Research requests on the forum - a free lunch?

[Seadog]

A recent thread within the “Soldiers” sub-forum has got me thinking about this forum being used as some form of free research tool by those who are either unaware of the sites now providing data for a fee such as Ancestry etc or are aware of the existence of such sites and are using this forum for what can only be described as a “free lunch”. Please do not construe my remarks as in any way critical of those excellent and knowledgeable members who respond to such requests and share their undoubted research skills. My concerns would not be credible a few years back but now more and more data is being added to the internet most if not all of it chargeable for access.

Take as an example the no doubt laudable project by the IWM to upload the basic details of 8 million names connected in some way to WW1 and invite the public to as it were to “fill in the gaps”. This will I understand involve including links to pay sites where such sites are used to produce information for an individual. I also understand that such records will be free to view in their basic form but there will be a charge if the viewer wishes to see those items linking from a pay site. When these records start being uploaded by the IWM will there not be a predictable demand on this forum for access to such payable data by those who try to circumvent the charges proposed to be levied.

I would suggest a radical solution for the forum in all cases of requests for information on those who served in WW1 in that there is a distinct split between those requests which do not require data from pay sites and those that do. In the case of those that do I suggest that before such a request is accepted a fixed monetary donation be paid to the forum and then the post added as a thread to the appropriate sub-forum leaving the members to respond should they so wish. I know that this may sound radical but I believe that the whole situation is worthy of discussion.

Norman

[centurion]

If someone asks for help and I can easily provide it I will or else I'll point out where they can go and look to find it without going through any fiddlefaddle about donations or whatever first.

[Chris_Baker]

There is a long-standing Forum rule on this very point and it needs to be rigorously enforced, not just for the "free lunch" aspect but in order to protect the interests of the Forum and the various service providers:

"Members MAY NOT use the GWF to display any images of MIC's, service records etc downloaded from Ancestry or any similar genealogy sites on behalf of a third party. Members who are NOT subscribers to Ancestry and similar sites, MAY NOT use the GWF as a platform to ask parties who are to download data on their behalf."

(Actually Mods. perhaps the "MIC" should be typed in its long form in the rule, as many new visitors will not know what it means.)

[centurion]

There is a long-standing Forum rule on this very point and it needs to be rigorously enforced, not just for the "free lunch" aspect but in order to protect the interests of the Forum and the various service providers:

"Members MAY NOT use the GWF to display any images of MIC's, service records etc downloaded from Ancestry or any similar genealogy sites on behalf of a third party. Members who are NOT subscribers to Ancestry and similar sites, MAY NOT use the GWF as a platform to ask parties who are to download data on their behalf."

(Actually Mods. perhaps the "MIC" should be typed in its long form in the rule, as many new visitors will not know what it means.)

I understood the OP to be referring to any request for information and not just Ancestry. Can't see anything wrong in saying , for example to a request for details of Sapper Loomis, 'you need to go to Ancestry or the NA and look at his MIC'

[Seadog]

Fair point Chris (Post 3) but its not always necessary to actually download payable images:

Post 6

http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=171795

In addition to your MIC suggestion perhaps the Mods will also add the IWM project when it become active

Norman

[Chris_Baker]

There's a classic case on that thread you linked, Norman. Well meant I know but ... "If you don't have access to Ancestry you can PM me and I can get the images for you." breaks Forum rules. I think. Perhaps our Mods would like to comment.

[Dave Phillips]

Within the rules of the Forum I help if I can and equally hope that people can help me if they can.

[keithmroberts]

1 While I understand the poijnt made by Norman, there is no prospect of introducing any form of charging on the GWF. Apart from the spirit in which the forum operates, we would become a trading organisation, and the income would be easily offset by the attentions of the Revenue, and the distinct possibility that we would not have a MOD willing to manage such a service with increased accounting requirements.

2 Chris makes a good point in post 6. We don't read every post, when we spot something we normally take action, and we do respond to the REPORT button.

