Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries. Programming bug, FS decision or external Archive directi
Answers
-
Adrian Bruce said: ... to which my response would be to ask if FS can afford not to pay given the potential pitfalls? Though what's needed is a professional service - "professional" in the sense of standards, not necessarily in the sense of being paid for - that records the relationships between "things" (to use a technical term).
Personally, I'd willingly forgo some user interface developments if FS could get on top of documenting the relationships between indexes, images, agreements and "owners" in whatever sense. I think we'd all benefit from that.0 -
David Newton said: Digital asset management really is a significant headache with this site at the moment.0
-
joe martel said: First, this is an older post and not sure if the original poster is satisfied with the responses to her post.
I think I know what Juli means.
There's a lot of nuance into historical records. Without getting into details I would consider the process of historical records:
1. There a tangible, maybe paper, record of some event, created by some human that entered details (wrong or not) about that event. (Oh and there are born-digital records like obituaries, newspaper articles...) Call it an artifact for this discussion.
2. There probably some owner of that artifact. That owner may be a person, an entity (government, church, organization....)
3. THat owner may or may not give rights to another entity (depending on copyright law, fair use...)
4. That artifact may be digitized (scanned, photo, ...), possibly multiple times by any number of entities, into a digitized image.
5. A artifact or image may be transcribed (indexed) by one or more entities
6. The rights may be different for the artifact, the digitized image of the artifact, the transcribed (index) of the image, the collection that house films, that houses images, that has redactions, ...
7. The scale of the problem is over 6.3 BIllion record indexes, and 1.3 Billion images and probably over a thousand collections, along with probably hundreds of contracts. This is a huge complex rights management problem. I'd be curious what other organizations, even for-profit ones have this magnitude of data to manage.
8. Finally, over time the access rights and ownership rights can change, sometimes overnight.
I'm sure I left out some steps but this is the general way I think about historical records. "Courtesy of" and many other citing may be vague and out of date.
If there is something that gets in the way of your workflow then that's interesting to me. The legal issues is not my background. Many such issues have been brought up before. I would suggest starting a new thread with the specific breakdown.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: I agree that the size of the problem is gigantic, Joe. But my initial feeling is that it's not billions squared, because each image, each "film" and each index belong to a collection. In fact, strike images from that list because each image belongs to a "film". So the scale is about the interaction of films and collections, and the interaction of indexes and collections.
Now that's still likely to be enormous but my unjustifiable, personal view is that it won't be dramatically different in scale from all sorts of asset management software - components in the aircraft industry, for instance where individual assemblies are identified to a design and tracked - possibly as components of other components (we certainly had that level of tracking on the railways, though hardly to the same numbers). Nothing like the relationships we're talking about, but I'd have guessed similar orders of magnitude.
Where my model may fall down is if "films" are split between owners - though I recollect seeing Item numbers on "films" that might be the level to track at then.
But yes, (digital) asset management needs to be thought about. Who knows, maybe it is being thought about? As something more than spreadsheets I mean! The creators of such spreadsheets are frequently heroes but all too often (personal experiences here), their heroic work is never maintained.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: There are many films with multiple parts (listed in the catalog as "Items"), and sometimes the record custodians are different. But your basic conceptualizaition is still correct- images all belong in bundles (either films or items of films) with common access rules/contracts. I don't think FS has ever published the number of films or items, but I'd guess it is over a million.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: The response of Joe Martel is very vague and not relevant to the records in question. Most of us know about the content of this post. There is no need to start a new thread: the concerns remain unresolved over a year later.
What I think Maureen wants to know is:
1. Is FMP or the British Library responsible for the loss of non-Latter Day Saint access from affiliate libraries to the films and collections she has mentioned? (In other words, is FMP or the British Library the record custodian of these images)
2. Are these the exact same images that can be found on FMP? If they are, researchers will know that if they can get access to FMP there is no need to also consult the records on FS. The statement "courtesy of" FMP is causing confusion.
If there's a reason you can divulge these details, just say so- don't leave us in the dark for months on end. We understand that these can be legally and commercially sensitive matters.0 -
David Newton said: The problem is not as large as each individual record. The problem is as large as each portion of each set of records. The whole of each UK census is covered by the same set of rights for example. Those censuses alone are hundreds of millions of transcribed records, but only 8 potential different sets of rights to worry about. Ditto each US census and that's another few hundred million records.
