Mass Withdrawal of Affiliate Library Access

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I acknowledge that this question is currently not very meaningful given that nearly all Affiliate Libraries and FHCs are closed for at least a few weeks.

It seems that all records previously accessible at a Family History Center OR an Affiliate Library are now only accessible at a FHC.

I've looked at many collections that were previously FHC/AL only (in some cases Latter Day Saints are believed to have unrestricted access) and found all to now be FHC only. I found none that were still accessible from an AL.

These collections were:
Diocese of Mainz Catholic Records
Hessen Civil Registration
Diocese of Trier Catholic Records
1891 England and Wales Census
Leicestershire Church of England Records
Scotland OPRs
Morris County, NJ, Wills 1740-1900

I hope that this is just a technical issue.
Prehaps, given that Affiliate Libraries have not existed for very long compared to FHCs, FS has decided that any contract signed before their establishment cannot give them rights to make records available from an Affiliate Library. I hope this is not the case- in my area FHCs have very limited hours and are located further away from the ALs near my house.

It is obviously highly unlikely that all the different record custodians negotiated with FS an end to AL access around the same time. Some of the records aren't on any of the commercial websites so I doubt FS's partnerships with Ancestry, FMP etc are involved.

Whatever the cause is, communication from FS would be highly appreciated.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Yes, FamilySearch employees / moderators, please do come back to us on this issue. All I would wish for is a general response confirming whether this is, as suggested, either a technical issue, or down to renegotiation of contracts / agreements having been wrongly applied (to include Affiliates). Thank you.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The 2012 Contract relating to the 1841-91 UK Censuses give viewing rights to patrons of "FamilySearch Libraries", defined as "FamilySearch's network of family history research centers operated by FamilySearch, including the Family History Library, FamilySearch Centers, family history centers, and other Church affiliated libraries".

I guess that as ALs are not "operated by FamilySearch", they are not included in the definition. Oddly, only the 1891 Census was accessible by non-LDS at ALs, for 1841-81 it was FHC only already.

The Leicestershire CoE records are governed by a subcontract between FMP and FS. The original contract between the Leicestershire County Council and FMP was signed in 2015.

When I asked National Records Scotlands about contracts relating to non-CoS records , all they could give me was a 2003 contract relating to Kirk Sessions which used the undefined phrase "the Society's [GSU] library system". Apparently they have lost their other contracts.

I just noticed that these non-CoS records are still available from ALs to non-LDS. I checked the others and they are still FHC only.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Could a staff member please answer the question about the loss of Affiliate Library access for non-Latter Day Saint users for the collections I listed above?

I checked those collections again and they are still FHC only- the previous AL access appears to have been withdrawn.

Simply, were these "en masse" changes deliberate (i.e. as a result of a contract with record custodians) or unintended?

Thank you

LegacyUser

Paul said: Okay, we can't demand answers to questions that are liable to affect our future research (though not current, of course). However, it is surely only common courtesy for us to be given a response on this issue. Surely FsamilySearch employees realise that the contribution of users who are not LDS church members does not just benefit ourselves?

When I add sources from restricted collections (whilst at a FHC or Affiliate) it is usually of limited benefit to me. With just a couple of exceptions, I cannot view those records once I get home, but still add them in a hope fellow users ,who are LDS, will receive benefit from my actions.

So, please realise that this issue affects the research of the whole community.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Indeed.

We're not asking to know the contents of the contract (generally speaking we do understand that these things are confidential). But we would like a response that says perhaps, "Yes, it was deliberate and was done for contractual reasons" or, "Oh dear, some change elsewhere has been misinterpreted", or "Oops - we forgot about the Affiliates". Or a variation on those.

Please don't expect us to believe that you can't tell us that there's a contract in place.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: The team needs some more help to investigate.

When something disappears there are multiple possibilities:
1, The rights have changed (record custodian pulled it) and that is no longer available, to some or all users
2. The rights are correct but it is not showing because some service that serves up the record/image is having issues
3. There is a software defect where the image rights is not being interpreted correctly or some other display bug.

