legal concerns before uploading photos of people or documents?

+11 votes
234 views
Hey there,

I am concerned about uploading documents like baptism records for my ancestors as I got some of them from commercial sites.
Also, I would like to know about privacy issues with that and photos of (dead) relatives.

thx
in Policy and Style by P.s Sulz G2G1 (1.3k points)

3 Answers

+13 votes
 
Best answer

Hi there P.s. - usually the best place to go for initial answers to questions is the Help tab in the upper right corner. From there, I went to Images Help, and pulled up the Photo FAQ.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Photos_FAQ

In here, you will find many of your questions answered, including the one you asked. The short answer is straight from the FAQ:

How do you know if you have permission to upload a photo?

Generally speaking, you have permission to upload a photo if:

You generally do not have permission if you downloaded it from another website.

Commercial sites such as Ancestry.com and Find-A-Grave do not generally allow republishing images. Even non-commercial sites may disallow public sharing of downloaded images. You need to check their terms of use. For example, here is the Wisconsin Vital records terms of use.

by Scott Fulkerson G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
selected by Kevin Conroy
Thx for the swift reply, I get the part about photos, but how about scans of documents or records of microfilm from databases that might not be free worldwide?
It all goes back to where you got it, what their copyright is for the items you copied, and if there's a clause that allows you to share. In many cases, the collections you copied from had non-commercial clauses, which means that on a commercial site (like WikiTree) you are not allowed to share at all. In most cases, even if they do allow sharing, it's only if you cite the original source and essentially promote where it came from. As mentioned above, the 3 exceptions are photos you have taken yourself (of non-copyrighted materials), items you have explicit permission to publish, or public domain items.

There are some wiggle-room with what is termed "Fair Use" clauses, where you can utilize a very minor portion of what was copyrighted to demonstrate the key data you are trying to showcase - like snipping a line from a Census to show just the person and their data on an image. But if the source was taken from a site that does not allow you to reuse their images, you cannot use more than what is considered "Fair Use" even in those circumstances. So publishing an entire Census page would be a violation. The only way around it is if you went to the Census office and were able to retrieve your own photograph of the page, since those records are intended for public consumption. So typically it's not the "document" that is restricted, but the time, effort, and often money that was spent in hiring document scanners and indexers to retrieve the images, place them on the website, and index them so that they're usable to the people who go to their website.
If any of your ancestors come from the United Kingdom, use of official documents is covered by the Open Government Licence.

The Open Government licence seems only to cover information and  not the images of records held by and  produced  by the National Archives.(TNA) see https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/copyright/crown-copyright-and-our-website/ Census images, pcc wills, non conformist registers, service records etc  from the TNA and hosted by  fmp, ancestry  or others sites are licensed to them but are also restricted by the websites'  conditions terms and conditions.

If you visit TNA  they let you  take your own photos of  records without charge or any formality  and you can post them online (correctly cited)  but they wouldn't normally give you access to the original census records.  

 Older Parish registers (baptisms, marriages, burials in the C of E) and locally proved  wills prior to1856 are held in local archives. If they've been digitised, and are on internet sites, they're again not going to give you access to the originals and you're once more restricted by the conditions of use of the website. Even with non digitised records some local archives are really restrictive. My local archives and the local museum charge £8 a day  for a photo licence and then also charges for a licence to use those images in a publication or a website (with some minor exceptions when the archivist grants permission  for community projects). 

+5 votes

One thing to remember, the presentation of the information is seen as copyrightable, the information in birth, baptism, marriage, census etc documents is not copyrightable. 

Many family history companies have scans/images of documents whether they are scans of microfilm, or scans of the original documents. In many cases the originals were microfilmed many years ago. And subsequently other companies have bought the rights to reproduce those records from the group who originally microfilmed or scanned them.

Each of those companies may have tweaked the appearance, readability etc of a record and feel that their presentation is somehow different or better than the original. They can copyright their presentation, There has been a lot of discussion about whether the tweaking is sufficient to warrant a copyright. 

You can enter the information on the record into a profile. Baptism record for X son of A and B was baptised on this date at this place, witnesses or sponsors C and D, minister or priest was E, father described as a carpenter living at Z. And include the source of the information just as you would for any other information.

One thing I have done on occasion is to create a table with information and add that to the profile. 

I have mostly done this on Ancestry when I want to make a point about the information as often people have the wrong records for someone and putting it in visual form makes it more obvious. 

The example shown below is a screenshot. 

500px-Miscellaneous_images-161.jpg
by M Ross G2G6 Pilot (759k points)
I like this approach, as it ALSO allows for us to go back, review how the data was indexed, make corrections, or at least call out misspelled words, and show that in our own transcriptions. I've begun transcribing a lot of information from news articles, source documents, and such on some of my profiles as it makes it easier then to translate things into a biography.
Thanks Scott, I started creating similar informational images on Ancestry several years ago because many trees included photos of a couple taken at the earliest in 1871. They were identified as my husband's 4 x GGPs, and it could not be them, as they died in 1862 and 1868.

They are actually photos of a son of the 4 x GGPs, my husband's 3 x GGU and his wife,

I have the original photos provided by the 3rd GGS of the son of the 4 x GGPs. The information on the original has the studio name and photographer's name.

The informational image pops up as an Ancestry hint and it seems to work in getting Ancestry members to change who the people are that have the image on their Ancestry profiles.

After doing that I started creating images like the one above, as it provides information clearly and is useful for people who don't have access to some paid sites like FMP.
+4 votes
I am assuming that an old school photograph taken of the whole school, masters and pupils would be OK.

It was taken of this young lady :--

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Burdett-1337

Florence Marion Burdett (1892 - 1974) when i guess she was about 14 or 15, so taken about 1906 at

Lymm Grammar School in Lymm, Cheshire, England

By now all the persons in the photo will be deceased so i would imagine there would be no problem with copyright. The photo is in my possession.
by Allan Entwistle G2G6 Mach 3 (39.7k points)
If you took the photo yourself, or have permission from the photographer, then you should be fine. If you don't have either of these, it gets more tricky. Then you have to be concerned with whether the photographer filed any copyright or even trademark on their work, or if it has expired, or if it was renewed, or any of those situations. Something of that age typically, if it had any copyright, would have expired by this time, but since it's a country-by-country scenario, it's hard to navigate without specific information. Personally I would agree with you that it "should" be fine to use, but officially there's still an outside chance that some odd situation might exist. It's just highly unlikely. Someone with more knowledge of the copyright, trademark, or otherwise laws in England might have better information.

Related questions

+6 votes
4 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
155 views asked Jan 8, 2018 in WikiTree Help by Kitty Smith G2G6 Pilot (653k points)
+7 votes
2 answers
341 views asked May 10 in WikiTree Help by Lorraine O'Dell G2G6 Mach 4 (45.0k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
171 views asked Nov 8, 2018 in Policy and Style by Barry Smith G2G6 Pilot (303k points)
+4 votes
2 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
0 answers
218 views asked Aug 30, 2022 in Policy and Style by Sven Elbert G2G6 Mach 7 (74.4k points)
+8 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...