ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY > 2002-04 > 1018319784


From: "Joan Best" <>
Subject: [Ethics] Genealogy Etiquette, Protocol, lack of ethics
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:44:22 -0700


The previous reply was by Joan Young, which is a different Joan than
myself, who originally challenged you on your statement. I agree with most
of what Joan Young said, however. As an attorney, I don't think what you
have said so far is libelous, for what it is worth, but I do think
misstatements of fact which denigrate a company are a disservice and are
unethical.

To speak to the issue of the GEDCOMs posted on WorldConnect and other
locations and information posted on various message boards: I have found
these sources invaluable as a starting point. When I am trying to figure
out how an administrator of a will is related to the descendant, for
instance, this often gives me the clues I need. There are errors all
through genealogical material, that posted on the net and that found in the
bio books published in abundance 100 or so years ago. But they offer a
wonderful shortcut to the nitty-gritty of basic research. Some people are
better at the logical discipline of research than others, but they still
have a passion for finding out the who, what and why of their ancestors.
Personally, I share all information I uncover, particularly the original
documents. This helps make the group of descendants working on a particular
line come to some reasoned agreement and, in the long run, means that most
of the erroneous information will be dropped and the referenced original
sources will prevail. My personal goal is to have everyone have accurate
information, and pass it on to other relatives. This is my gift to my
family and my ancestors. I give it freely. And I acknowledge your right to
feel differently about it.
Joan Best

----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
>
> In a message dated 4/8/02 6:19:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> > I think the "etc" said it all.
>
> Hmmm...I don't. You most definitely implied, well actually MORE than
implied--you stated that "my research from my site [was] sold in books or
compiled and sold to Ancestry." If you have proof of this, Ancestry would
want to know about it--if you are talking about original content that is,
and not just names, dates, and places. If you don't have proof of it--don't
make the claim. After all, ETHICS is the very subject of this list--and it
can't be said to be ethical to accuse Ancestry of knowingly buying "stolen"
goods and "selling" it to the public or charging for access if you don't
have proof
of that "fact" and aren't willing to back up amorphous claims with details.
>
> > I am generally making a statement about all
commercial companies who profit by people's work, and or, push it to attract
customers, and innocent beginners start off on the wrong foot.
> >
> I fail to see how buying someone's original work (database) and selling
it or charging for access to it is making "innocent beginners start off on
the wrong foot." How so? And let's be clear as to exactly what type of
databases we are talking about--Ancestry has never purchased (or sold or
charged for access to) compiled genealogies/family trees (GEDCOMs).
> GEDCOMs are submitted freely to WorldConnect and Ancestry World Tree/OFT
and are made available for free access to the public. What is wrong with
that and who is profiting from it?
> >
> > To be specific, I'm speaking more of FamilyTreeMaker type companies who
have long sold compiled genealogies, though for marketing purposes,
Ancestry does provide and encourage patrons to upload gedcoms, and
unfortunately the gedcoms are often other people's entire work--errors and
all.
> >
> Again, you are making a claim of wrong-doing here without giving any
evidence that any wrong-doing has occurred. Unless you are prepared to give
proof of
your accusations you would be wise not to post them publicly.
> >
> > This work gets copied and often also put on other sites who sell them on
CDs. I hold them responsible as I do the others, for encouraging this
practice.
> >
> > And your proof is? Names, dates, and places are NOT copyrightable--they
are public information. If an "original work product" (not just public
information) has been copied by someone then that person would have a
claim of copyright violation--but making unsubstantiated claims does no one
any good--and is actually libelous. I would be very careful in making such
claims without proof--and without listing that proof along with your
claims.
> >
> Joan


This thread: