Genealogy Chat

was quite disturbed by the new terms and conditions, have just deleted my tree other than myself, as i have it on family tree maker software anyway. Sorry Martine, i'm sure everyone is quite genuine in their belief that our data is secure, but you are not the big boss, and you usually find what they say goes.

Martine, I don't think you need to apologise for intruding? Infact I & I should a lot of others would welcome any of your comments. I was and never have been worried about the security of leaving my Tree on Genes BUT I am worried about this section of the NEW terms and conditions:- By submitting any material to the content to the Genes Reunited Service, you: grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-terminable licence to copy, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that material in any form, anywhere; and authorise us to adapt the relevant material in the course of doing so, and so waive your moral rights to object to any derogatory treatment, or to be identified as the author, of the material in question. This is the section Christina quoted and it is the section I find most worrying. Thank you for your input hopefully you can tell us more about the above. Pat x

Hello, Martine. Nice to see you again. Unfortunately though, from what some people have posted, there seem to have been ''glitches'' in the site recently (not to do with ''trees''). Also - is there a way, please, Martine, of putting an automatic signature, say a person's membership number, in the person's reply? Thank you for reading this. Joy

What you're reading on GR is the same sort of disclaimer of responsibility that many companies use to deter people from challenging them. It's usually a 'frightener', worded by a legal team or adviser to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry taking the company to Court. If you read the 'small print' of most contracts, you will find that companies bend over backwards to prevent challenges to how they want to operate. This is why there are 'legal challenges' in the Courts, and the outcomes of those Court hearings set precedents for how law is subsequently upheld. Neither GR, nor ITV, could use personal information entrusted to this website (under their assurance that the information was secure) without the permission of the member concerned. If they did, and were sued for breach of contract and found guilty, it would ruin their reputation - plus GR's membership, and thus their income, would plummet like a stone. They don't want that to happen, and they could hardly make a good case for having disclosed personal information while constantly advising members to beware of giving their own details in various places on the site. I would trust what Martine has said, and I think she was wise to come in and say it. CB >|<

Thank you Martine, Far from intruding you are very welcome. I imagine the paragraph causing problems is a general disclaimer. i think we are all feeling very wary because of the new owners of the site, with them being part of the Media we are unsure how this will affect us. I am sure that our trees are safe because, as CB says, if they were shown to people without consent it would be the death of genes. Please feel free to come on here with advice or comments any time. Ann Glos

Hi CB & Ann, This is the Paragraph which is of great concern. grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-terminable licence to copy, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that material in any form, anywhere; and authorise us to adapt the relevant material in the course of doing so, and so waive your moral rights to object to any derogatory treatment, or to be identified as the author, of the material in question. I remember a longtime ago Crista and as far as I remember Judy in the States warning that if you put your tree on any website you are leaving yourself open for it to be used by that website. The particular website that was the worry at that time was Ancestry this wording looks to me the same kind of thing ie putting you tree up on any website it is open to be brought into the public domain at anytime. There were Terms and Conditions now there are NEW terms and conditions and as I am aware these terms and conditions can be altered at anytime. I do not believe it would spell the end of any website as none of us could win a case against any of them if they keep changing the terms and conditions they work under :-((( sounds bolshi but its not meant to be just anxious. Pat x

Good afternoon, it's Thursday now, and THANK YOU ALL for your constructive comments. I thought it was Friendsreunited that had been sold to a TV company, not actually GR, but I don't like the precedence that has set. From now on I am going to put names and DOB and POB only so that others can contact me with a possible match, all other info will be sent on to them by request. This might be a useful exercise anyway, for when you give someone access to your tree on GR you are in fact giving them access to everything, not just the bits that are relevant to their search - and they might be less careful than GR has promised us via Martine. I am still shaking my head at the word derogatory, I would never ask anyone to allow me to be derogatory towards them, I just don't see the need for that level of wording in any rules. In fact it could go against a company if it happened and they tried to claim innocence of remark because the rules show previous intent. Thanks again, Tina

There's more. The old T&C are still online (follow the link at the end of clause 23). This is a direct comparison of Clause 16: old version: You acknowledge that all ... rights ... other than material which is contributed by Members, are owned by Genes Reunited. new version: You acknowledge that all ... rights ... (including the material which is contributed by Members) are owned by Genes Reunited. old version: Therefore, no-one may copy ... any of the material ... unless properly licensed to do so by (a) us, and (b) where material contributed by one or more Members is concerned, by the Member(s) in question. new version: Therefore, no-one may copy ... any of the material ... unless properly licensed to do so by us. old version: grant us a ... licence to copy ... material solely in the course of its processing and display on and through the Genes Reunited Service in accordance with this Agreement new version: grant us a ... licence to copy ... material in any form, anywhere This is more than just GR covering its back. The old rules were enough for that. The spirit of the site used to be that you retained control over your data, at least until you let somebody view your tree. But the new rules take away all your rights and seem to reflect some very different thinking at the top.

Hi All, www*ancestryaid*co*uk/home looks good - £5 per year for full membership and it's possible to keep your tree somewhere like gencircles. We could all move!! William

I think the Data Protection Act could be used to stop any malpractice, and in any event records of births, marriages, deaths, divorces, adoptions, etc, can be found by any number of means. If data is already in the public domain, an individual GR member cannot lay claim to it being exclusively their own, therefore GR or ITV have given themselves no more rights over that data by changing the wording of rules than they had before. I doubt very much that ITV would want to start making invasive investigative TV programmes about the fact that Horace Murgatroyd's Auntie Milly used to drink meths, Euphemia Ponsonby's Great Uncle drank himself to death in 1832, or that my husband has an ancestor who was transported for crimes such as stealing acorns. What on earth has everyone got on their GR trees that is so amazingly fascinating as to warrant a TV programme being made, or a book or article being written, about it? CB >|<

Hello again, It's not just the fact that they might wish to make a booklet or programme about 'dead' records without asking me, so much that they are claiming rights to make any derogatory comments about my life and I can do nothing to prevent them. Why else would they have that type of proviso in the rules if they didn't want to leave the option open to do so? Tina

> I think the Data Protection Act could be used > to stop any malpractice it doesn't apply to data about dead people > and in any event records of births, marriages, deaths, > divorces, adoptions, etc, can be found by any number of means. > > If data is already in the public domain, an individual GR member > cannot lay claim to it being exclusively their own, therefore GR > or ITV have given themselves no more rights over that data > by changing the wording of rules than they had before. The work that's covered by copyright law (and which Clause 16 applies to) isn't the raw data, it's the work of searching for it, collecting it, selecting it, organising it and editing it. As we know, you can't build a family tree in an afternoon. As a result, there's money to be made from selling ready-made trees, so long as you've had the work done by unpaid labour. The LDS sells Pedigree Resource Files on CD, and Ancestry charges subs for OneWorldTree. People pay. The new T&C say that GR's data can now be used in that kind of way, and the contributors get no say-so. The fact that the raw data is in public records isn't enough in itself to give GR any such rights. They would need you to give up your rights in the results of your own efforts, and that's exactly what you do in the new T&C.