know what is going on. In any case, my FOIA request should clarify matters.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: I would interpret "We cannot comment on their [FamilySearch's] access policies" as:
1. "They [FS] are a separate organisation from us";
2. "They [FS] are at liberty to set their own access policies, so long as those policies do not result in a breach of their agreement with us". [In particular note that they would consider FS at liberty to impose tighter restrictions on access. AB]
3. "Because they [FS] are a separate organisation with the ability to set their own policies, not merely will we not comment, we would not be allowed by our management to comment on FS's policies."
The phrase "We cannot comment on...." another organisation is perfectly normal and to be expected. It denotes a sensible, even respectful, attitude to other organisations.
Hopefully, your FOIA request (which seems entirely sensible to me) will at least establish the basics, even if Leicester don't and won't comment on FS.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: They publicly comment on FindMyPast's access policies to their records, and acknowledge the relationship between them and FMP. http://www.recordoffice.org.uk/resour...
But they won't comment on FS's access policies. This doesn't seem right. Either they know nothing about them and never directly authorized them, because they signed away the rights to regulate their access on FS to FMP, or they are not allowed to comment. Either situation would be troubling for a public sector organisation.0 -
MaureenE said: I have just noticed an error in my post June 13, 2019 4:18 above, which I am unable to edit to correct, which should refer to non LDS church members.
The 3rd paragraph should read:
I strongly also suspect that the reasons the microfilms I mention above, summarised in my post above of March 26, 2019, https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... , have been withdrawn from Affiliate Libraries (which effects non LDS church members) has something to do with the relationship with FINDMYPAST, and nothing to do with the originating Archive (in this case the British Library).0 -
MaureenE said: OVER ONE YEAR AGO Robert Kehrer on July 18, 2018 said above
"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. "
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THIS REVIEW WHICH SURELY MUST HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AFTER ONE YEAR?
Is the reason FamilySearch have not advised anything because the withdrawal of the microfilms specified above (summarised in my post above of March 26, 2019 https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... ) from Affiliate Libraries (which only affects non LDS members) has something to do with the relationship with FINDMYPAST, and nothing to do with the originating Archive (in this case the British Library).1 -
A van Helsdingen said: Based on my experiences with Leicestershire Records (see various posts I have made), I would think that almost certainly the reason is FMP and not the actual record custodian.0
-
MaureenE said: Regarding the group of records "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948", https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
the reason for this topic,
Tom Huber in a post on another topic
"Access to familysearch for non-members - is it the same as LDS members?" said
October 28, 2019 23:11
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"Film # 005136984 - As a member, I could access the images, but they all have message, "This image courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd."
When I opened the catalog entry in your link, the camera with key icon appeared briefly and then was replaced by the camera icon by itself.
I happen to have an account with Find My Past and FamilySearch is aware of that, so I'm not sure what triggers are sitting somewhere, out of plain sight."
As in my post of March 26, 2019 above , which summaries this topic, https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
it is a FALSE STATEMENT for FamilySearch to be saying the images are "courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd." for it has previously been confirmed that the images available are actually a FamilySearch digitised microfilm. Findmypast does have SOME of the images from this set of records (independently scanned from the original records) but the FamilySearch microfilms contain many records not available on Findmypast
Why should some arrangement by FamilySearch with Findmypast result in the withdrawal of viewing access from Affiliate Libraries for non LDS Church members?0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I think its been said before here, but FS needs to honest that FindMyPast, Ancestry.com and MyHeritage get to restrict access (to non-LDS) to records on FamilySearch as part of their partnership. Instead they blame the record custodians. I've been told by Support that Leicestershire Anglican parish registers have their restriction determined by FMP, not the Leicestershire Record Office. I know of another large collection (for confidentiality reasons I will not disclose which) that until 2021 is LDS-only at the request of Ancestry.com.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Indeed. And personally, I don't have any problem with the idea that (a) there is a partnership and (b) as a result, those restrictions are in place to stop FS sabotaging its partners' revenue. "Sabotage" might be an emotive word, if so, apologies for that.
For clarity - if a commercial supplier doesn't hold the records, then that agreement clearly shouldn't apply. I'd like to think that the issue of the Bengal records above being restricted when FMP doesn't hold them, is down to a simple assumption that FMP hold all Indian records, whereas clearly they don't. Of course, it might be that FS have (reasonably) asked FMP to confirm that they don't have the records in question but it's FMP whose configuration management is lacking and they haven't got back to FS. That wouldn't surprise me either! But it would be nice to know.0 -
MaureenE said: Regarding records from the collection "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948", https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
it is apparent from another topic "Early Elyin. Is there any way to edit or request delete? (Historical records)"
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
that FamilySearch is still claiming that the images from the collection are courtesy of FindMyPast, when in fact they are FamilySearch digitised microfilm images.
This is a FALSE STATEMENT also known as a LIE.
FamilySearch has also failed to comment on, yet alone address the most important issue in this topic "Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries", that Bengal Records digitised microfilms can no longer be viewed by non LDS members at Affiliate Libraries, as they were previously. This appears almost certainly to be as a result of some arrangement with Findmypast and nothing what so ever to do with the originating library, the British Library in London.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: This has been going for over a year, and FS should have responded a long time ago. Even if they can't give details due to legal and/or commercial reasons, a statement by an employee would resolve this long-standing concern.0
-
Juli said: As I commented on the Early Elyin thread, "courtesy of" doesn't necessarily say anything about who hired the imaging crew or who holds the images in what form. It just means that there is an arrangement or contract controlling access to those images.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Or more accurately, someone believes that there probably is such an arrangement or contract...
I do find it disturbing that FS don't appear to be able to deal with queries like this. Yes it is a lot of stuff. Yes, I've no doubt it's fairly complicated. But that's surely what these guys are paid for...0 -
David Newton said: "Yes, I've no doubt it's fairly complicated. But that's surely what these guys are paid for..."
I'd say the second sentence may well hit on the fundamental bit of the problem: are the people doing this actually paid staff members?0
This discussion has been closed.