Is taking Obituary screenshots off of the Internet against FamilySearch's Upload Guidelines and Poli

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said:



ancestry.com allows downloads of a lot of their records, what about a screenshot of a marriage record? I download a lot of their Military records.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: There will be terms and conditions for downloading material from Ancestry. They obviously do not want people helping others to bypass their subscription fees by sharing records freely on the internet. FS is of course a partner of Ancestry and probably wants to enforce these rules on their website to keep Ancestry happy.

In the FS Upload Guidelines and Policies, can be found the statement, under the heading "Principles for Photos, Documents and Audio Recordings":

"Noncommercial. Content should not advertise or promote products. They should not infringe on intellectual property rights"

So unless Ancestry (or the original owner of the records says you can share copies of records on their website with others and post it elsewhere on the internet, it is probably illegal and unethical to post records from Ancestry on the FSFT, unless you use the built-in source linker tools.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: We need a FamilySearch representative, who is familiar with what is often done, to weigh in and state the actual policies involving copyrighted materials.

First and foremost, copyright law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and what is a usual practice is not always used, depending upon the location. For instance, in most jurisdictions in the United States, government records are considered to be public and not protected by copyright. These include vital records, such as birth and death records. But in Illinois, the state's law regarding those records says that they are not covered by the Illinois freedom or information act. This is being addressed by an organization that is working with all states to make their vital (genealogical) information available under the various states' freedom of information acts. But that involves access to such records, and not copyright protection.

There are at least two ares (and likely many more) where copyright laws apply: 1) published (newspaper - print or otherwise) articles, and individual photographs, such as images of gravestones.

Generally speaking, permission must be obtained to use images (photographs, captured text, and scanned newspapers) on a site like FamilySearch.

I believe that these are what Don is identifying in his question. That is where we need clarification. The same applies to current church records -- at least in the United States of America.

I do not know how this would apply to other countries and records from those jurisdictions. The FamilySearch Submission Agreement, especially items 2 & 3, apply to this message thread (it can be reached through the Terms of Use, or directly at https://www.familysearch.org/legal/fa...).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Marriage records -- if these are public vital records, they fall into the same category as birth and death records. If these are Church records, then I don't know whether the religion claims copyright or not.

Likewise, military records, such as draft cards are also public records as are any un- or declassified military records. Federal records fall under the federal freedom of information act.

Information copied from other internet sites -- see the Submission Agreement (linked in my reply at the end).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Finally, ethical is in the thinking of the individual and all that matters is the legal aspect involved.

It appears that FamilySearch leaves the "permission to submit" up to the individual contributor, including any litigation that may surround such permission (or lack thereof).

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: This can get far too complicated.

I use two simple rules . . .

1. If it (document/report etc.) is freely available on the intenet - then I feel free to download/copy and use it in FSFT.

2. If it is behind a subscription/membership wall - I feel comfortable using the "RecordSeek" browser attachment that facilitates me using that in FSFT with a citation and link (both managed by ReordSeek) to the web page that any other FSFT user can use - if they have the subscription/membership - but also allows me to describe/report the information that I have seen in the record (any other researcher, should of course, not necessarily take my word for it!).

Note that in refernce to Ancestry sources . . . Ancestry does provide an interface that can download the sources from an Ancestry tree to FSFT . . . but such source in FSFT will only be viewable by a FSFT user with an Ancestry subscription - otherwise they are met with an invitation to subscribe.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I believe there is a difference between the original records and the digital copies and how copyright applies to each.

Here is the contract between Ancestry and the US Archives (NARA) :https://www.archives.gov/files/digiti...

(The NARA-FS Contract is also public)

According to section 3.5, " Ancestry will own all rights to and have the unlimited right to use and permit others to use the Digital Materials and the searchable database of Digital Materials"

That is despite the records being acknowledged in the contract as being in the public domain, which means you can quote from the original records and post that information anywhere you like. But if you post the images of the records you could be violating Ancestry's property rights.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "If it (document/report etc.) is freely available on the intenet - then I feel free to download/copy and use it in FSFT."

WRONG!

Those documents are still covered by copyright unless they are things like US federal records which as Tom correctly identifies above do not have any copyright. Due to FSFT's terms of service it is incorrect to upload such documents without explicit licence to do so. Not implicit, explicit. If you do upload those documents without such oermission you are in violation of Familysearch's terms of use.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Ancestry does not publish unaltered record images. They watermark them. That's creation of a derivative work and means a copyright subsists in the altered images. Only if the watermarking is completely automatic would it be a likely argument that no new copyright subsists.

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: David,
There is not a great deal of useful "free" genealogical information on the internet (other than FS) - but, for example - I do make great use of the Irish 1901/1911 censuses and the Irish GRO-BMD registrations - all accessable and freely available from the Irish government associated web sites - I have downloaded many of these images and uploaded them to FSFT.

