Search for content in message boards

Unethical or just doesn't care

Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 20 May 2013 7:48PM GMT
Classification: Query
Surnames: Richards
One branch of my family founded a very successful business in the English Midlands in the 1870's. Because of this the family and business history can be found easily by Googling the business name either by itself or in combination with the family name. Histories of the area and of the business type, newspaper articles and many other similar items are readily available.
Recently I found a relatively new Ancestry tree with the family members and their photos from 1866 to present attached to someone else. I contacted the tree owner and asked to have the 'erroneous' information removed.
I realize that it is possible if sufficient research is not done to become 'confused' however in this case, it is just completely wrong and the tree owner can verify my information entirely outside the Ancestry community.
My family tree has been kept by family members for well over a hundred years. An official tree was prepared by Debretts (a British genealogy company who have been in business since the early 1800's) for the centennial of the business in 1970.
Any suggestions about how to resolve this issue?
It makes me realize why people keep their trees private!

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 19 Jul 2013 12:50AM GMT
Classification: Query
All you can do is ask them to change the information, and document why you think they are wrong. Unfortunately, you can not make them change anything. I had that happen with a family website someone created separate from Ancestry. I thought the family was related to mine, but when I asked about it, they said they had never heard of my great grandfather, so he couldn't possibly be related. I have since found out that not only are we related, but they had completely wrong children for my ancestor. They have ignored all requests to change the info, even with documentation. I believe I have information that may solve a family mystery for them- too bad for them they won't listen. So all you can do is keep a well documented tree as defense.

Even if your tree is private, someone will get the information somewhere else and add it to their tree. Not much you can do about it.

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 25 Jan 2014 1:28AM GMT
Classification: Query
Actually I think you should keep yours public to offset the wrong data. That way some one searching information will see that there is a discrepancy and will, hopefully, dig in deeper so that they will get their own correct. If yours were private, all they would see would be the erroneous tree. A beginner could so easily be lead astray.

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 25 Jan 2014 3:41AM GMT
Classification: Query
Thanks, I didn't really plan on making my tree private, the family history is in the public domain and you have come up with a reason I had not thought of previously-Monica

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 16 Aug 2014 4:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 16 Aug 2014 4:02PM GMT
If you own the photos you can file a copyright claim via Ancestry. If you don't then you can only ask the person remove them or not attach them to the wrong people, but it's a roll of the dice. They might not reply or they might be rude. They might not take them down either way.

Not only is this why some people make their tree private as you said but this is also why some don't upload family photos and documents.

I don't know why anyone would want the wrong photo with their ancestor's name erroneously applied but would even do this on purpose, but many do. People have found their ancestors' pix all over the web with wrong names attached and, when contacted, the person defended the action.

To me that's frightening for the future of genealogy.

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 17 Aug 2014 12:26PM GMT
Classification: Query
I do actually own the pictures I have the original photographs, there may be other members of the family who have them as well, and there are some photos of the family business in the public domain.
I think I will add information to my tree that indicates that the family business history and some information about the family history is in the public domain and therefore it is possible to verify family members and relationships without blindly attaching people from other trees.
Interestingly the person who had copied my family into theirs did eventually modify their tree, they didn't remove my family members who aren't in their family but did remove the relationship between their ancestor and my great grandparents,

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 18 Aug 2014 12:16PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Aug 2014 12:17PM GMT
So sorry that all of that has happened to you, userone164.

When I first joined I didn't even realize others would be seeing what I posted - I just dove in not realizing. I remember being shocked the first time someone attached a photo I had uploaded, even though it was to the right person. It's because I just hadn't realized anyone would be interested or see it.

I had this illusion of working at my desk and just looking things up here that Ancestry itself had posted. Their collections are vast. This site is a great resource. It hadn't even occurred to me others would be using what I worked on, back then. I mean I didn't know what I was doing! Lol.

I think your idea is a very good one. Maybe if people know they can get things somewhere else they won't have to grab so much from other people's trees. I think they will be happier and more productive in the long run too if they learn how to do their own actual research.

I began writing stories about some people in my tree so people would be less tempted to 'upload' things from elsewhere. Some still do it but, I tell myself maybe it can help others anyway. Plus, it's fun. It's just time consuming is all. But, one brick at a time Lol.

If you write stories about your ancestors, the family business, etc., and include hints where people can find out more, maybe they will stop glomming as much. Sounds like you are on a good track. Good luck.

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 10 Sep 2014 12:22PM GMT
Classification: Query
The above contains incorrect information. Ownership of the item is not the same as holding the copyright. In order to hold the copyright, you must have been the creator OR the copyright was passed to you by the creator (via purchase, assigned or inheritance). Only the copyright holder has standing to file a copyright claim or DMCA take-down notice.

Re: Unethical or just doesn't care

Posted: 10 Sep 2014 8:25PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 10 Sep 2014 8:31PM GMT
" OR the copyright was passed to you by the creator (via purchase, assigned or inheritance). "

Not really fair to just label my post incorrect ;)

Rather perhaps allow me to rephrase it if you didn't grasp the meaning originally.

Yes, I was (I thought obviously) talking about ownership of family photographs and such that had passed down to the current owner. The photographer would be long dead in many cases. The surviving ONLY copy is passed down to the family friend or even bought in an antiques shop.

When someone buys a painting they own copyright to it, not many people realize that. When someone has an original copy of a photograph, they own copyright to that photo. That's why an original print sells for so much money at times.

If you are talking about a creative work, then yes, buying a book obviously doesn't mean you own the copyright to David Copperfield (probably a bad example, it might be out of copyright.) But if you buy a unique original letter written by Charles Dickens, you'd own copyright to that.

Obviously I had to speak in general terms at times and felt people could fill in some blanks with their common sense.

Just curious though, as this part of your post seemed contradictory. What other types of ownership would not constitute your three examples of it? I wasn't talking about someone emailing a copy of a photo, but having the original.

" Ownership of the item "

If you have been given, purchased legally, or inherited an item which is unique, you would not hold the copyright? Isn't that what you later said would be cases in which you would own copyright? When would true ownership not constitute copyright?

For instance, an author's heirs inherit his works. They also then hold copyright unless he willed it to someone else, right?

I mean if we begin to have to delineate every single outstanding circumstance this could turn into a tome and people can already google copyright and exceptions if they desire to. I was basically trying to say - don't take things that don't belong to you from other sites or otherwise and post them onto Ancestry. (I should add, make sure to detach anything from a computer program GEDcom maker before uploading your GEDcom here or it will bring your downloaded things with it, whe you upload a GEDcom - I get hints all the time from someone who uploaded my things here that way.)

I do also seem to recall Ancestry's rules saying do not take user uploaded things but I can't prove that, now. And their current rules do not seem to include that warning. They do still say not to upload things without copyright being with you or having permission or from other websites. That is the main thing people here sometimes do which I tried to warn against in these threads. I see you have posted a reply on most threads I was in ;)

Re: Stop spreading incorrect information, RollerPoodle

Posted: 10 Sep 2014 9:34PM GMT
Classification: Query
"When someone buys a painting they own copyright to it, not many people realize that."

This is a FALSE and utterly ridiculous statement.

You also DO NOT own a copyright to a photo "bought in an antiques shop." WRONG AGAIN.


per page

Find a board about a specific topic