Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

IWM Lives of the Great War Project - reservations


Brian Curragh

Recommended Posts

It is quite legitimate to ask how the memorial will be accessed after the four years, and whether that access will remain free. Clarity on that would be good, because at present I don't find it clear.

I personally don't have any issue with there being a subscription for access to IMAGES that are owned by Brightsolid or others. We pay for thiose now if we use FMP, Ancestry or Scotland's People.

Copyright. There are some details, which will emerge in the final conditions that apply to uploaded data. I have no concerns about how it will be managed during the life of the project, I actually think the FAQ sections are pretty good on that. The clarification that will concern many, is how it will be managed after the four years - will it remain free to access after then?

Those are legitimate questions, but its not a case for conspiracy theory, or for us to start doubting motives. The IWM statement is that they intend this to be a permanent digital memorial, and that the project is being funded by them. "Lives of the First World War is funded by IWM and supported by our technology partner, brightsolid". It's quite proper to ask whether the IWM intend to maintain direct control of the database and to fund it after the four years.

Keith

Nicely put Keith, however "Images that are owned by Brightsolid" excuse me!!!!

Agreed regarding the access after the four years period.

Just for the record Brightsolid are involved in findmypast.co.uk, genesreunited.co.uk, scotlandspeople.gov.uk, friendsreunited.co.uk, hosts and manages 1911census.co.uk and the British Newspapers online. We know that to all accounts scotlands people is expensive badly indexed and some say a nightmare to use, great recommendation I must say!!

Brightsolid gross profits rose 47%, nice business if you can get it in todays market.

No conspiracy theory and I am quite positive regarding the project but as stated before I want the details, not commercial contract details but the details of user agreement, copyright etc., etc., access and costs both before after the IWM releases or has no more direct involvement in the process. None of which I think personally is too much to ask for, and as you say "Its quite proper to ask"

Regarding the partner status, maybe my memory is getting addled in its old age, but was this not the same terminology used by the dreaded "A" and the National archives??

http://www.brightsol...-world-war.html

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Nicely put Keith, however "Images that are owned by Brightsolid" excuse me!!!!

Andy

That would be the images of census pages, WO 97 records, Scottish BMDs etc. that you need to subscribe to the various Brightsolid sites for*. Not photos you've taken of war diaries, letters and postcards you own.

The real nightmare must be sub-licensing the iamges not held by Brightsolid like the service records.

Glen

*Of course, transcribing the data from these images will be OK as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be pleased to see the results of my efforts preserved after i am unable to do so. I hope to do so in a manner that is free to all, but I would ultimately rather see them in the hands of a commercial enterprise subject to a contract with a major public body like the IWM than see them lost.

That summarises my own views better than I could have phrased it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

There has been some lively conversation about the project over the last few days. In many cases IWM's views overlap with those of other posters, including Keith, Chris, Sue and several others.

I would like to address two key areas of the discussion, raised by Brian (and others):

... concerns about the future (commercial) use of material uploaded & the distinct possibility of having to pay another online subscription are entirely valid IMHO.

1. Online subscriptions:

From our FAQs: "You will be able to explore Lives of the First World War for free, including viewing life stories and adding to them. Subscribers will be able to view additional premium content and access special features."

A little more info at: http://www.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/frequent-questions.php?sec=2#q13

You won't have to pay. Some digital images of records are (already) only available from paid sources. Their licensing and contracts means they have to be chargeable. You will be able to (optionally) access these by making a payment. If you wish to refer to records you have paid to access elsewhere, you will be able to do so. Of course we cannot allow images from commercial sources to be uploaded, as this would violate their terms and conditions. Some more details at:

http://www.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/frequent-questions.php?sec=3#q15

2. Future Re-use of material

IWM will request rights to reuse material (images, transcriptions and comments) as part of the terms and conditions (or 'user agreement). There is some discussion of this at: http://www.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/frequent-questions.php?sec=6

I appreciate that this does not fully answer the question as it does not detail _how_ the material might be used. This information will be made clear when we publish the user agreement. I can see that this is frustrating for some posters -- you would like to know all the details now. I'm sorry that we can't do that just yet -- partly because we are shaping that user agreement based on what we hear here and elsewhere.

Some of may ask "why did we announce the project here on the forum without having all the information ready?". Good question;

We needed to announce the project publicly to allow us to seek involvement from current and future supporters. The users of this forum hold a unique wealth of expertise, passion and commitment to this topic. So we decided that we would announce it here at the same time it was announced in national media. We want you to be involved from the start -- personally, I think that was the right thing to do, even if it means that we can't respond fully to everything.

