Home viewing of films restricted to FHC viewing
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Sheila King Winkelspecht said: During the global lock down, would it be possible to get permission from records offices that have restricted films to FHC viewing to open them up to home viewing for this period? Sheila
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
joe martel said: This is the current official statement: https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Expanded-access-to-records-restricted-to-centers-and-libraries-due-to-COVID-19&lang=en0
-
A van Helsdingen said: It is possible, but probably only for the record owners of larger record sets. It depends on whether both FS and the owners have lawyers available who can (virtually) negotiate a temporary contract and sign it.
Ancestry signed a temporary contract with the US National Archives (NARA), which resulted in 500 million records becoming freely available at Ancestry until the lockdowns end.
I'm hopeful that FS will be able to do something similar, but I think it's becoming less likely with each passing day. We'll have to focus on research using records available from home computers in the meantime.0 -
David Newton said: I saw a note in a UK National Archives email the other day that they will make records that can be ordered through their online shop but are normally free on site completely free for the duration of their closure. That will affect things like some military service records etc. Don't know if that will also affect the censuses, but I suspect not since those records are accessed at partner sites like Ancestry rather than directly through the TNA website's shop.0
-
A van Helsdingen said: The have clarified that records at other sites (i.e. Ancestry, FMP, FS etc) are not included at this stage: https://scottishgenes.blogspot.com/20...0
-
MaureenE said: Also see The National Archives Twitter link with the above advice "but it’s taking our amazing digital team a bit of time to make it happen"
https://twitter.com/UkNatArchives/sta...0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I suspect that the reason it does not include their "records at other sites" is because they are currently bound under contract.
(Those contracts always make things so complicated :-)0 -
Brett said: All
And ...
Do not forget ...
The "National Archives of the United Kingdom" is a Government "Web" 'Site.
Unlike, "FamilySearch" that is a FREE to ALL "Web" 'Site, that is not for profit.
"FamilySearch" is also NOT a "Subscription" (ie. "PAID") COMMERCIAL "Web" 'Site.
Even during the (extended) time of this worldwide pandemic, due to the very limited resources available to "FamilySearch", I would rather that those at "FamilySerach" CONCENTRATE on all the many competing priorities within 'Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of "FamilySearch", rather than trying to NEGOTIATE with Record Custodians in making all available holdings accessible to all - temporary or not.
Whereas, if the Record Custodians give permission ('all-be-it' temporary) for "FamilySearch" to make their particular collection(s) in "FamilySearch", freely accessible to all; then, well and good; but, that is another matter ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: Certainly I agree that FS should not spend too many resources for a temporary relaxation of restrictions. How much resources they should use depends on the likely length of lockdowns.
But there is no harm in FS picking up the phone and having a quick talk with the record custodians of larger/more important record sets. For smaller record sets that are restricted it is not worthwhile for FS to try.
In the case of TNA, they are a very important record custodian for FS, and they have publicly expressed willingness to sacrifice income (which they can as they are a government agency). Their contract, which is public (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8qc...) includes limits on who can view the records. FS and TNA simply need to agree to a one paragraph contract that suspends that part of the contract and replaces it with access for everyone for a limited time. Hopefully that does not violate TNA's contracts with Ancestry, FMP etc. And if it did, then FS's partnerships with those companies may allow a deal to be made.0 -
Brett said: A van Helsdingen
As you would be only too well aware, it would be much MORE than just "... picking up the phone and having a quick talk with the record custodians ...".
'No', just let the Record Custodians come to "FamilySearch", if they so desire.
And, if we are lucky, the Record Custodians may even do so.
[ If prompted ... HINT ... Hint ]
We can live in hope.
Brett
.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I really do not think it would take too long to negotiate a temporary contract (provided both parties are willing and able to do so), especially if FS presents a draft to the record custodians.
A temporary contract could be as simple as:
"From the signing of this codicil until 31 May 2020 Utah time, FamilySearch International is granted the rights to publish digital copies of the records that are the subject of this contract, and to make these copies available to all signed-in users of the FamilySearch website regardless of their geographic location or their membership status in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any provision in this contract that prevents some users of the FamilySearch website from be able to access the records does not apply during this time period. On 1 June 2020, this codicil will cease to have effect unless an extension is agreed to by both parties"
A different time could be inserted, or the end time could be based on when lockdowns end, or there could be a clause that the record custodian can stop the temporary free access at any time by contacting FS with a certain period of notice.0 -
Brett said: A van Helsdingen
It is NOT up to "FamilySearch"; even, to be proactive.
And, I for one, DO NOT want "FamilySearch" taking their valuable time or resources, to do so.
It is up to the Record Custodians, to make the move.