I often reply to new queries by explaining where the information can be found - and do mention the 2 week free trials on Ancestry, and the widespread free access in reference libraries. By the time I type that, someone often replies with the information from their paid subscription.

We'll never get it quite right - and at the moment we are rewriting the rules to make them more coherent, as there have been quite a few one off changes since Chris produced the original version, and some things don't always hang together as well as they might. I think from memory that the working draft now does spell out terms such as MIC in full. Hopefully we will be ready to make the change soon.

So, we'll carry on helping, and there will I am sure be a few waves of newbies after varying events over the centenary, but we would not want to discourage people, by being too heavy handed. One more thing we are looking at is the registration procedure - trying to amend some of the screens and messages to make key points stand out, as most newbies clearly just flick through them, as we all tend to do during registrations.

Keith

[John_Hartley]

At the top of the "Soldiers" sub-forum is this:

"Before you ask a question about finding a soldier's service record or medal index card, please make sure you have first visited "Researching a soldier" at The Long, Long Trail website. The answer is there in 90% of cases. There's a link to it at top-left of this page."

Many people seem either not to spot that or don't bother to act on the advice. Whilst I appreciate that our community likes to be helpful, I am not convinced that the best help is supplying the information directly, rather than pointing the person towards the link. From time to time over the years, I've welcomed newbies to the forum, pointed them at the link and suggested they return to the thread if there is anything they don't understand on Chris' pages. I firmly believe this offers the best way to go forward - not just for the folk who do the looking up but, also, by giving the newbie the opportunity to do their own research which, surely, is much more rewarding.

[keithmroberts]

I reckon that those who look something up for themselves get much greater satisfaction, and I always feel more helpful towards those who have at least tried.

Keith

[Black Sapper]

What a good point.

I must admit that as a fairly new contributor, one can easily get carried away with the desire to help others & subsequently post stuff that you got from your own 'paid up membership' sources. I for one will certainly continue to help others where possible, but I will in future be a bit more 'choosey' about about whether I should be posting the item or the link to that item.

Black Sapper

[johnboy]

I am very new here. I probably didn't read the rules and initial 'before you ask' properly. I got pointed in the right direction by the members and got answers which I followed up myself. I started off knowing nothing but the help here and my own endeavours understand WW1 a lot better. Sometimes people just need a leg up to spur them on.

[researchingreg]

I am new to this Forum myself and I think that it is up to the individual member to help others if they want to. It is not compulsory. I have found people on this site very helpful and I do use Ancestry, but it does not supply the expertise that the Forum members have. For instance in this thread Black Sapper helped me with a link when I was searching for info on my Grandfather in the Queens Royal West Surrey Regiment. I have not found anything on Ancestry about him at all and still do not have his Army record. Also I have now found out how to search the London Gazette for free, and not use the small amount of London Gazette information that Ancestry have put on their site. This information was supplied by Graeme one of your members. Also in my small way I have provided information for members.

[GraemeClarke]

Hi

Cheers Reg, thanks for the plug.

For my 2d worth, I'm quite happy to help anyone. After 20 years of searching the web very often Im able to find something or direct someone to the right place. After researching 7,000 + men I have quite a bit of information Im happy to share and I must say, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to do so. Its pointless sitting here on my hard-drive.

Ive been a member of Ancestry for eons, sometimes the info comes from there, most times, not. Its very difficult to distinguish afterwards where it came from. Not everyone can afford £80 plus to find out one piece of information and, I presume, its these people who ask the questions relating to that source.

After so long Ive picked up a few 'nacks', one of which i was able to pass onto Reg, and am happy to pass those on.

Slightly off the point, but what does get my goat is when I post a WD or headstone (and Ive done both recently in one thread - even enhanced the picture) and then get no thanks but see the person asking the question has visited the Forum TWICE since I posted and never bothered to say thanks, either on the thread or by way of PM.

