Entire microfilms blocked due to a few restricted images
@SerraNola Hi! FamilySearch Support recommended I reach out to you directly in the Community regarding a structural issue with how restricted microfilms are handled, as they mentioned you are fantastic at escalating things to the engineering team.
Currently, if a microfilm contains multiple books (sometimes spanning different time periods or even different towns), the entire microfilm is locked if just a portion of it falls under a diocesan restriction (like late 20th-century confirmations).
This is creating massive collateral damage for researchers. Because of how the current system groups these files, I am seeing:
- Books from the 16th to 19th centuries completely blocked.
- I have even seen records from the 14th and 15th centuries locked because the same roll includes baptisms from as late as 1950s.
- Entire towns with perfectly open records rendered inaccessible simply because they share a digital film roll with a restricted 20th-century book from a different town.
I understand there are legal agreements and database limitations at play. However, other digital archives solve this by masking at the image level rather than the folder/film level.
Could the engineering team look into replacing restricted images with a placeholder or banner explaining the restriction, rather than locking the entire film? This would keep sensitive images properly restricted while immediately unlocking centuries of perfectly legal, public-domain history for researchers.
Is this granular image-masking something that is currently on the engineering roadmap, or is there any current workaround for these "crossfire" records?
Thank you so much for your time and for anything you can do to champion this with the dev team!
Best Answer
-
Thank you for your interest in helping improve access to our record collections.
At this point, a very large number of films have already been divided into separate items, as you described, and more are being divided all the time. In many cases this allows us to hide only the “more recent” records while leaving older items open. However, some divided films are still restricted as a whole.
I’ve been looking into why that happens and have learned that several factors influence how permissions are assigned, all with the goal of avoiding accidental exposure of restricted records:
- Legal and policy requirements In some countries or situations, the law or our agreements require that if any restricted content is present, the entire group of records must be restricted. In other cases, our policies determine that restricting the whole film is the safest and most compliant approach.
- Technical configuration Not every collection is currently set up to allow permissions at the item level. For item‑by‑item access, our systems must be able to evaluate each item separately.
- Quality of the metadata (the descriptive information about the records) When the descriptive information is incomplete, inconsistent, or only “rough,” the system can’t reliably tell which specific items contain sensitive or recent records. In those cases, the safest option is to restrict the entire film. Older films especially may not have detailed (“granular”) metadata, so the system cannot confidently separate restricted from unrestricted items.
My focus has been on the third area as I have found that in most cases the process of dividing the film did not include improving the descriptive information so that records can safely be opened. The community plays a crucial role here. Many of you are better than we are at reading difficult handwriting, working in foreign languages, and understanding local record formats.
All of this is human work. Once the descriptive data has been made more accurate, our automated rights‑evaluation systems can re‑process the film to determine whether some or all of the records can now be opened.
When all else fails, a film can also be sent to our Rights Management team for a more in‑depth review. They handle a high volume of requests, so any specific details we can provide about dates, record types, or which portions appear safe to open are extremely helpful and can speed up the process.
4
Answers
-
@OmarBudesca
It's Sunday evening in the USA, and I hope that SerraNola is taking some well-deserved time off.A project is already underway to split longer films/DGS that span many decades. It will take time, but we are already seeing progress. And, with patience, we will be able to view many more records than we presently can.
3 -
Good luck! I had a film I was on a few months ago where part of it got blocked and part open and it makes no sense because some of the years prior to 1850 were locked and some open even if the records were the same type and within the same year some were locked out. They said it was an error but has yet to be fixed. You might be waiting forever on this one. Luckily I have some other resources where the records are open for viewing so I was able to fall back on that in the mean time but not everyone has that luxury.
0 -
@StephenDespot I checked on the three films you reported and two of them are now fully accessible. #4594776 has received metadata corrections and should subsequently be available. At the time you reported these we were sending everything in for review. Now we preview for metadata errors and many times that's all that is needed to restore access.
Have patience with us. We're doing the best we can!
5 -
OK, good. I may have to get back in there and check those out.
0 -
Thanks for your answer 😄
With so many countries involved, it's difficult to see progress sometimes. However, it's good to know the intention is there
2 -
@SerraNolaThank you so much for this detailed and insightful breakdown! It really helps clarify the backend complexities—legal, technical, and metadata—involved in these restrictions.
I am very interested in helping with the third area you mentioned: improving the descriptive metadata so these films can be safely opened. I would gladly dedicate time to working through Spanish records to identify the item boundaries and separate the 16th-century books from the restricted 20th-century ones.
From what you are saying, it sounds like the community can actively participate in fixing this issue. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point, but if we are indeed able to help, it brings up a practical "Catch-22" that I am hoping you can help us navigate:
How can we help provide accurate metadata for films that are fully locked and not even viewable at Family History Centers?
If researchers cannot view the images to read the handwriting, determine the specific record types, and confirm the dates within a roll, we can't create the granular descriptive data the automated rights-evaluation system needs.
To help us help you, could you clarify the practical workflow here?
- Is there a dedicated channel or portal (such as a specific indexing project or restricted staging area) where volunteers can be granted temporary access to view these films solely for the purpose of generating this missing metadata?
- Or, is the current expectation that we simply rely on the broad catalog descriptions to guess which locked films might contain older, safe records, and blindly submit those film numbers to the Rights Management team for manual review?
I am more than willing to put in the human work required to fix this, I just need to know the proper mechanism to access the images so I can actually provide the necessary data!
Thank you again for your time, guidance, and for championing this effort 😁
1 -
@OmarBudesca Many of the complaints concerning restrictions are based on new permissions added only within the last six months. Patrons that had previously been using those films in their research know a great deal about what is on them and can be most helpful. They can also answer questions we might have in trying to determine correct record type and event place. I have found that sometimes even though I can see a record, I have no idea what I'm looking at!
2 -
Thanks for following up! That makes complete sense regarding the recent permissions added in the last six months. I can see how researchers with fresh notes on those newly-restricted records would be incredibly helpful to your team.
However, the specific records I am trying to help with are in a very different situation, which is why I am struggling to understand how the community can actually assist.
The Spanish records I am referring to haven't been locked for six months—many have been locked for almost 10 years. They were locked simply because 16th-century books happen to share a microfilm roll with <100-year-old records. (For example, this film here: 1329383
items 7-11, which has been locked for years becauseitems 2-3 and 4-6contain records from the 50s and 60s. Also,items 7-11are incorrectly labeled as starting in 1634, when they start in 1665).Because a decade has passed, relying on the memory or old notes of past researchers is unfortunately not a viable solution for these collections. This brings me back to my core question about how this workflow actually operates for older, persistently locked international records:
- Is the itemizing/image-grouping process strictly an internal FamilySearch task? If this can only be done by your staff or the Rights Management team, I completely understand. I will step back, wait, and hope they eventually get processed.
- If not, how does the community actually help with these 10-year locked films? If the community is supposed to be part of the solution for these older films, but we cannot see the images, and no one has recent notes on them, are we currently just depending on luck?
I genuinely want to offer my time to translate and separate these old Spanish records. I just need to know definitively: Is there any practical way I can actively do that right now, or is this entirely in FamilySearch's hands at this point?
Thank you again for engaging with me on this! I really appreciate your transparency.
P.S. On a completely separate note, I came across this set of microfilms today that is neither accessible nor locked—there is simply no icon at all. I am certain they were available back in 2015, and they don't seem to share space with lockable records. I am unsure if they were restricted due to new agreements or if this is just a system error: https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/olib:19322730 -
@OmarBudesca While we would appreciate your assistance, accessing restricted records is limited to internal personnel, and even then, only to those whose work requires it.
We are not always informed about which records are inaccessible, as all engineers have elevated permissions and typically do not encounter any access issues. When concerns are raised here, we are able to compare the content descriptions with the actual images, make necessary updates, and move it to a higher level for review.
Today, I spoke with the Rights Management team about your difficulty accessing older records from this film. They asked me to submit a work request so that they can review whether any factors are preventing permission settings based solely on the coverage data. I will let you know what they decide.
1 -
Thank you for getting back to me on this 😄
I completely understand the situation—I mainly wanted a clearer picture of how everything works so I can navigate it more effectively. From what I've seen, there are quite a few records like the one I sent that likely haven't yet been divided into digital objects, which would explain why they're restricted.
If it would help to compile a list of such records for a specific area, I'd be happy to do that. I don't need access to any restricted microfilms, and I'd prefer to streamline things rather than reaching out each time I come across this situation.
Thanks again!
0 -
@OmarBudesca Absolutely we would welcome reports on films such as the one referenced. We do not want patrons waiting thirty years to view records if something can be done about it!
2 -
Great!
Then I'll gather the information and attach it here when done 😁
0 -
Apologies for tagging you again.
I've been discussing this topic with an acquaintance who mentioned that, a few years ago, he contacted Spanish-European Support regarding records from the Diocese of Cartagena. According to what he was told, existing agreements with that diocese prevent FamilySearch from unlocking records that are already restricted, even if they fall outside the 100-year rule.
I'm somewhat skeptical, but I'd like to confirm whether this is accurate before investing more time compiling detailed information on the microfilms from this region—particularly if, in the end, they cannot be unlocked despite being over 100 years old.
I assume this may already become clear based on the first microfilm I shared earlier in the thread, but I wanted to raise the question explicitly just in case.
Many thanks again 😄
0 -
@OmarBudesca You probably know this, but just in case - restrictions are not based solely on the age of the records but also on the contracts between FS and the record holders. Contract details are tightly held by FS; we users have no visibility.
1 -
Yeah, that's precisely why I'm asking 😅 Thanks anyway!
I'm not sure how closely you've followed the thread, so let me briefly explain my reasoning. Roughly half of the microfilms from this region are accessible from home, while the other half are not accessible at all (neither from home nor from a Family Center).
What's interesting is that this restricted half is evenly distributed across nearly all towns—very few towns are completely unaffected. In most cases, the issue seems to be that otherwise eligible records (well over 100 years old) are grouped in the same microfilm as more recent records, which results in the entire film being locked. Since those same towns often have other records available, it seems unlikely that the restrictions are selectively applied at the town level by the record holders.
Of course, I understand that access isn't determined solely by the 100-year rule and that contractual agreements play a major role. However, in this case, the pattern strongly suggests that microfilm grouping is a key factor. Conversely, in my "home" region there are records that are only viewable from a Family Center, which I interpret as part of the agreement with the diocese—i.e., limiting general public access from home regardless of the records' age.
At this stage, I'm simply trying to determine whether anything can be done about these cases. If the restrictions are purely contractual and cannot be adjusted, then it wouldn't make sense for me to spend time compiling detailed information on them.
Thanks again!
0 -
Yes, I've followed the thread quite closely. I also visit my FSC most weeks and regularly retrieve records for my own research and to help other researchers. You may have noticed a thread I posted this morning regarding a possible similar issue in early Virginia marriages.
1 -
Huh, that's interesting.
In your case, it seems more like a mismatch between the displayed permissions and the actual access behavior—so a slightly different situation from what I'm seeing.
Still, interesting to compare 😁
0 -
@SerraNola This is a list of all microfilms from the Diocese of Cartagena with the issues I mentioned.
I wanted to wait until I got an answer as to whether these are locked because of the 100-year rule or because of other existing agreements with the diocese, but since I'm pretty sure you didn't happen to see my question (which is understandable with so many of them) and I already had the list, I'll attach it regardless.
I'll go ahead and make a list for a completely different region that has the same issues. All microfilms from this region can only be accessed through Family Centers, but I gather that microfilms with the aforementioned issues can still be "semi"-unlocked so the affected items can be accessed, even if it's just from Family Centers.
Thanks!
1