Do you believe I needed some explicit approval for this?

Do you believe anybody cares?

It remains my view that if the owner of a document puts it on-line without any restrictive access - it is implicitly there to be used in any way by anyone who finds it useful - that is the nature of the internet. If the owner wishes to merely show it on the internet with restricted usage - such document or photo images I would expect to have a prominent embedded copyright notice on each image.

LegacyUser

Cindy Hecker said: I know with Ancestry it is permissible to provide a link to the record and have that link appear on FamilySearch but no I would not load a screen shot.

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: That is excatly what the browser attachment tool "RecordSeek" does (plus your own description of the record).

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "Do you believe I needed some explicit approval for this?

Do you believe anybody cares?"

I do not believe you need explicit approval for this. I KNOW you need explicit approval for this. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of legal fact.

Now whether or not anyone cares? That is a matter of opinion and belief.

Your knowledge of copyright law is sorely lacking. You also display a smugness about this which is unfortunate. For a good start I suggest you read the Legal Genealogist blog. That has some nice posts on copyright amongst other things. It should help cure your case copyright-related Dunning-Kruger effect.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: This post by David Newton is highly insulting. The Dunning-Kruger effect is an inability to realise one's incompetence/low knowledge.

I would have "flagged" this post if this was possible in GetSatisfaction.

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: David,
This will be my last comment on this issue.

Sometimes you can be absoultely pedantically correct - but at the same time absolutely pedantically useless . . . and maybe wrong - except you are never known to admit such a conclusion.

In my view - the particular example I used - of Irish census records and BMD registrations contains no material of originality or authorship and the owner has provided the facilities to download electronic images to be used as I wish - subject I do assume to exclude any use in any commercial enterprise.

I do realise this is merely the reasoning of the common man and without consulting a legal opinion . . . and perhaps the ROI National Archives and GRO would welcome a few thousand - maybe a few hundreds of thousands of applications to re-use their downloads in such a way . . . but I really doubt it.

Sometimes legal opinions really are not worth the paper they are printed on.

"Dunning-Kruger" I thought was really lower than you normally punch - sometimes you can be too much of an intellectual.

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: A last reminder to adhere to the code of conduct https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Community-code-of-conduct . We all appreciate constructive responses, but when one's opinion becomes hostile to another or utilizes inflammatory language the entire post will be removed. 

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: While we appreciate the informative, important and interesting knowledge you bring to the forum, please be more polite.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Obviously, it is quite reasonable for you to emphasise the code of conduct but, equally, you should refer this to the appropriate section in your organisation - presumably Legal.

If you do not have the authority to do so, please ensure this matter is passed along through your line management in order that this matter can be officially addressed.

As David points out, this is a most serious (general) issue that could result in large financial costs to users of Family Tree who inadvertently breach copyright laws. I believe your organisation has a duty to present a code of practice on this matter, with the same accessibility as the freely available code of conduct for use of this site.

I apologise if one already exists, in which case please provide a link and request it is more easily visible to FT users. Thank you.

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: David,
The difference between the two levels of "pedantic" attitudes is that you are more inclined to slip into lecture mode . . . on reflection, the more useful analysis of the situation, I believe, would be to say . . . why not use the "RecordSeek" approach I mentioned in my first response for sources behind a subscription wall.

This provides a url link to the image in the providers web site and allows any additional observations I wish to record. No "uploading" needed.

Now that . . . I am most inclined to adopt - so, thank you for the lecture.

I am still of the opinion that providers of free images really do not legally care what we may do with them unless they are incorporated into professional/academic published works or used for financial gain in any way.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Most probably don't, Stewart. I'm sure the GRO of England & Wales has expressed the view it is okay to post images of its certificates in (say) Family Tree Memories section. However, this possibly contradicts its full T&C comments on the issue.

I think we are all used to David's (shall we say) bluntness in the way he expresses himself and directs his comments, so can understand why you (and the FS moderator) considered one particular phrase as offensive. However, I believe he has been extremely helpful here. Specifically, in the detail he has provided relating to the Irish records, but generally in respect of his warnings of the possible costs of not adhering to guidelines, especially of some record custodians / other bodies. Just because most organisations would let you get away with things, others just might come down on you like a ton of bricks!

Unless FamilySearch's legal department states otherwise, it's really your call as to what you do in the case you have raised.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Simple clarification (for us simple folk). If I order and pay for a copy of a birth or death record from GRO am in then able to attach it to a familysearch profile?

LegacyUser

Paul said: Christine

Refer to https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...'