Brett
.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: "It is up to the Record Custodians, to make the move"
Really?. Most records on the FS website would never have been published if not for FS's proactive approach of contacting archives and other record owners and negotiating contracts with them.
If would take very little resources for FS to email a document similar to my suggested Temporary Contract that I posted above to a number of more important record custodians and to say that if they are interested they can ring FS and arrange to sign it.
All the FS negotiators and people who digitize records currently have nothing to do. This is something productive they could be doing.
I acknowledge that you personally are not affected by this situation as much as I am, since you can continue to view all the records that Latter Day Saints can view from any computer but non-LDS can only view from a FHC or Affiliate Library.0 -
Brett said: A van Helsdingen
'Yes' ... 'Really' ...
Again ...
It is NOT up to "FamilySearch"; even, to be proactive.
And, I for one, DO NOT want "FamilySearch" taking their valuable time or resources, to do so.
It is up to the Record Custodians, to make the move.
And ...
As to those Members of the Church who, either, Work for; and/or, Volunteer their Time, for/in "FamilySearch" ... they deserve a rest and time to be with their Families.
Oh ...
But, I am personally affected by this particular matter (no matter to what extent) with regard to the worldwide "COVID-19" Pandemic ... we all are ... or, so I thought.
There are ALSO Records on "FamilySearch" that I CANNOT access/view UNLESS I attend a "Family History Centre" of the Church - which are CURRENTLY Temporarily "Closed".
If the right thing was done by all people around the world, the crisis due to the pandemic, would not go on as long as it has ... we all just have to do the right thing and be patient.
Lets just wait and see what happens, in regard to this matter, we may be pleasantly surprised ...
No use dwelling on it ...
Enough said ...
Brett
.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: Yes, there are records you (as a Latter Day Saint) cannot view unless you attend a FHC, but the number of records I cannot view is far more that what you and other LDS members cannot view.
For example, you can view the 1841-91 UK Censuses, a very large and important collection. I cannot until the FHCs reopen. I know of many other collections that LDS can view from any computer (thus the pandemic has no negative impact on your ability to view the records), while non-LDS have to attend either a FHC and/or AL. And sometimes the records are not on any other website, making research using those records impossible for 99.8% of the world, possibly for several months, while the 0.2% (Latter Day Saints) can continue to research as normal and make productive use of the lockdown.
I don't mean to reignite the disputes about contracts that give LDS users more access than non-LDS, but the reality for us non-LDS is as I have said above.0 -
Paul said: Brett
I'm bit shocked by your attitude here. As AvH suggests, we are all affected by the current situation, but some of us are a bit more affected than others. Whereas, as LDS church members, much of your research can proceed as always, the rest of us have to either take out subs to other sites or put much of our research on hold.
Family Tree (like this forum) is a community project, where we all work towards its aims and objectives by adding names that can be shared by all. Any easing of restrictions that is applied to me is potentially to the advantage of LDS members, who can (if commonly related) take the names I add to the temple.
FamilySearch taking the initiative suggested might lead nowhere at all, but I just cannot see why you would wish to discourage any pro-active initiatives.0 -
Paul said: BTW - I am not directly asking FamilySearch to contact one or more of its major partners: just disagreeing with any argument which specifically suggests it SHOULD NOT do so.0
-
Brett said: Paul
Nothing to be shocked about ...
The easing of "Restrictions" during this pandemic would certainly greatly benefit the non-member Users/Patrons of "FamilySearch"; especially, those that use "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", NOT to mention those that use "FamilySearch" for accessing/viewing Records; and, therefore, by extension, provide more individuals/persons to; and/or, more details about existing individuals/person in, "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", that would be available for the Member Users/Patrons ...
As I stated, I for one, just DO NOT want "FamilySearch" taking their valuable time or resources, to do so. That would be detrimental to the already overwhelming workload of those in "FamilySearch" (both, Workers; and Volunteers). And, in any case, as you yourself suggest, would most likely "... lead nowhere at all ..." - I just do not want them to wasting their time doing so.
I am sorry you disagree.
But ...
That said ...
'Food for thought' ...
I would not worry, too much ... I am sure that it is possible that "FamilySearch", either, have already done so; or, are in the process of doing so ... even if it appears that it is not being done. It may take longer than the pandemic to come to an agreement/consensus.
Brett
.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: Let us say that lockdowns, at least in the United States and Europe, continued for six months (I'm confident that in our corner of the world in Australia and New Zealand this won't happen)
Would you still object to temporary contracts being negotiated? You would rather that a lot of genealogy work (and by extension LDS ordinances) be postponed during that time which for many of us is the best opportunity we have ever had to do genealogical research given that we are at home all day. ?0
This discussion has been closed.