Forces War Records and content from Long, Long Trail

[Chris_Baker]

Please read

http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/research/index.php/our-content-is-being-stolen-by-forces-war-records/

[River97]

Well, what can I say?

Chris, I hope it all works out. Hey, none of us would be here, and using your wonderful site, if it was not for you.

Cheers, Andy.

[CarylW]

Well, what can I say?

Chris, I hope it all works out. Hey, none of us would be here, and using your wonderful site, if it was not for you.

Cheers, Andy.

Ditto. Good luck with it all Chris

[Roger H]

That is outrageous.

Roger

[Alan Tucker]

This just adds to the previous thread when Forces Records were given a good 'pasting' despite one of their number's very feeble defence. Recently someone extensively quoted some of my own stuff from the Birmingham History Forum without acknowledgement. Such dishonest people need to understand that anyone who does research incurs costs and lifting the work of others is about as low as it can get.

[Staffsyeoman]

They are getting a hammering in virtually every other military history forum to which I subscribe to also - from medals, to badges to wars various.

Having had two years' work on a topic stolen by someone I was pressed to 'collaborate' with by former confederates in a project, I feel your anger.

[JimSmithson]

Go for the jugular Chris!

Jim

[Chris_Baker]

Funnily enough I don't feel anger about my content being stolen. I do feel very upset that people are paying hard earned money for records and information that do not exist or can be found free of charge elsewhere. There's a word for that.

[archangel9]

So blatant. I'm surprised they managed to cut out your links at the bottom of the page!

John

[Sue Light]

I don't think you're the only one at the other end of this. There is content on there that I'm pretty sure has come from my website, though as I tend to specialise in transcriptions of originals, it's very hard to prove where exactly they got the information from. But some of the documents are so obscure that I can't imagine they've unearthed them themselves. Charlatans* is the word I think (and not the musical sort).

Sue

* A word for those professing to have more knowledge than they actually do. I hope that may be accepted as an accurate description, and in no way a libellous comment.

[keithmroberts]

I have every sympathy with Chris and Sue, but could I also ask members to be very careful of their words please.

When copyright material is used without permission that has always to be wrong. When it is being charged for, that is truly offensive.

I hope that you get a quick result Chris.

Keith Roberts

[Chris_Baker]

Interesting, eh? http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/2/Forces-Reunited-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_211686.aspx

[DaveBrigg]

From their policy "You are responsible for ensuring that no material you post, or which is posted through a machine on which you access the Forces war records Website, nor any activity or communication you make in connection with any Forces war records Website, will be capable of (a) infringing the intellectual property or other rights of any person or entity" The penalty is possibly being banned from the site. Could this be the first time a website owner has to revoke their own membership?

[hazelclark]

That is dreadful, and certainly emphasizes for the rest of us to be careful with posting original documents. I hope you find a quick resoluion. To be hung drawn and quartered is too good for them. I am sure you feel violated.

Hazel

[jon_armstrong]

I don't think you're the only one at the other end of this. There is content on there that I'm pretty sure has come from my website, though as I tend to specialise in transcriptions of originals, it's very hard to prove where exactly they got the information from. But some of the documents are so obscure that I can't imagine they've unearthed them themselves.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Ordnance Survey make deliberate but very trivial mistakes in their commercially available maps so that if someone reproduces them they can prove it was plagiarism rather than someone mapping the area themselves, as the chances of them making them reproducing the same mistakes themselves would be infinitesimally small... perhaps similar transcription "errors" are required?

[John_Hartley]

Chris

Could you clarify if your objection is that something has been blagged from your site, or simply that it has been blagged by this commercial enterprise?

The reason I ask is that it is all but impossible to avoid sites that have blagged stuff, often extensively, from your site. Although I suppose that, once blagged, folkj could say that they have subsequently blagged it off Blagger 1, rather than the LLT.

I am, of course, sympathetic to the issue, knowing that you rightly have your commerical interests to protect here.

By the by, is this the company that's been the subject of a number of previous threads relating to issues of their business practices?

John

[Anneca]

Is referral to Trading Standards free or does it involve cost, and what is a reasonable time frame? I wouldn't give them a 'reasonable' time frame and had I been subscribing to Forces War Records, would cancel my subscription immediately, as should all like minded GWF members. I think this is downright dishonest and disgraceful.

Anne

[entrenched]

By the by, is this the company that's been the subject of a number of previous threads relating to issues of their business practices?

There have been several threads. Six with Forces War Records in the title, icluding this one

[seaforths]

Chris, the LLT is a fantastic resource that many people, including myself, have benefited from using and you should be proud of that achievement. I am so sorry that your goodwill has been abused in such an underhanded way.

Your terms for removal reflect your dignity in dealing with the issue in a gentlemanly manner however I'm not sure they deserve it!

Marjorie

[daggers]

Jon

Your comment on OS deliberate errors: i think it is the publishers of the A to Z series who do this, from a tv documentary a few years ago.

Still, OS may do it too.

[MartinWills]

It would be fair to say that FWR still claim to offer the most complete service indeed they claim (today) to have the most complete record of your military ancestors online.

From my own perspective I would question this not least as some people have indicated they have found little by way of records on FWR in respect of some ancestors, though I may be wrong.

Elsewhere I read that that FWR is (apparently) the definitive online guide to military ancestry searches. Again I do find this a very bold claim, not least given the guides available online through archives such as the national archives and elsewhere. Of course it may be correct!

Personally I am far happier using other well established sites which I know will give me things like immigration/emigration records. census records and so many more relating to my military ancestors.

What I do also find interesting is that they frequently come up as a sponsored link on the WFA main page. Does this mean that they are endorsed by the WFA?

[Dragon]

What I do also find interesting is that they frequently come up as a sponsored link on the WFA main page. Does this mean that they are endorsed by the WFA?

I think it has a lot to do with the demographics Google collects about your browsing habits - interest-based advertising. Their WFA ad slot has the AdSense symbol on it. Googling AdSense will tell you all about it. I don't want to make inferences. I would be interested to know how much say the WFA has about the purchasers of AdSense slots on its pages.

Gwyn

[MartinWills]

I think it has a lot to do with the demographics Google collects about your browsing habits - interest-based advertising. Their WFA ad slot has the AdSense symbol on it. Googling AdSense will tell you all about it. I don't want to make inferences. I would be interested to know how much say the WFA has about the purchasers of AdSense slots on its pages.

Gwyn

I would have thought that any self respecting organisation would not surrender control of the content appearing on their own web pages - heaven knows what may appear and who knows how inappropriate it might be; funeral costs options; offshore company set up - who knows what might appear!

[DPas]

Sorry to hear that. I was on another forum where this was being discussed. I spotted some other instances of this in unit histories, where they had cut and pasted content from not-for-profit websites and one of the others actually noticed some content taken from a (quite famous) book that he had written. It is poor form.

[Dragon]

I would have thought that any self respecting organisation would not surrender control of the content appearing on their own web pages - heaven knows what may appear and who knows how inappropriate it might be; funeral costs options; offshore company set up - who knows what might appear!

I just looked again at the WFA homepage and the adverts were for 1. Villeroy and Boch e-shop (I buy porcelain online from them); 2. Cornish Cottages (they think I'm on their mailing list); 3. Eurotunnel (I'm on theirs); 4. FWR (which I'd never visited before Chris posted on his FB about this plagiarism today). I think it's doubtful that the first two have any remote connection with the First World War!

Gwyn