Re: relative does not want information listed in reports

Robert Heiling wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

A few more comments....


Fair enough.


On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:33:44 -0800, Robert Heiling
<robheil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:47:34 -0800, Robert Heiling
<robheil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

That's correct and I've as yet to see that RIGHT backed up with an authoritative
source. "Public domain" also gets tossed around quite a bit. Let's consider
copyrighted works for a moment. There are many that can be viewed by the public
in bookstores and libraries. Is that what people have in mind when they speak of
"public domain". Try to publish those without permission and you'll see what
happens to your bank account.

But wait a second. Those works are composed of words that you'll find in any
dictionary. Aren't they in the "public domain"? Doesn't that mean that those
works are just a collection of a word here and a word there that are all in the
public domain? Therefore, don't we have a RIGHT to publish?

<more snipped>

What is protected by copyright (and what isn't) is pretty well
defined.

"Well defined" yes, but not necessarily generally understood.

agreed.


But anyhow, I
tossed copyrighted works out only as an analogy to get people to think about
this notion people seem to have that anything they can get their hands on that
is available to the public is theirs to do with as they please.


Unfortunately, what you describe happens much too frequently.


For example (relating to genealogy) on-line obits in
newspaper sites might be copyrighted, but the facts presented in the
obit are not. This means (I think... I'm not trained as a lawyer) that
I can copy and use the dates, names of relatives mentioned, place of
birth, spouse name, etc. but if I copy the entire obit, I'm probably
violation the copyright.

Then you admit that you are uncertain about any RIGHT to use that material?


Actually, I've gradually (reluctantly) come to the realization that
I'm uncertain about almost everything.. but it took a really long time
to reach that realization. However, since I do maintain a web site and
publish a family history CD for our family organization, I have tried
to read up on the subject. I don't pretend to understand it all, but
I'm still trying.


In actual practice, If I select the obit of a relative and place that
in the notes section of my genealogy database, I'm probably not in
violation (as I've selected only a portion of the obituaries that were
presented) and particularly not if I site the source of the obit (we
all document our source, don't we?)

I retain a full copy in whatever form it is available (text or graphics) in my
private database. Even if it were to be a violation (and I don't believe my
private use would be), the copyright holder couldn't know unless they had access
to my private database.


Now, one would suppose that whoever wrote the obit for their relative
would have no problem with that information going into a database and
being published on the web....

That might be a bit presumptious.


How so?


Because it is making a value judgement for someone else without asking them what
they think. We have no right to do that.


Is there really anyone out there who doesn't realize that
every newspaper, including small-town weekly papers, have on-line
editions? Some even have archives that will probably be on-line
"forever".


Lot's of them. There are even actually people who have neither a computer nor an
internet account. We know any number of people who fall into that category. How
many of these online editions were around 5 years ago? 10 years? 15 years? When
did that person you're talking about write the obit? If they wrote it 20 years
ago, which is easily possible, they would have had no way of predicting an
online world and making their judgement calls with that in mind.


yet, some of the individuals cited in
the obit tend to complain when they see that information "out there"
on my web page.

It's not in its original form. They might have also been uneasy about it in its
original form such as an obit in a newspaper, but those are past history that
went out with the stack of old newspapers. You are giving it a life of its own.


Actually, I'm not speaking of "on paper" newspaper obits, since I
rarely use them in my research (I subscribe to only one Daily, the
local Houston Chronicle), but to on-line obits that appear on web
sites maintained by either the individual newspapers or companies that
maintain on-line obit sites for many newspapers. I routinely monitor
the on-line obits in about a half dozen different cities.


You lost me there.It's still basically the same obit that appears in the
newspaper.


It probably isn't "resonable" for them to be concerned,

I see nothing unreasonable. It's their own personal information.


I guess it's personal opinion then... I find it a bit unreasonable for
someone to object to me showing that Joe Cool is the son of Mr. and
Mrs Sam Cool, but that it's OK for the newspapers archives to show the
same information.