All anyone wants is a quick 'thanks'. (off the point - sorry)

Regards,

Graeme

[johnboy]

Mr Cameron has pledged a very serious amount of dough to the Centenary. Some could be used to allow free downlands from government sites War Diaries, Medal Cards etc.

Giving one secondary school child from each school the chance to go to the battlefields is a large expense. How many of them will treat it as a holiday and how many educational? I have a feeling that not too many of them will continue to take an interest in WW1. It's not until you get older and have the time that a relatives wartime history becomes interesting and leads to other areas of research.

[Andy Wade]

I don't see it as a 'one way street' if I help someone on here. Of course I wouldn't break forum rules, nor put myself in breach of Ancestry's terms.

I think I have learnt so much from contributing to a thread in my own way then following it to see what others have discovered from other sources. Some of these threads have become classic threads and in participating I have gained more than I contributed because other people who are experts in certain fields of research have shown other ways to get information. The 'Harry Lund' thread being a case in point. We just about got his inside leg measurement during the life of that thread, and the success does spur us on to dig deeper and harder when we hit a wall in our research.

I agree that it would be nice if the person who starts the thread made a 'voluntary contribution' to the running of the forum but it shouldn't be compulsory. Had a compulsory payment system been in place when the forum began then it would have become just another pay site. It certainly wouldn't be what it is today.

On the other hand, if we all paid in the value of what we have got out of this forum then Chris would be a very wealthy man indeed, or staring at a very long row of full beer glasses...

[KevinBattle]

I couldn't put it better than Graeme, Andy and others have already done.

All we really hope for is "Thanks" when we've helped, and even then most turn it away by saying it's not really necessary, BUT it at least is an acknowledgement and appreciated for that.

I don't like "trawling" exercises when someone simply wants to enhance the value of something they want to flog by simply getting information they themselves are too lazy to do.

Many I feel appreciate the openness of the information provided and are spurred on by a sense of "obligation" to try and put something back. That's how I started, asked a question and thought how helpful, what can I do to repay them and gradually I have learned so many aspects impinging on WW1 that it has become a fascinating subject.

There are times when I read a thread and marvel at what information has come to light, not necessarily strictly to do with the enquiry but opening up new avenues of thought, where the collective input has far, far exceeded what any one could do, such as Harry Lund and many more postings.

Often I can't provide a complete answer, but two or three others pitch in and very soon we have been able to vastly expand what could have previously been thought possible.

I have a certain approach, others have different, but when put together they add up to a better understanding for all of us.

I feel privileged to be a small part of this forum, often standing in awe of what others can do with the same vestigial information.

Yes, it would be "nice" if an enquirer turned round and said to the effect of " Wow! I really appreciate what I have now found out about Great Grand dad and want to put something into the GWF coffers" so I'd be happy to make a hint on those lines.

But, I really do it because I think I might be able to help someone find out a little more than they did before.

If I can, I do, If I can't I keep out but if the topic is intriguing enough then I'll read the developments and extract what I can learn from for the next time.

[Guest]

An interesting thread.

In my view the forum rules need to be tightened and it needs to ensure that members understand the difference between helping and breaching someone's copyright. As we head towards the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the war enquiries will grow exponentially

The GWF makes it clear that reproducing images from Ancestry is prohibited but it does not provide guidance on transcribed information. The GWF makes no specific comment on recycling images and information from The National Archives, possibly the single largest source of the underlying data, all of which is crown copyright and needs to be acknowledged as such.

Under the current law, discussing subjects for research purposes or review allows limited reproduction of images (with copyright acknowledgment) but it does not allow people to provide so-called 'free' help of recycling copyright material. It is very clear. The genealogy websites pay a lot of money to get access to archive material and will prosecute anyone breaking their copyright. Similarly the National Archives is acutely aware their copyright is being abused online and they will prosecute.