Where we get to a more granular issue is things like parish registers. For each Anglican parish in England and Wales there are two things to worry about: has the incumbent (a corporation sole and copyright holder of the records) given permission for the records to be included at all and if so what is the cut--off date for display of records for privacy and/or agreement with external genealogy purposes. Again a not insubstantial problem, but not as big as considering it at the individual image or transcribed record level. Simply find the image where the cutoff date exists and apply appropriate tags to images and transcribed records before and after that date.
So it's a tens or hundreds of thousands level problem, not a billions level problem. Big yes but much more manageable than dealing with each image individually. Mass application of metadata is your friend and also such metadata should have been captured when films were scanned etc.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: And without wanting to be dismissive, one million components in relation to - something of not totally dissimilar magnitude - isn't unusual in asset management.0
-
MaureenE said: I will attempt to summarise my main complaint based on what has been posted on this topic as it affects non LDS church members. I am active in a genealogy society which researches the British In India, so I am looking at things from a general point of view relevant to researchers for this genealogy community.
FamilySearch filmed in the 1960s many records at the British Library for British in India related births, deaths, and marriages, resulting in a collection of hundreds of microfilms, possibly over a thousand.
With the introduction of the new FamilySearch website 28 April 2010, index records from some, but not all, of the above India collection of microfilms was introduced.
29 January 2014 Findmypast released India related images and indexes, independently filmed by it from the same source, and independently indexed, but based on FEWER records than FamilySearch has.
Call the Findmypast collection Collection A, and the FamilySearch collection Collection A plus Collection B.
As I believe there is an arrangement where LDS church members have access to Findmypast, LDS church members accordingly had access to Collection A records from 29 January 2014.
September 2017 FamilySearch withdrew microfilms and introduced digitised microfilms. The India collection of microfilms Collection A plus Collection B was initially available for non LDS church members at both Family History Centers and FamilySearch Affiliate Libraries. (I believe, from memory, this restriction may have also applied to Church Members but cannot be sure)
About July 2018 access to the India related digitised microfilms at Affiliate Libraries for non LDS church members was withdrawn.
The following is as I currently see the situation to be, however no one from FamilySearch has ever confirmed or denied my suppostions. By failure to deny my suppositions, I conclude the following is correct.
The withdrawal of viewing at Affiliate Libraries appears to have occurred as a result of some sort of agreement between FamilySearch and Findmypast. This agreement also had the positive benefit for Church members that they could view all India related images on their home computers. The images on FamilySearch say courtesy of Findmypast but they are in fact FamilySearch digitised microfilms and importantly they include Collection B microfilms (as described earlier) which Findmypast do not have. I believe that it is a false description of the images to say “Courtesy of Findmypast” and that this wording should be amended as I do not think it right that FamilySearch should be making false statements. However, the description of the images is a side issue.
I do not think that the original archive the British Library in London has had anything to do with this decision, I think it entirely as a result of some agreement between FamilySearch and Findmypast.
The main issue is that access to the India related digitised microfilms has been withdrawn for non LDS church members from Affiliate Libraries, and this is significant in many countries where there is not a large network of FamilyHistory Centers.
That this withdrawal from Affiliate Libraries for non church members was in conjunction with increased access on home computers for church members is, to me, VERY UNFAIR, but my complaint is not so much the increased access for church members, but the decreased access for non Church members.
Some will say just look at the records on Findmypast, but I want to state again that FamilySearch has a more extensive collection of records than Findmypast.
Joe (Official Rep) said January 12, 2020 21:58
“First, this is an older post and not sure if the original poster is satisfied with the responses to her post”.
There has NEVER been an official response which addresses the q… [truncated]0 -
joe martel said: Maureen, thank you for clarifying the issue. I apologize for not understanding what needs you posted. I get over a hundred posts a day from forums and have to scan and try to tease out of the thread the relevant issue, and not get distracted by hijacks and tangents and personal back and forths. I try my best to understand the issue and respond in a way that is helpful to the community.
With your clarification the teams can be aware of what you point out. But in this forum we shouldn't necessarily expect an official response. Also contracts do terminate, re-negotiate and for legal and business reasons details may not be communicated. I'm just a bystander and don't know details. I just try to provide background that might help members understand the problem, and sometimes I can help clarify the problem to teams that might be more involved. Sorry I can't help any more.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: And I hope that Maureen doesn't object to the clarification(?) that I'm about to add...