So to diagnose the problem a URL to the record/image is necessary.  A  Collection itself may have many different rights application to the various pieces of the collection. I realize this may have required you to capture a URL, or a Source that referenced the URL which you may not have. Any URL, even a search query URL would help.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Here are some URLs:

Diocese of Mainz Catholic Records: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...
Hessen Civil Registration: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...
Diocese of Trier Catholic Records: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...
1891 England and Wales Census: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...
Leicestershire Church of England Records: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...
Scotland OPRs: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...
Morris County, NJ, Wills 1740-1900: https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...

As I've said before, all these records were previously accessible at Affiliate Libraries (for non-LDS users- the Trier, Hessen and Leicestershire records were available to LDS members from any computer). All of a sudden, they were taken down, it appears around the same time.

Thank you very much for responding.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: 1. Presumably the issue with the 1891 census is that the image is no longer available, because the index clearly is.

2. What exactly is the issue with the Scotland OPRs - here I can't get to the images but surely these were never available at Affiliate Libraries? Or were they? (I'm just asking because I know how tightly ScotlandsPeople guard their stuff)

Apologies if the answers are elsewhere in this thread.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: 1. It is only the image that is no longer available.

2. Surprisingly, Scottish OPRs were available at Affiliate Libraries. I made use of this several times over the last 1-2 years.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Thanks - I confess myself gobsmacked to learn that Scottish OPRs were available at Affiliate libraries!

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Affiliate Library access for non-Church of Scotland records continues, in case you are interested.

Today, after 8 months of correspondence with National Records of Scotland, NRS has communicated to me that they stand by their contract with FS which allows FHC and AL access to all, as well as home access for LDS members.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Really?! Well, let's hope, then, thanks. Mind you, the only AL that I frequent is over 2h away in London, so it's a bit of a moot point which to go for if it's only a handful of images.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Another group I am aware of which used to be available ar Affiliate Libraries, and now is not is
Bengal Army muster rolls and casualty returns, 1716-1860
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

These are records from the British Library in London.

On thing I have noticed, and whether the programming changes it involved may have inadvertently altered something else, is that from the catalogue page, when I, a non church member, click on the camera icon with a key above, and go to the next page, almost immediately a "box " comes up with the message
"Images Available
To view these images do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center".

In the past, and I believe I have complained about it in this Forum, I had to wait for about 60 small images with "Photo not available" or some such similar wording to be displayed, before the message about where to view the images appeared. So the changes are a definite improvement, but perhaps inadvertently have led to the current problem?

Associated with the changes to the microfilm viewing page, I have noticed that a
a group of records which previously said "This image courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd" now no longer say this
"Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948"
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
This however is in respect of a group of records which have not been available at Affiliate Libraries for nearly two years.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Maureen - re the Bengal Army stuff. Are these on FindMyPast or not?

Because while I can speculate about the withdrawal of India Office (British Library) stuff from Affiliates where that stuff is available on FindMyPast, I think that you also found some India Office stuff that was not on FindMyPast but had still been withdrawn, with the result that it's nowhere on the internet outside FHCs.

At least, that's what's in my head, and if true surely needs explanation.

Thanks

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I confirm that the Bengal Army muster rolls and casualty returns, 1716-1860
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
I previously mentioned are not on Findmypast

As far as I can tell, ALL records which originate from the British Library in London are now no longer available at Affiliate Libraries.

This includes those records which were removed from Affiliate Libraries almost two years ago as they were on Findmypast, in a deal where LDS church members got access on their home computers. In addition all other records (as far as I can tell) from the British Library in London which were available at Affiliate Libraries until recently, now are only viewable at Family Search FHCs.

Another group of microfilms which have been removed from Affiliate Libraries is a set of books
An East-India register and directory
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
There is no source given for these microfilms, so I don't know why the viewing has been restricted at all for those microfilms which have been digitised, as all the books would be considered in the public domain in the USA as they were printed in the 1800s.

This must be thousands of digitised microfilms which have been removed from Affiliate Libraries.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Thanks Maureen. The Bengal lists that you mention are a puzzle.

