Uploading Ancestry images to other tree websites?

[Pauline]

How do others interpret the Ancestry T&Cs with regard to their digital images of things like parish registers and wills? I’ve always understood these to be copyright, and that attaching them to public trees on other websites is therefore not allowed.

We are allowed to download and print a reasonable number of images for our own private use, but making such images freely available to anyone and everyone on other sites doesn’t seem to me acceptable.

Some suggested to me recently that being a paid subscriber at Ancestry allows people free use of their images wherever.

 

[peter]

Some suggested to me recently that being a paid subscriber at Ancestry allows people free use of their images wherever.

Ancestry's Ts & Cs state:

2.2 Your Use of Ancestry Content
When accessing Ancestry Content you agree:

• To use Ancestry Content only in connection with your personal use of the Services or professional family history research;
• To download Ancestry Content only in connection with your family history research or where expressly permitted by Ancestry;
• Not to remove any copyright or other proprietary notices on any Ancestry Content;
• Not to use significant portions of Ancestry Content outside the Services, or in a manner inconsistent with your subscription; and
• To contact us to obtain written permission to use more than a small number of photos and documents that are Public Domain Content.

If users need written permission to use more than a small number of documents on the Ancestry site which are in the Public Domain it stands to reason that Ancestry do not allow unrestricted use of images which are not in the Public Domain.

Bear in mind that Ancestry themselves are in many cases going to be limited by the agreements they have with the owners of the content - anyone who has visited a record office will know how restrictive their terms usually are, and in some case the records offices are dependent on the agreements they have with the owners of the documents they hold but do not own (such as parish registers).

 

[Pauline]

Thanks, Peter. That’s the bit I found and I had similar thoughts to you.

However, what constitutes a ‘small number’, and is adding them to a public tree on another website ‘in connection with your family history research’? I can see that the latter actually relates to ‘downloading’ images, rather than uploading them to a public website, but I can also see how some researchers might interpret this as saying it’s OK to publish Ancestry images on other sites, providing it’s in connection with your research, and does not involve whole datasets.

I am reluctant to contact the archives in question in case their longer term response is to remove their records from Ancestry.

 

[Pauline]

To add to what I said earlier, and why I asked my question initially, is that the Ancestry T&Cs do not say explicitly, and in plain English, ‘you may not take images from this website and upload them to another’ (or words to that effect).

My interpretation is that uploading Ancestry images to public trees on other websites would be in breach of the Ancestry T&Cs, copyright and licensing considerations, but is my interpretation correct?

 

[peter]

To add to what I said earlier, and why I asked my question initially, is that the Ancestry T&Cs do not say explicitly, and in plain English, ‘you may not take images from this website and upload them to another’ (or words to that effect).

They say in plain English what you can do, which keeps it simple. The key phrase is 'personal use' - publishing can never be personal use.

My interpretation is that uploading Ancestry images to public trees on other websites would be in breach of the Ancestry T&Cs, copyright and licensing considerations, but is my interpretation correct?

Adding images to a public tree on any website (even Ancestry), or publishing them in any other way would, in my view, breach Ancestry's terms.

 

[Susan48]

Do the Ancestry T&Cs cover images that did not originate from Ancestry datasets? For example, if someone has uploaded to their tree an image of a parish register entry which they have paid for directly from the Record Office concerned, but which is not available to view on Ancestry? Once uploaded to one Ancestry public tree these images tend to appear on many other trees. I'm sure the Record Offices would not be happy about this, but how can Ancestry prevent it happening?

 

[peter]

Do the Ancestry T&Cs cover images that did not originate from Ancestry datasets? For example, if someone has uploaded to their tree an image of a parish register entry which they have paid for directly from the Record Office concerned, but which is not available to view on Ancestry? Once uploaded to one Ancestry public tree these images tend to appear on many other trees. I'm sure the Record Offices would not be happy about this, but how can Ancestry prevent it happening?

Most record offices place restrictions on the use of images which would prevent them being uploaded to any public tree (and probably to a private one too, though who's going to know?).

Note that the excerpt from the Ts & Cs above relate solely to content provided by Ancestry - there are other restrictions in the agreement including this one:

Not to resell the Services or resell, reproduce, or publish any content or information found on the Services, except as explicitly described in these Terms

 

[Pauline]

I'm sure Ancestry could prevent people publishing copyright images on their site, but I have my suspicions this is something they won't bother about unless challenged by the copyright holder - which has sometimes happened, but not for individual images.

Maybe other sites are the same. If people upload Ancestry images to public trees on other websites, maybe nothing will happen unless Ancestry challenges it, and my guess is that they probably won't.

 

[peter]

I'm sure Ancestry could prevent people publishing copyright images on their site, but I have my suspicions this is something they won't bother about unless challenged by the copyright holder - which has sometimes happened, but not for individual images.

Maybe other sites are the same. If people upload Ancestry images to public trees on other websites, maybe nothing will happen unless Ancestry challenges it, and my guess is that they probably won't.

This is always the case with intellectual property - it is up to the proprietor (or their representative) to take action, and they tend to do this only when there is a blatant breach. But this discussion is about what is permitted, not what you can get way with if you're prepared to take a chance.

 

[Pauline]

But this discussion is about what is permitted, not what you can get way with if you're prepared to take a chance.

Trouble is, if no action is taken against individuals who breach Ancestry T&Cs and copyright restrictions, then you can sort of understand why some people think it’s OK to disregard them - always assuming they’ve actually read them, that is.