I have access to FindMyPast so, speaking personally and/or selfishly, the withdrawal of access to the India Office films via Associate Libraries ought not to have affected me. But it does because my access to what Maureen refers to as Collection B has been withdrawn.
We don't know why our Internet based access to Collection B stuff has been withdrawn. It might be that when FS instituted the restrictions, it didn't know that Collection B existed so handled all India Office films the same. Who knows, it might be because FMP issued its terms of access to FS while under the incorrect impression that it, FMP, did actually publish the Collection B stuff.
We don't know...0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Joe, let me say again that I really appreciate you sticking your head above the parapet. I just wish you could get a bit more backup from FS a bit more consistently.0
-
MaureenE said: Thanks for replying Joe. Could you pass on recents comments to the relevant team. Thank you.0
-
Robert Raymond said: Maureen,
I am sorry that your question has gone so long unanswered. You still have not received a reply to your original, straightforward question. Without tackling the plethora of issues introduced in this thread, let me try to shed some light on your original question.
I examined the first film (498511) in the catalog entry at https://www.familysearch.org/search/c.... I felt the answer to your question might be in the contract governing access to the images from that film. Other films in the same catalog entry, or of the same record type, or from the same place, might have different terms. Consistency does not always exist.
I located the governing contract and hit a roadblock. Some contracts that FamilySearch makes include language similar to this:
"Without prior approval, neither party shall release information regarding this Agreement or the business relationship between the Parties to any person, organization, or media entity."
I can't tell you anything in a contract like that, not even if that sentence exists, unless the parties have already disclosed it. If the contract for film 498511 contains such language, I am unable to directly answer your question. But I will speak in generalities that might suffice. I am sorry about that.
On February 4, 2014, FamilySearch announced they had contracts with Find My Past and others. FamilySearch announced they were acquiring images faster than they could index. At the rate then prevalent, it would take many hundreds of years to index images then on hand, and new images are being acquired continuously. They decided to enter into partnerships in which they would give images to partners who would index the images and then make the records available. Availability would be free to the general public in FamilySearch family history centers, and free to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ provide the millions of dollars of funding annually required to keep FamilySearch.org operating. Subscribers to the commercial partners provide the millions of dollars necessary to keep the respective websites operational. In my opinion, those who pay for the existence of these websites deserve more access to the websites than those who don't. If you feel differently, I expect you have good reasons for it.
I could find no public pronouncement about the "This image courtesy of" message so I consulted a dictionary. The phrase "courtesy of" can mean "allowed by" or it can mean "given by." I don't believe FamilySearch has any intent to lie. I'm sorry your opinion of FamilySearch is so low.
I can understand why you are upset when you used to have access to some images in a FamilySearch affiliated library and that access went away. I would be upset also. And while I could not directly answer your question, I hope the information I have given allows you to deduce the answer.
---Robert0 -
A van Helsdingen said: Your response touches on many very controversial issues that have been previously discussed on this forum.
"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ provide the millions of dollars of funding annually required to keep FamilySearch.org operating. Subscribers to the commercial partners provide the millions of dollars necessary to keep the respective websites operational. In my opinion, those who pay for the existence of these websites deserve more access to the websites than those who don't. If you feel differently, I expect you have good reasons for it"
I have it in writing from FamilySearch's lawyers that "the notion ... that the access available through FamilySearch is based on consideration of some kind paid or rendered to FamilySearch or to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is mistaken. We offer our apologies if an assertion has been made by anyone in the FamilySearch system that services are delivered because of consideration or contributions paid or provided to the Church. That is not the case and it is easy enough to confirm it is factually incorrect".
Many Latter Day Saints choose (as it is a voluntary thing) to not pay tithes to the LDS Church. In any case, most of these tithes will go to the religious activities of the LDS Church. But many non-LDS do voluntarily make financial donations directly to FS and other tasks such as indexing and assisting at FHCs. It's highly offensive for FS to keep claiming, without producing any evidence, that LDS are more generous to FS than people of other religions.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: non-Latter Day Saints users have access to this page: https://www.familysearch.org/help/vol...
Before the recent changes to the site layout, it was located in a prominent position at the top right hand side.
This page invites users to:
1. Index
2. Serve as a FS/LDS Missionary
3. Participate in Site Evaluations
4. Donate Records
5. Donate Skills and Time
6. Donate Money
7. Edit the Wiki
8. Run the FS Facebook page.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: Maureen, FS is clearly refusing to give any details. They want to keep all their contracts confidential, which is fine. They are not obliged, as a private organisation, to disclose anything, and this approach, as they have said in the past, helps build trust with their record custodians.