NB - it is not impossible that FMP has messed up by having these films but not putting them up. I think that we'd be perfectly happy to go to FMP but we need a reason and some facts to go with.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: The Bengal, and other Presidency muster rolls (from the India Office records at the British Library) have never been on Findmypast

The India Office records on Findmypast are in the following link
https://web.archive.org/web/201803060.... I believe they were all refilmed by Findmypast prior to release in 2014, so are a different filming to the FamilySearch microfilms which were filmed much earlier.

Surely FamilySearch should be able to say whether there has been a FamilySearch decision to withdraw from Affiliate Libraries, with subsequent system changes to reflect this, or whether it is a bug.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I felt a little bit more heartened after checking the availability of the latest England & Wales collections today (from email re New Collections Update: Week of 6 April 2020).

All appear to be possible to view at both a FHC or an Affiliate. Okay, not much use at the present time, but perhaps reason to be optimistic for the future in relation to the "general" restricted availability issue being raised here by AvH.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Agreed. No-one's asking for commercially confidential details - we just want a well-argued assurance (given the lack of any visible reason) that what's happened is correct.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: A van,
what are names of the affiliate library(s) where the records are not accessible from?

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I cannot visit any affiliate library in my area at the moment. I'm simply seeing the restricted records message, which no longers mentions they can be viewed from Affiliate Libraries. In the past I have accessed most of the records I mentioned from the Auckland Central Library at Lorne St (on the map). I have also accessed some of these records from another AL in Auckland, New Zealand that is NOT on the FHC/AL map and opened in 2019. If you need to know where is it, I can tell you privately, as I do not want to disclose the precise suburb I live in.

I'm surprised that you need to know which ALs are involved. Do some ALs have different viewing rights than others? FS has never said that before.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Another Affiliate Library that I have used in the past is the Society of Genealogists, London. Again, since I can't access it now, I've no idea whether it has or doesn't have the access to those particular films

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Each physical location or AL has a unique identifier which is communicated to the service that determines whether that data can be viewed there or not. So knowing the location will give the team info to make sure that location is on the list to show that record. Typically this is done through the IP address of the location. 

So if you say that an AL has lost access to those collections the team needs to know the name of the location to check.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I am not saying that one particular AL has lost access. I am saying that based on the message that comes up when you try to access the records from home, all affiliate libraries have lost access and the records are now accessible from FHCs only. My question is whether, given this occurred near-simultaneously to nearly all of the collections I use, this was a technical issue (or the message displaying incorrectly), or a coincidental change in contracts for all these collections.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: I reached out to you via email.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: As a non church member, I confirm that the screen shot posted by
A van Helsdingen above, is what I see for the records I mentioned in my post of April10, 11:20 above
Bengal Army muster rolls and casualty returns, 1716-1860
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
An East-India register and directory
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

Joe, if you sign in as a non church member, do you see the same screen after clicking on the camera icons with key above?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Joe - we can only believe the pop up instructions that we see, which are indicating that the images aren't available at Affiliates any more. I think that you've got 2 or 3 Affiliate names for the guys to check now. That's all we can provide in view of lockdown, ie we can't go there to physically check.

I hope that this will suffice for some degree of investigation by your guys.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Joe

I assume it's sunk in by now that the name of the specific Affiliate does not matter - the problem relates to the material concerned no longer being available to view at ANY Affiliate, but now only at a Family History Centre.

Many of us would just like confirmation as to whether these are contractual issues or whether (say) this has been caused by some programming error. If the message (as illustrated) is currently being displayed in error, there would be no reason to reverse this: confirming these films are still be available for viewing at Affiliates, after all.

You must admit, it does seems strange that so much material has suddenly had viewing rights restricted. If this all involves one partner (say Find My Past) the situation would be understandable, but a number of partners appear to be involved here, making contractual considerations less likely than somebody at FS "pressing the wrong button" and causing so much loss of material availability.

LegacyUser

Paul said: AvH

Joe indicates he has contacted you by email. Without wishing to breach any confidentiality, if you're happy with his response, that's fine by me!

LegacyUser

joe martel said: So from what I have been told, that error message for these collections should say  “at a family history centers or an affiliate library”, with the exception of the 1891 England and Wales Census.

As I mentioned above, the specific location does matter. It's how the service knows to let the data through if its an IP address that is on the approved list, i.e. my house, vs the FHC, FHL, ...