Archives cost money to maintain and making them available online also costs money. There are too many people on this forum who simply have no concept of copyright and the current law, and in my opinion it is only a matter of time until the GWF is prosecuted.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people on this forum offering to send other members copyright material. In the original War Diaries (incidentally all crown copyright) it is out of control. To be quite clear any reproduction of original government material is subject to crown copyright. A transcription of it is not, but does need to acknowledge the source.

The Mods need to get on top of this before the GWF gets prosecuted. I am reliably informed that the National Archives has already prosecuted another website.

MG

[Auimfo]

From what I understand, it's the reproduction of 'images' that may breach copyright - not the facts contained within the documents. Therefore, both legally and according to GWF rules, I may not post copies of documents from Ancestry etc. but I can provide the facts they contain. (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this because I know copyright laws are a legal minefield)

Generally, I'm quite happy to assist the occasional one-off enquirer whose only interest is in their Great Grandfather or other ancestor. They only want to know about the one (or two) people and that's pretty well as much as their interest takes them. I believe assisting them to reconnect with their ancestors service is what the spirit of the GWF is all about and I don't agree that we should be charging a fee for that help.

Where I draw the line is with either professional or amateur researchers who deliberately prey on the knowledge, good will and subscriber access of GWF members just to save themselves the effort and cost of subscription fees. Sometimes these people are at first difficult to detect as we all have questions from time to time and turn to our friends here for assistance, but when identified action should be taken. It reminds me of a recent 'poster' who was clearly a medal collector and IMHO very likely a dealer. I don't have a problem with that occupation but I did find it highly annoying that this person simply posted thread after thread here requesting information about the soldiers whose medals they had just acquired. Not once did this person 'contribute' to any thread and it was obvious that they just couldn't be bothered doing the legwork themselves nor wanted to pay for a subscription to the any of the information archives. What made it worse was that this person claimed he was just doing some genealogical research into his own family tree (what an amazing family he had - dozens of soldiers from all over the commonwealth and all of whom just happened to have medals for sale at the very same time of his enquiry!!)

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Guest]

I often just add a link to the Ancestry page that contains the image of the MIC, SWB Roll etc. Then the image can only be viewed by someone with a subscription.

Mike

[keithmroberts]

I am as confident as a non-lawyer can be that transcriptions are not an issue. Equally, small extracts requesting clarification where a member has paid for access to say a soldier's record should not be an issue.

The point about offering so send copyright material outside the GWF is well made, and we will be discussing it. As I posted earlier, we are in the process of rewriting the rules, so will think carefully about that point.

Keith

[AlanCurragh]

Martin - all I can say for the moment is that we are acutely aware of these issues and that the existing rules were drawn up after much discussion among the Admin Team of the time, including some legal input. Perhaps an extension of the rules is needed regarding recycling, as you suggest.

If you have seen countless examples of members offering to send information off forum, then please report them - we can then consider if we need to take any action.

Alan

Edit - posted at the same time as Keith

An interesting thread.

In my view the forum rules need to be tightened and it needs to ensure that members understand the difference between helping and breaching someone's copyright. As we head towards the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the war enquiries will grow exponentially

The GWF makes it clear that reproducing images from Ancestry is prohibited but it does not provide guidance on transcribed information. The GWF makes no specific comment on recycling images and information from The National Archives, possibly the single largest source of the underlying data, all of which is crown copyright and needs to be acknowledged as such.

Under the current law, discussing subjects for research purposes or review allows limited reproduction of images (with copyright acknowledgment) but it does not allow people to provide so-called 'free' help of recycling copyright material. It is very clear. The genealogy websites pay a lot of money to get access to archive material and will prosecute anyone breaking their copyright. Similarly the National Archives is acutely aware their copyright is being abused online and they will prosecute.