If you want any specifics about these records, you'll have to contact the British Library and file a Freedom of Information Act request, and ask for contracts they have entered into with FMP and FS. As a government agency, they are required to make their copies of these contracts public, subject to exceptions such as commercially sensitive material.0 -
ATP said: Thank you, Robert, for this explanation. Only recently have I come to this forum looking for among other things an explanation of the relationship between familysearch.org and affiliate partners. So, a very much thank you for clearing up those relationships. I was under the impression that non-LDS could not access the affiliate partners at all without paying, so I am understanding that you're saying that is not the case, at all, that they have free access at FHCs.
Is there any way possible upon entering familysearch.org such an explanation - that clearly presents both the legal and practical use sides of those partnerships - can be formally presented so that it cannot be missed on the front page, so that it is clear how and why those relationships originated and inform use of familysearch.org by all users.
Thanks, again, for the clear and concise explanation.0 -
MaureenE said: Thank you Robert (FS Employee) for commenting, although the deduction that FamilySearch is not going to change the current situation is disappointing, and I feel, unfair.
As I said in my post above January 12, 2020 1:58
"The main issue is that access to the India related digitised microfilms has been withdrawn for non LDS church members from Affiliate Libraries, and this is significant in many countries where there is not a large network of FamilyHistory Centers.
That this withdrawal from Affiliate Libraries for non church members was in conjunction with increased access on home computers for church members is, to me, VERY UNFAIR, but my complaint is not so much the increased access for church members, but the decreased access for non Church members".
A van Helsdingen, thank you for your comments in the post immediately above.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: One thing, which I may or may not have mentioned on this forum before, is that Leicestershire church records, which come from FMP in a similar way to the British Library records you're interested in, went from being FHC only for non-LDS to also becoming available from Affiliate Libraries for non-LDS late last year. Whether my several emails to the record custodian and my taking the matter to the UK Ombudsman was any effect, I do not know. But it at least shows it is possible for individual collections from FMP to have their restrictions adjusted, and perhaps contacting the British Library could get the restrictions relaxed.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: "Is there any way possible upon entering familysearch.org such an explanation - that clearly presents both the legal and practical use sides of those partnerships - can be formally presented so that it cannot be missed on the front page, so that it is clear how and why those relationships originated and inform use of familysearch.org by all users"
The trend over the last few months is that FS wants to keep these things confidential. Once non-LDS (and Latter Day Saints who weren't signed in with their LDS account) were told when records could be viewed by LDS. That information is no longer displayed since October 2019. Once the Wiki told users very clearly about the restrictions on viewing records. Now ordinary wiki editors are not allowed to edit that content, and the senior editors who are, are systemically removing this content.0 -
Paul said: I can confirm A van Helsdingen's comment: " Once the Wiki told users very clearly about the restrictions on viewing records. Now ordinary wiki editors are not allowed to edit that content, and the senior editors who are, are systemically removing this content."
I was given Wiki editing rights and added a simple, factual statement about the availability of a certain collection. No questioning any rights and wrongs of the situation, just an explanation of why users were getting "No results" when making a search. My comment was removed the next day.
At least I think I should have been given the courtesy of an email to explain why I was not allowed to make a remark that was meant to save a lot of users unnecessary frustration in trying to bring up records that were available, but could only be seen whilst at a Family History Centre.
Anyone who supports freedom of information should be most disturbed by what, ostensibly, seems totally unnecessary censorship of facts.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: The fact that you were given no explanation is, I think, profoundly discourteous and unkind. It's as if FS is trying to push this sort of stuff into "unknown unknowns". I personally don't much of a problem with these restrictions - though I freely admit that may be because I (usually) have alternative access. But even I am disturbed by what I might term the restrictions on (knowledge of) the restrictions. And no, I don't think that the confidentiality of the contract is likely to cover a statement of the effects - particularly when patrons can get together and work it out.0
-
David Newton said: But, but, but this is against the code of conduct. It's unkind and discourteous. It's the sort of thing that should get sanctions against the people doing it.
To quote an email sent to me in respect of some recent posts of mine that were censored:
"Our intent is not to censor but instead to promote community health."
Furthermore:
"Disagreements are natural and integral parts of this type of a community. However, when they become unwelcome and divisive, they cross the line of acceptable behavior."