As before, we value the expertise and commitment here and that is why we are engaged this conversation.

best regards,

Luke (Smith)

IWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again,

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few days, and there are some good questions and points in there. I've spotted another one that I missed in my earlier response:

.... Those are legitimate questions, but its not a case for conspiracy theory, or for us to start doubting motives. The IWM statement is that they intend this to be a permanent digital memorial, and that the project is being funded by them. "Lives of the First World War is funded by IWM and supported by our technology partner, brightsolid". It's quite proper to ask whether the IWM intend to maintain direct control of the database and to fund it after the four years.

Preserving Research.

Like quite a few others, my research will never be commercial, and apart from discussions with the relevant local studies library, I'll be pleased to see the results of my efforts preserved after i am unable to do so. I hope to do so in a manner that is free to all, but I would ultimately rather see them in the hands of a commercial enterprise subject to a contract with a major public body like the IWM than see them lost. After all, is that not the position now with access to soldiers records and many others. If the only way I could access them without such a contract, would be to be forever at Kew, then I could not have conducted the research that has fascinated me for several years.

Keith

Long term access to the permanent digital memorial:

This is an area where we need to add some information to our FAQs -- based on this discussion. We currently say: "IWM has made a commitment that Lives of the First World War will be an interactive platform available to the public throughout the four years of the centenary and that the permanent digital memorial will be saved for future generations."

Our aim is that the permanent digital memorial will be freely available to all, forever. We should state that. Just like a memorial in a town centre, it will have maintenance costs and they will continue 'forever'. Nonetheless, we are committed to finding a solution to the long term costs and ensuring this is available as a resource for future generations.

many thanks,

Luke (Smith)

IWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke,

Thank you, it still does not answer the nitty gritty that some people have asked about. Given Brightsolid ventures into this field it is clear that in cases such as Scotlands people where it is expensive and badly indexed that they have entered this contract for financial gain and with a gross profit rise of 47% that is quite a gain, born by whom??, hence I would like to know what the IWM are doing to protect users and control the information or is this just going to be another paysite with perhaps the IWM gaining a percentage of money taken.

There are issues that need addressing, sooner rather than later I would respectively suggest. The user agreement as such, also at present I was able to download images on the site, is this to be addressed. Failure to do so will lead to many more instances highlighted in the link to a thread concerning such issues

http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=192428

Please excuse me for being stubborn over this, however I do want full answers before I download some of the material I have gathered over the years, given that I do have an end goal in sight, be that years away as yet.

Andy

Following Sue's comments regarding the Scottish government setting the cost and Brightsolid providing the platform, please excuse the inference, although the Scottish Government might be having to charge what they do due to platform costs??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A local project that is, I think, applying a similar approach (technology-wise) to the IWM project is 'Doing our bit, Mosman 1914-1918' and GWF members might like to take a gander.

http://mosman1914-1918.net/

What we've done so far is to take a number of honour rolls, and build a list of local service people. Spelling and other inconsistencies in the way their names were recorded mean some records need to be merged. But that's easy. Then it's a matter of linking records to each. For an example see the page for a man like http://mosman1914-19...eople/105.html/ and you will see how multiple sources are now linked (service records, newspaper mentions, photos collected by the local library). The project lead has developed tools to automate bringing in some information from prime sources like Trove, AWM, etc. Records are not moved across, just linked (although some metadata is harvested).

The IWM project will, based on a presentation given by their web team (thanks David Underdown), present the information in a much more sophisticated manner than our site, but our focus over the next two years is to link sources and develop the 'roll'.- so, collecting data - rather than presentation. Once we gain a critical mass of data, we will refine and merge the data, so that you can see, for example, which local service people served in a particular unit, or share a final billet in a particular cemetery in Belgium. Via linked addresses, we should be able to map the impact of WWI on the suburb.

The idea is to connect resources, be they service records or web pages, and get machines crunching dates, places, connections. And to make it as easy as possible for family members and other interested parties to share those fragments that collected make a greater story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect and use the FWW section of IWM. But as a family history researcher, I have over the years endured stress of deadlines, costs and threat of fees forfeited with Scotlands People, aka Brightsolid.

It has been suggested in this thread that those people who do not upload their research to the IWM commemorative site are selfishly risking its loss for ever.

Unfair. It is worth pointing out that some commercial genealogical organisations offer free public hosting. My own family trees are on Rootsweb which now belongs to ancestry. Roots web even allows a separate address/folder for Military records.

The drawback of these sites is that one must design and upload a website - which may mean using specialised software.

Having seen how genealogy software and this type of site has been used in the United States to create websites for military units, or local military history, I decided to use genealogical software to record my own research on members of the Rugby Battery of 4th South Midland Brigade RFA. From where a website can eventually be exported and uploaded.