Archives cost money to maintain and making them available online also costs money. There are too many people on this forum who simply have no concept of copyright and the current law, and in my opinion it is only a matter of time until the GWF is prosecuted.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people on this forum offering to send other members copyright material. In the original War Diaries (incidentally all crown copyright) it is out of control. To be quite clear any reproduction of original government material is subject to crown copyright. A transcription of it is not, but does need to acknowledge the source.

The Mods need to get on top of this before the GWF gets prosecuted. I am reliably informed that the National Archives has already prosecuted another website.

MG

Edited 16 June , 2013 by Alan Curragh

[Guest]

I have dug very deep on this subject and spent rather too much money getting the answers. The way copyright material is used on the GWF largely falls under 'Fair Dealing' and within that, there are two areas that are particularly relevant; 'Research and Private Study' and 'Criticism or Review'.

The UK's Patent Office which works under the operating name of Intellectual Property Office has this to say on 'Fair Dealing'

http://www.ipo.gov.u...fairdealing.htm

And for a more detailed comment on 'fair dealing', section 6 of this is very useful:

http://www.copyright...rs#fair_dealing

If someone is researching an individual has for example a copy (image) of a Service Record and needs it to be interpreted, it is permissible under current UK law to make copy of parts of a document for research or private study. There are a few conditions; the source needs to be acknowledged, it must be for non-commercial use and copies are not made for other people. So, if someone is trying to interpret some jargon or numbers on a service record, they can post an image of the part under discussion, not the whole document. What is not permissible is for someone to obtain a copy of the image of the document and post it for someone else.

What constitutes 'part' of a document is subjective, and past court cases provide reference points. Specialist lawyers will provide some guidance but with big caveats. From the discussions that I have had, anything in excess of 10% of a document would be deemed excessive if used say for criticism or review. (it would also have to be in the public domain).[Edit: The National Archives says 5%] What is clear is that reproduction of whole documents such as a MIC, or the offer of a copy (image) of an original Service Record, Pension record, Map, or War Diary would not be considered to be 'part of' a document. Sources such as Ancestry, NAM, IWM, the National Archives are quite clear in their small-print about the restrictions on reproducing their original material. Edit: they seem to be most touchy on photographs in their collections.

Transcriptions are allowed. There is no copyright on a transcription of say a War Diary, merely the source needs to be acknowledged.

Mods - feel free to PM if you need more info. I have taken specialist legal advice on all the above and have had long discussions with the relevant people at some of the larger archives. To be constructive and to help protect the interest of the GWF I think the GWF needs to ensure that new members have read and signed that they understand the guidelines and those existing members who breach the guidelines do the same.. To put this into context, the Ancestry business was purchased for US$1.6bn (approximately £1bn). This is big business and they will protect their revenue sources with a vengance.

MG

Edited.

[tn.drummond]

The simplest approach to this matter is to choose who you wish to help.

The only time I've felt irked was helping to identify some photographs on the postcard thread only to see them for sale the following week on ebay using the research of myself and others to 'up' the value.

The copyright issue seems to have been dealt with (transcription and facts, fine - reproduced images not).

On a broader philosophical note, the spirit of the internet has always been freedom of and ease of access to information. We all have choice in what we post and to whom we respond. Compromising the GWF is a different issue but it would be sad to see the site collapse in a rulebound implosion.

My single most used resource is the Californian based 'internet archive' - all of which is free to download to one's heart's content.

Tim

[Kate Wills]

Of course, we could always impose a blanket ban on the names of certain sites that crop up regularly, not least in the foregoing posts. It would be a two minute job to load their names into the ban filter.

I can't help but notice that a particular family history subscription site's name is peppered liberally across the GWF. If they have any sense of proportion, they would keep their lawyers in check, and relish the huge amount of free target marketing that accompanies innumerable mentions on the GWF.

I'm not trying to belittle warnings given, simply attempting to bring some perspective to the issue.

Regarding the Rules, one item on my own 'to do' list is begin the process re-editing, and particularly in paring down while stating current and additional regulations.