So Familysearch what is it to be? Do you want to promote community health or do you want to censor? Do you want to be divisive, which crosses the line of acceptable behaviour? At the moment I'd say you're definitely censoring. At the moment I'd say you're definitely being divisive.
Tu quoque on steroids I'd say. Hypocrisy.0 -
ATP said: "Once the Wiki told users very clearly about the restrictions on viewing records. Now ordinary wiki editors are not allowed to edit that content, and the senior editors who are, are systemically removing this content."
"The trend over the last few months is that FS wants to keep these things confidential. Once non-LDS (and Latter Day Saints who weren't signed in with their LDS account) were told when records could be viewed by LDS. That information is no longer displayed since October 2019. Once the Wiki told users very clearly about the restrictions on viewing records. Now ordinary wiki editors are not allowed to edit that content, and the senior editors who are, are systemically removing this content."
Thanks for those comments. However, I am still at a loss as to the types of records that are being restricted? What kind of content is in the restricted records? Are they official government records, primary sources for Vitals, private copyrighted materials, or other miscellaneous sorts of records?
Anymore insight would be appreciated. Thanks...0 -
David Newton said: Just so you all know what I wrote was "not relevant to this thread" according to someone from Familysearch.
Seems I have the answer to the questions I posed. The questions which WERE relevant to this thread. They have chosen censorship. They have chosen to be discourteous. They have chosen to be unkind. They have chosen to not be constructive.
They have chosen to try and silence me here. They have chosen to try and silence Paul Wrightson on the Familysearch wiki. They have chosen to hide behind contract terms, terms which for all we know were inserted into the contracts at their insistence!
ENOUGH! We can all draw the proper conclusions from the contents of this thread. We can all draw the proper conclusions from the actions taken on the wiki and the actions taken in this thread. We can all draw the proper conclusions and those conclusions are not positive for Familysearch.
This is how organisational reputations are trashed. These are the sort of actions which lead to extremely negative situations. It's not the original problem which gets you, it's the coverup.
No proper reply has been received to the original question in this thread. Instances of mass censorship have been highlighted in this thread. Instances of worse things have been highlighted in this thread.
My actual, full thoughts on the matter cannot be posted here. They are not complementary to put it mildly.
Oh and just to be very, very, very, crystal clear for the moderators. This post is on topic. This post is relevant to the thread. Bear in mind what the optics will be if further censorship occurs and further discussion of the India Office images and related issues concerning secret contract terms and supression of information on the Familysearch wiki is stymied or harmed by post deletion.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: FS doesn't own any of the records on their website. Even indexes produced by FS volunteers are subject to contracts. Every record set on the FS website is only able to be published after a contract between FS and the record owner or some other party who has authority to share the records (FS uses the term "custodian").
Many custodians have objections to publishing the records on FS, usually due to financial reasons. Other records cannot be published due to laws, usually for privacy reasons.
Therefore restrictions can be imposed on records at FS. Common restrictions are:
* Having to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (though as I said earlier, this is no longer publicized, except for the create an account page)
* Having to be at a Family History Center or Affiliate Library
* Being able to view records but not download images.
The first two are frequently put together, and that is what happened with the British Office records mentioned. LDS members can view the records at any computer, but non-LDS only at a FHC. Previously, both LDS and non-LDS could only view the records at a FHC or Affiliate Libraries. The new restrictions therefore gave more access to Latter Day Saints, and less to non-LDS.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: ATP - the majority of restrictions that I come across are restrictions for purely commercial reasons - eg images are available on a pay site, so are not to be made available on FS's open access free site. Important to realize that this is agreed by FS as part of the agreements between FS and the commercial pay sites.
Images restricted for commercial reasons can be absolutely anything of relevance to family history.
Yes, there are other restriction reasons such as privacy of recent personal data or privacy of LDS data but those restrictions haven't changed and are not the cause of dispute or confusion - it would appear to be the commercial restrictions that are causing debate here.0 -
ATP said: Thanks, for providing a clearer understanding of what constitutes the restricted records.. very helpful.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: I've made a freedom of information act request to the British Library asking about the restrictions on these records, in particular that Latter Day Saints get more access than non-LDS. The response is due on 20 August (but can extended by another 20 days, which I suspect will happen due to the potential embarrassment to them of the response, the pandemic, and the fact it is summer).
ttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/religi...0
This discussion has been closed.