Is it appropriate for someone to peddle their book on WikiTree?

Question

I have come across a member that posts comments on profiles that their book is the source of the information provided on the profiles. This member does not appear to be productive on WikiTree. I have received a message from this member on another website telling me to stop posting information on a particular family line because they own all the copyright information on that family. (EDITED to add: I have not knowingly posted any copyright information, only census records and data records that are available on FamilySearch on Ancestry.)

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: First, I haven't seen the book so I cannot make any comments about the content or presentation. Second, looking at the profiles that the book is being peddled on, there do not appear to be any copyright infringements. All sources appear to be census records or other books, such as Georgia Historical Volumes, printed before this person was born. Third, the question really wasn't about copyright infringement, the question was is it appropriate to peddle your book on WikiTree?

Comments

They cannot copyright data that is in the public domain / publicly available.

---

You cannot copyright facts, you can only copyright your presentation of the information.

---

Even if the information does come from their book, as long as that information is a) properly credited and cited, b) any directly quoted material is reasonably limited, and c) the material has been incorporated into a new work then it would probably fall under "fair use."

If someone has copied an entire two-page bio from a book and pasted it, verbatim, into a WikiTree profile and done nothing else, then that's not fair use, even if the book was cited. But a couple of quoted sentences incorporated into a bio that is largely original and cites multiple sources is probably fine.

Also, while facts and data cannot be copyrighted, the analysis applied to a set of facts is intellectual property. You might run into some grey areas here. But it is still within reason to add the conclusion to a profile and credit the author, for example: "We now know that Susan Smith's father is Joe Bob Jones, based on the work that John Carter did analyzing the deeds and wills from Maple County. [citation to book...]"

Personally, I'd hesitate to go much further than that, keeping in mind that WikiTree is a publicly accessible commercial website. However, if you've looked at all the same deeds and wills and come to the same conclusion, you can go to town with your own analysis, even if you got the idea from the book. (You should still be a decent human and give people credit for their ideas. I'm just talking about the "is it copyrighted?" issue.)

Anyway, not a lawyer, etc.

Answer 1

From https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Links_to_External_Sites_and_Services :

Our Terms of Service prohibit "posting content that advertises or provides a commercial service or product." However, as a matter of policy, the community does not object to links to genealogy-related services and products if they are contextually appropriate. For example, many profiles cite sources that are only available on commercial websites.

Question #5 is an appropriate place to mention genealogy products or services that you use, recommend, or are otherwise involved with. If you are a professional genealogist, you are welcome to mention this and link to where more information can be found. If you do not have a website for your genealogy product or service, you can create a free-space profile for it.

It is not appropriate to use ancestor profiles, G2G, project pages, etc., to advertise. WikiTree and the community reserve the right to judge what is appropriate and develop further rules or policies. See our Terms of Service.

So, a person can advertise a book they wrote on their own profile, but they shouldn't be promoting it in profile comments or G2G.

Answer 2

This is the proper way to deal with the problem.

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

Answer 3

As indicated by others, a person cannot copyright ancestral data.  As long as you are using readily available sources like birth records or census records, you are doing nothing wrong.

Answer 4

The other members who have responded are 100% correct that one cannot copyright facts such as names, dates, places, etc. They also cannot copyright the details of a factual event such as the landing of the Mayflower or the sinking of the Titanic.

They can, however, copyright the style in which they present the information and any creative spin they place on it. For example, the movie Titanic is copyrighted even though the factual events are not. This also applies to published genealogies or family narratives, whether in book form, in magazines or journals, or online.

Long ago, I published a family narrative online. That narrative was copyrighted by me, the author. People are still free to abstract the facts from that narrative and use them to create their own presentations. However, today I can Google my original words and find dozens of websites where my narrative has been reproduced verbatim, often in its entirety, and typically with no credit given to me. That's no okay.  

My simple point is: feel free to abstract facts from someone else's work. But please do not take their creative efforts and publish them as if they were your own. That's unkind, unfair, and potentially illegal. 

Answer 5

Your original question asks about peddling one's own book. I am pretty sure WikiTree has a policy against soliciting products or services on the site but haven't been able to find it yet. I'll update this post if I do.

[The policy appears in the Terms of Service Section #3: "Posting content that advertises or provides a commercial service or product...without our express authorization" is a violation of WikiTree's Terms of Service. That includes disguising one's product as a "source." It should be reported as per Kevin's recommendation above.] 

Also, regardless of policy, it is never legitimate to cite oneself as a source unless you are a firsthand witness. In the case of the individual you reference, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to cite his book as a source. It would be unacceptable, however, for him to cite his own book as source.

Comments

David, where does it say it is unacceptable to cite one's own work as a source? 

For example, I researched the two Richard Taylors of 17th century Yarmouth, Massachusetts, which, among other things, corrected errors that had previously been published by others. The NEHGS published my research in their Register back in 2011. Are you saying that it is not acceptable for me, on the pertinent profiles, to cite that article? 

---

Ok, there are a couple of technicalities here. First, I want to be clear that I am not refrerencing a WikiTree policy, but rather a general standard you'll find in pretty much any field. As a general rule, you can't site yourself as a source. As a WikiTree mentor, I am frequently asked to address members who cite "First hand knowledge" as their only source for their pre-1700 ancestors. That's not okay.

As for your NEHGS publication (congratulations, by the way), I presume your article is well-sourced. In that case, you are not technically citing yourself, but are directing members to look somewhere else for your sources. I suppose that would be okay, especially since it is published in a respected journal and has presumably been somewhat vetted.

None-the-less, if you sourced a date of birth in your NEHGS article with a birth certificate, rather than cite your article as your source for the birthdate on WikiTree, I would argue it is better to again cite the original source, which is the original birth certificate.

Think of these simplistic scenarios:

David, how do you know that? Jillian told me. (Acceptable)

Jillaine, how do you know that? I told myself (Never acceptable)

Jillaine, how do you know that? Here's a link a book I'm selling. (Far from ideal)

Jillian, how do you know that? Here's a link to my sources published in a reputable journal (Ok, but perhaps still not ideal)

Jillian, how do you know that? Here's a link to the original birth certificate from which I abstracted my information? (Perfect)

Again, this is not set in stone rule and different entities will have their own standards as to what they deem acceptable.

---

Thanks for the clarification, David. (One thing to know is that "first hand knowledge" phrase on pre-1700 profiles stems from the original WikiTree interface which defaulted to that statement. A number of us lobbied -- successfully -- for that phrase to be changed, but hundreds if not thousands of profiles remain that have not been updated. I don't think people are still adding that phrase to more recently-created profiles. Gawd, I hope not...)

My NEGHR article is sourced on the Richard Taylor profiles relative to the disputed origins and relationships previously believed about the two men. It was analysis of various records that together led to the conclusion of the distinctions between the two men.

-- Jillaine

---

Thank you for your push to get that phrase removed as a default citation. Unfortunately, it seems many newer members still pick up on the phase and find it to be a comfortable go-to citation. Sourcing can be tedious and confusing to the less-experienced among us so such shortcuts can be very appealing. What's more frustrating than sourcing, however, it compiling your work after years of research only to discover you have no idea where any if it came from.

Answer 6

Their book is not a source, and it is unlikely to contain a lot of sources you can't find other ways--but of course you will not know this without seeing the book.  If you have any curiosity, it is possible a library might have the book.  There are a lot of self published genealogies in libraries and available through inter-library loan.

Sure, hocking this sort of thing violates the spirit of Wikitree, but I think citing to Ancestry.com does too, and people do that ***all the time.***  

Just ignore them. If they post on a page where you are the profile manager, I thnk you can just delete the comment.

Answer 7

I agree with all comments about the copyright infringement. Thank you for your replies. :)

I don't know how many of you have actually read the instructions for the MIR form, but it says you have to look for an appropriate post in G2G or in the Help section. I couldn't find either one. Then it says if you can't find one, you should create a question, then wait for it to be answered, THEN you can go fill out the MIR form.

I have completed the MIR form, and keeping my fingers crossed this can be resolved because I have concerns about the behavior of this person.