 

[peter]

Trouble is, if no action is taken against individuals who breach Ancestry T&Cs and copyright restrictions, then you can sort of understand why some people think it’s OK to disregard them - always assuming they’ve actually read them, that is.

You can be sure that if anyone stated publicly that it was OK to breach Ancestry Ts & Cs, they would have their lawyers on to them without a moment's thought!

I was personally involved in several intellectual property disputes when I was running my software publishing company and I can recall that more than 40 years ago a case that was settled "on the steps of the High Court" involved costs of £5000. That's not damages, it's just one side's legal costs. That £5000 would be more like £50000 today - it's not worth taking the risk.

 

[cfbandit]

Trouble is, if no action is taken against individuals who breach Ancestry T&Cs and copyright restrictions, then you can sort of understand why some people think it’s OK to disregard them - always assuming they’ve actually read them, that is.

Likely because in most cases, their Ancestry account is terminated and any dispute resolution is forced into arbitration so we never hear about them. The US appeals court case in February was the first time I've ever heard ever heard anyone challenging the T&Cs and not being forced to go into arbitration (though that was about Ancestry DNA, not Ancestry.com). I believe y'all in the UK are forced into using Irish law if you want to file anything, so its probably cost-prohibitive for most regular people to dispute an account termination.

 

[cfbandit]

anyone who has visited a record office will know how restrictive their terms usually are

I have an amazing copy of a coroner's inquest into a fatal accident of an ancestor I dare not publish because I had to sign an agreement not to publish it, and that by default would include an online family tree. Even a private one.

 

[peter]

I have an amazing copy of a coroner's inquest into a fatal accident of an ancestor I dare not publish because I had to sign an agreement not to publish it, and that by default would include an online family tree. Even a private one.

Uploading something to a genuinely private tree is surely not 'publishing'? But I suspect the wording is more restrictive than that, for example it may prohibit copying.

One record office I attended forced me to agree not to publish even transcripts of passages from diaries that were around 150 years old. That's about as restrictive as you can get!

 

[cfbandit]

Uploading something to a genuinely private tree is surely not 'publishing'? But I suspect the wording is more restrictive than that, for example it may prohibit copying.

One record office I attended forced me to agree not to publish even transcripts of passages from diaries that were around 150 years old. That's about as restrictive as you can get!

Ugh, yes. Its almost a page long of "don'ts". And its from 1873, so I'm like...its well past any danger of being used in a lawsuit or something? It was a sad case, he was only married about ten years before the accident and his wife outlived him by 40 years and never remarried.

 

[peter]

You could submit a Freedom of Information request asking them the precise basis on which publication is banned. In fact it would be very useful to know what they say as it could have application in other circumstances.

Many Crown Copyright documents can be published - but I'm perhaps jumping ahead.....

 

[cfbandit]

You could submit a Freedom of Information request asking them the precise basis on which publication is banned. In fact it would be very useful to know what they say as it could have application in other circumstances.

Many Crown Copyright documents can be published - but I'm perhaps jumping ahead.....

Peter I was thinking of this as I just requested a copy of a probate from 1823 from Lancashire. Take a look at this notice one has to sign off on to order!

"Copyright declaration
We will supply these documents to you on the understanding that you will comply with the copyright declaration statements below declaring that where this material is in copyright:

1. you require the copy for purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose or private study only and will not use it for any other purpose.
2. you have not previously been supplied with a copy of the same material.
3. you will not supply a copy of it to any other person nor publish it on any website.
4. (for unpublished works only) to the best of your knowledge, no work listed has been published at any time before the items were deposited in the Lancashire Record Office nor has the copyright owner prohibited copying.
5. (for published work only) to the best of your knowledge, no other person with whom you work or study has made or intends to make, at or about the same time as this request, a request for substantially the same material for substantially the same purpose.

You understand that if this declaration is false in any material particular the copy supplied to you by Lancashire Archives will be an infringing copy and that you shall be liable for infringement of copyright as if you had made the copy yourself.

You also understand that you shall become Data Controller responsible for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to any processing of personal data, (information, facts or opinions, relating to an identifiable living person), obtained from copies supplied.

I declare that:

1. I have not previously been supplied with a copy of the same material by you or any other archivist or librarian; and
2. I require the copy for the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose or private study, I will not use the copy for any other purpose and I will not supply the copy to any other person

I understand that if this declaration is false in a material particular the copy supplied to me by you will be an infringing copy and that I shall be liable for the infringement of the copyright as if I had made the copy myself *"

That is a .... lot. I can understand for modern probates, but at a certain point...goodness, that's overkill.

 

[ChalfontR]

You should ask them on what basis they consider a 200 year old document to be subject to copyright, and who do they think holds that right now and how ..... I did that a few years ago in Lancashire Archives and the archivist couldn't answer.

The attitude of local archives, when TNA has no issues at all with copying just about anything you want, can be infuriating.

 

[Pauline]

Try googling UK copyright law and the transitional provisions which are in place until 2032 (I think), which cover many unpublished documents, and should explain where local archives are coming from on this. Infuriating, yes, but probably within their rights as custodians rather than owners of many of the documents they hold.

 

[cfbandit]

Try googling UK copyright law and the transitional provisions which are in place until 2032 (I think), which cover many unpublished documents, and should explain where local archives are coming from on this. Infuriating, yes, but probably within their rights as custodians rather than owners of many of the documents they hold.

Oh, agree 100%. Its definitely within their rights, just infuriating! Its one of the only times I went ahead and ordered it since its going to be the key piece of evidence to prove if the person in it is my sixth great grandfather, or someone else.