But doing it yourself takes time, worry and painstaking attention to detail. Images are particularly difficult for amateurs like me to manage on line.

The advantage of the IWM site will be that it will (hopefully) make no demands on the skills of those who upload pictures and documents. May be all one will need is a smartphone?

So there is a good chance that families like our own who have folders full of FWW letters from a regiment which we are not researching will ensure the preservation of otherwise private archives.

As for time and trouble of private research - the only point of keeping research findings relatively private, is the idea that we shall use the material to write an article one day. In my case I discovered that there was already a published Ph.D. for the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War Studies by Andrew Thornton on The Territorial Force in Staffordshire.

I would like the IWM team to look closely at the relationship between images, text documents and indexing on this site and possible discrepancies between them.

The images of documents, letters etc are only the raw material for research. As far as I know Google have not yet cracked the problem of reading and indexing hand written documents. My own work has been largely mechanical. Names have to be entered into a database - I have needed reminding by Prof. Dick Flory to index my own work better! And, even if one makes the effort, family historians know how many errors were made when indexing the UK censuses, with both surnames and place names frequently mis-read.

Yet transcribing is exactly what the PRO demand of those of us who have images of records and war diaries. Given that the PRO have thankfully made it possible for researchers to copy images of their documents, wouldnt it make sense to make use of this volunteer labour? There is a cost of making such images - which is why they are out-sourced to ancestry etc.

Both the IWM and the PRO belong to the Government. I would like to see an agreement between the PRO and IWM to allow the uploading of images of documents held at the PRO which people on this Forum have already collected?

If we the public are being asked to photograph and upload images of correspondence from an officer, wouldnt it make sense also for us to be allowed the upload the images of his service file too?

It makes no sense that I am (apparently) not allowed to put the War Diaries of the South Midlands Brigades RFA (TA) on my site unless I transcribe them, which I have no intention of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have over the years endured stress of deadlines, costs and threat of fees forfeited with Scotlands People, aka Brightsolid.

This quote, together with several others simply isn't true. Scotland's people is a Government organisation, not 'aka Brightsolid' and most of the money it makes goes to them and not to Brightsolid. Their website states:

'A partnership between the National Records of Scotland and the Court of the Lord Lyon enabled by Brightsolid.' (my emphasis). Brightsolid are providing the platform, as they will do for the IWM - although they receive a fee most of the money from Scotland's People goes to the Government. And what a great resource it is, compared with paying £9.25 per certificate in England and Wales, waiting five days, and still not knowing if it's right. It provides a research opportunity for Scottish relatives that simply doesn't exist in England and Wales.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is the Scottish Government and not Brightsolid who organised the original charging system, I withdraw the remarks about Brightsolid.

The rest of the comment is true to my personal experience as an occasional user. And I am not the only one.

Possibly the system was well geared to researchers with predominently Scottish ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, to clarify, my comment was directed at the last few words, and not to your personal experience of using the site.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This quote, together with several others simply isn't true. Scotland's people is a Government organisation, not 'aka Brightsolid' and most of the money it makes goes to them and not to Brightsolid. Their website states:

'A partnership between the National Records of Scotland and the Court of the Lord Lyon enabled by Brightsolid.' (my emphasis). Brightsolid are providing the platform, as they will do for the IWM - although they receive a fee most of the money from Scotland's People goes to the Government. And what a great resource it is, compared with paying £9.25 per certificate in England and Wales, waiting five days, and still not knowing if it's right. It provides a research opportunity for Scottish relatives that simply doesn't exist in England and Wales.

Sue

Hi Sue,

i had never heard of "Brightsolid" until this thread appeared. i had assumed that the Govt. was solely responsible for "Scotland's People". It is the only place to get Scottish records and so little information is given prior to paying for view of individuals (eg John Clark) that one can spend a fortune before finding the correct record. Not only that, but when one complains about having to pay again for previously viewed images they totally deny what has happened. They simply say "you have not paid to view that image". I have an "Ancestry" subscription but most of my family is Scottish. Anyway, I guess the only point I want to make is that like E.Wilcock, my criticism of "Scotland's People" stands.

Hazel C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fortunate in having no family north of the border so I have no need to deal with Scotland's People, but I do use FindMyPast as well as Ancestry, and FMP presents is results well, and seems to have far fewer transcription errors than Ancestry. The difference of course is that it is possible to take out an annual subscription with FMP, which avoids most of the pain. Pay once, search as much as you want.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fortunate in having no family north of the border so I have no need to deal with Scotland's People, but I do use FindMyPast as well as Ancestry, and FMP presents is results well, and seems to have far fewer transcription errors than Ancestry. The difference of course is that it is possible to take out an annual subscription with FMP, which avoids most of the pain. Pay once, search as much as you want.