Here again - it's not your judgement call to make and it doesn't matter what
your opinion is. I naturally mean "you" in the collective sense there as always.
Unless you have talked to the person and asked, you don't even know how they
feel about the archives.

since the information was already "out there" on a
different web page, yet there is a need to accomodate their wishes.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


Your assumption of the first "wrong" is a bit presumptious.


I threw that out in response to the notion, that I have been seeing all too
frequently in various discussions, that saying that someone else or some company
has done something already makes it all right to do something similar. Invalid
justification!


Why is it
"wrong" for the newspaper to print the obit that was submitted to them
(and sometimes paid for) by the submitter?


It wasn't.


Some people would argue
that it would be "wrong" (ie illegal) for them to deny the persons
right to so publish the obit.


I'm sure you can find those.<g>


Unfortunately, I've had experience with relatives who became a bit
upset with information NOT being included in an obit, and others who
became upset on seeing the same kind of information published. There's
no way to avoid problems in advance without checking everything with
everyone (a practice that I encountered often when still employed).

You've brought that upon yourself by your choice of publishing living people. I
have never published anyone more recent than my g-grandparents, so I've never
had to worry about it.


True. Yet so far, the vast majority of my cousins WANT their childrens
names included (and make certain they are spelled right) and most of
them, not all, also want the birth dates and other information shown
as well. So as I said, the task is to try to please everyone... and
the only way (for me) to do that is to delete anything that anyone
wants deleted.


As I said above, I have no interest in that type of website. My own interest is
in tracing family lines backwards in time. That often does lead back to the
present (recently met a 3rd cousin online), but I don't actively collect data on
the living and have no interest in having a website that includes the living.


This will on occasion, lead me to do a few things that I personally
find offensive. As an example, a relative (distant cousin) asked me to
remove the fact that he had married a certain person, since that
marriage was later annulled. He argued that the annulment effectively
made it a non-marriage, ie, in the State's eyes, the marriage had
never taken place. The catch was that I had found the record of the
marriage in the State's on-line records.... but not the annulment. So
as an accomodation, I removed the marriage event, thus falsifying my
database.


Falsifying? Correcting what you point out was an error in your data with the
missing annulment was a falsification? I don't think so.

I appreciate your comments. I do agree with most of what you say,
particularly that it would be "better" to simply never include living
(from the standpoint of protecting everyone's right to privacy).
However, right to privicay is only one of the issues involved.


One that needs to be honored. In my view, we put up websites in order to make
connections. I know who all my g-grandparents were and look for connections to
them when I'm browsing. I neither need nor wish to see anything published that
is closer in time. If somebody connects on a website, I contact them privately
and take it from there.

Bob


Gentlemen (if I may use the phrase? ;) )

The major difference between publishing something in the Podunk Planet and publishing it on www.freedata.org is the ease of retrieval and the scale of dissemination.

The number of people who know the Podunk Planet exists is far far fewer than the number of people who know how to use google or any of the other search engines.

As several Congressional staffers have discovered recently, anyone, even bosses, can use a search engine ...

Cheryl

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... "Public domain" also gets tossed around quite a bit. ... newspaper sites might be copyrighted, but the facts presented in the ... obit are not. ... private database. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... "Public domain" also gets tossed around quite a bit. ... newspaper sites might be copyrighted, but the facts presented in the ... obit are not. ... You've brought that upon yourself by your choice of publishing living people. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: The unprintable family history
    ... When they're not in the public domain, ... Which newspaper did you work for in your journalism days? ... I adapted many biographies of famous people - some authorised, ... and book publishing field what I am talking about here. ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... "Public domain" also gets tossed around quite a bit. ... obit are not. ... to my private database. ... You've brought that upon yourself by your choice of publishing living people. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... "Public domain" also gets tossed around quite a bit. ... obit are not. ... I've had experience with relatives who became a bit ... became upset on seeing the same kind of information published. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)