The extract below might (or possibly might not quite!) answer your question:

Q: I'm publishing my family tree on the internet - I want to publish images of the
certificates I have.

A: As long as there are no details about living individuals there is no problem about publishing the images of the certificates on your family tree website. Any modern certificates would be subject to the Data Protection Act, and would need the permission of any living named person prior to publication.

From that, I would take it be be okay.

Update - see also
https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/q...

LegacyUser

David Newton said: My take? THAT is exactly the sort of blanket permission I was talking about. That is an explicit licence to use both the blank forms and completed certificates on websites. TNA is the organisation which administers Crown copyright on behalf of the Crown itself. They are thus authorised to grant such a licence, and it contains some very easily fulfilled conditions: attribution of the copyright and a stipulation that HM Government must not be implied as endorsing a product or service.

The irony of the licence is it says that, "You are authorised to reproduce certificates for all purposes other than providing evidence
of an event ...." Now of course when they say "providing evidence of an event" they mean in a legally significant situation, say applying for probate. They definitely don't mean "providing evidence of an event" in genealogy terms!

However even though this licence is exceedingly broad it does conflict with the terms of Familysearch's copyright licence grant:

"In exchange for your use of this site and/or our storage of any data you submit, you hereby grant us with an unrestricted, fully paid-up, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable, and perpetual license to use any and all information, content, and other materials (collectively, “Contributed Content”) that you submit or otherwise provide to this site (including, without limitation, genealogical data, images, writings, documents, materials, recordings, discussions, information, and data relating to deceased persons or anything else) FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES, IN ANY AND ALL MANNERS, and in any and all forms of media that we, in our sole discretion, deem appropriate for the furtherance of our mission to promote family history and genealogical research." (emphasis added)

Familysearch could thus attempt to use the materials to "Use certificates or their contents to advertise or promote a particular product or
service, or in a way which could imply endorsement by HM Government." according to the terms of the licence granted to Familysearch upon upload. In practice they would not do this. However the licence they give themselves as part of the terms of use of the site means they COULD do this and so the two licences are incompatible.

So due to that conflict of terms, unfortunately not even a licence as easy to comply with as that TNA certificate one is compatible with the Familysearch licence. It's the subtleties like this which can seriously, seriously catch people out.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: The original query was about Obituaries and Judy Russell - the Legal Genealogist - has blogged on these and one post is on URL https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012...

And the blog answers the question with Judy's (and mine) favourite answer "It depends.". Have a read and note by the way that the dates for expiring copyright will need to be shifted by the passage of time since that blog.

Re the statement above that "If the owner wishes to merely show it on the internet with restricted usage ... I would expect to have a prominent embedded copyright notice on each image." One of Judy Russell's incessant refrains is that copyright exists automatically and there is no requirement for a copyright notice.

Some bodies will simply not bother chasing minor infringements of copyright (and will probably internally justify it under "Fair Usage" - whatever that might be). Hoping that a copyright owner is not bothered is not the same as being legally allowed to post. Hoping carries a risk.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Exactly so Paul. Let's get the lawyers of FS working for their living and answering these questions.

Copyright and Terms & Conditions (remember these are two separate and relevant concepts) are both emotive topics and will generate more heat than light. It's actually grossly unfair on the mods to expect them to hold the ring on this complex topic.

I'm not asking for an overall, covers anything and everything response. That would be several volumes - possibly several libraries. But it should be possible to get a response from the lawyers relevant to this specific instance. After all, FS can say "We're not 100% certain so please don't..."

LegacyUser

joe martel said: As for an offical comment this is probably the closest you will see: https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Copyright-questions-and-answers-for-patrons-1381815054418&lang=en

I doubt an attorney or legal would make a blanket statement of whether your situation is legal or not without looking in detail at the artifact in question and its ownership and such.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: "One of Judy Russell's incessant refrains is that copyright exists automatically and there is no requirement for a copyright notice."

Within the United States, this is an absolute truth. Copyright is established at the time of the creation of the copyrighted material. See https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa... -- this applies to the United States and its laws. -- from the same page: "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country."

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: On Fair Use see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview... -- note that "it depends" on four factors. Again, this is related to how copyright is regulated in the United States.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Keep in mind that the applicable page for copyright questions with regard to FamilySearch (and Joe's response) is "The FamilySearch Submission Agreement" at https://www.familysearch.org/legal/fa...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Regardless, none (that I know about) are legal experts / attorneys / lawyers (in England, barrister and/or solicitor) and therefore, the most we can do is provide our opinion on these matters.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: For the purpose of this discussion, a lot depends upon the jurisdiction involved, the material involved, and whether its use qualifies under Fair Use or a variation thereof. I've provided some links for the United States, and it appears that for the most part, it depends upon the amount and intent of the use.