Keith

Yes, i would much prefer that!

H.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But while with FMP you can search the indexes as much as you want (and very good their BMDs are) you would then still have to pay an extra £9.25 for every certificate you wanted to have a look at, and also wait for it to be delivered by post - it's a completely different system. So you might well find thirty John Clarks in the index and perhaps whittle it down a few 'possibles' but it works out rather costly and long-winded to then successfully find one that's yours. At £9.25 a 'guess' it's the sort of research that few people can even afford with regard to England and Wales records.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the IWM will come up with the PERFECT system!

H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue, I suppose we are ' spoilt ' having Scotlands People available to us, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the BrightSolid profit, came from it?

I don't see why they cannot have a subscription system? BrightSolid's British Newspaper Archive subscription is excellent value. More so for me, as they have uploaded the war years of the Dundee Courier and The Evening Telegraph and Post.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why they cannot have a subscription system?

Presumably because the .gov.uk would only be making about 3% of the profits they are making now. Once you have a monthly/yearly subscription you have to be prepared for the user to flog the hell out of it - and flog it they would.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand what the furory is about having to pay or who makes what profit. Do you really want to go back to the old days of having to travel to this or that record office, with the all the expense that entailed, and far greater than pay as you do with downloads or even annual subscriptions, depending on your usage? There is a cost to everything, including making this sort of information easily available straight to your home. The IWM has explained their view and are going to provide more information. Give them a chance to do so.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand what the fury is about having to pay or who makes what profit. Do you really want to go back to the old days of having to travel to this or that record office, with the all the expense that entailed, and far greater than pay as you do with downloads or even annual subscriptions, depending on your usage. The IWM has explained their view and are going to provide more information. Give them a chance to do so.

TR

I'm firmly with you on this Terry, and maybe beyond.

In addition, I'd like to draw attention to the following:

GWF Welcomes = 44 posts

GWF Reservations = 119 posts

And then I've two points to add:

(1) No matter what the negative suspicions are about the IWM, what on earth must this project now think of the GWF ?

(2) It must be admitted that we haven't exactly been profligate in coming up with our own suggestions for marking the centenary. Easier to criticise than construct ?

Please, let's give time for the project to explain itself.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Tim, and Terry.

Regarding your point 1 Tim, we should concentrate on the fact that the project leaders at the IWM are engaging exclusively with the GWF. They are not conducting public exchanges anywhere else. That is the mark of the high regard they have for our members and standard of debate. It has been disappointing to say the very least that certain aspersions have been made concerning the the project's honest intentions. Those comments have really let the side down.

Regarding Tim's comment on the relative lengths of each thread, and taking up a comment made earlier, I'd like to thank Brian Curragh for creating a different thread to discuss his reservations, and thus maintain the tenor of the Welcome thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand what the furory is about having to pay or who makes what profit. Do you really want to go back to the old days of having to travel to this or that record office, with the all the expense that entailed, and far greater than pay as you do with downloads or even annual subscriptions, depending on your usage? There is a cost to everything, including making this sort of information easily available straight to your home. The IWM has explained their view and are going to provide more information. Give them a chance to do so.

TR

Especially when you live on another continent!

Hazel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the 'reservations' as long as they are constructive - and most of them have been. I cannot speak for Luke and his team but, if I was them, I would rather iron out any issues here and now rather than when the project goes (more) public.

That said I will be one of those making as much info as I can available to the project. If someone ends up making money from it 2, 10, 20, 100 years from now so what. What I don't understand is why people think information they have copied, say from a War Diary, is THEIR information. Surely it belongs to the Army or the person who wrote it in the first place. They are not going to profit from it so why should we be so precious about it.

Just my view

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the IWM won't be bothered by anyone raising any concerns they might have, that's the whole idea, isn't it? If they can show genuine concerns to be groundless or even

' flaky ' why should they think ill of the GWF?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking clarification on important points such as charging for content is perfectly acceptable Mike, as are voicing concerns. However, would you expect to be accused of 'fiddling' when announcing a project? How do you think that looks to the wider world? Personal comments should be disassociated from the Forum as a whole, but unfortunately many readers do not separate an individual's ill-considered remark from the collective entity.

The IWM seek to consult with GWF members in preparing the Lives of the First World War Project i.e. they are not simply inviting us to participate in the end-product when it is launched, but to provide informed comment to help steer it towards completion. We should relish this opportunity to contribute in the creation of this major new Great War resource for the centenary. Let's not spoil the discourse with daft innuendo, but raise the debate for the sake of the project, and all those lives of the Great War who claim our devotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...