A recent webinar featured newspaper content provider, GenealogyBank.com, and Tom Kemp, the great genealogist who works for them. During Q&A, the topic turned to this provider's Terms of Service (TOS).
Having read Judy G. Russell's work on The Legal Genealogist about the terms of service extended by newspaper content providers, I was interested in Tom Kemp's response.
Kemp did a nice job of overviewing GenealogyBank's restrictive terms of service. He provided some explanation and suggested bloggers and family historians who wanted further use of the site's digital images should seek permission.
The following week, I made it a point to do just that.
I chose a news item otherwise in the public domain, because the US copyright would have expired. In this case the article was "Changes name at wish of dying mother"; it had been published in 1911 by a Duluth, Minnesota, newspaper. The news item was 146 words in length.
I had already transcribed the article, but inquired of GenealogyBank for permission to post the properly cited digital image online.
It took about a week for my request to be processed through the appropriate channels.
They said no.
My somewhat sarcastic take on the response was, "Our terms of service don't permit this … here's a link to our terms of service … please learn to read .. don't bother us again .. we hope you found this helpful." One line was added suggesting their terms were just like all the genealogical content providers.
Dear me.
I see GenealogyBank images posted online "with permission" from time to time, so I suspect not every subscriber's request meets with such rigidity or finality. Mine did, though. Must be some subjectivity at play, but you would not have gathered that from the response to me.
I'm a family historian who relies on collaboration, and I like working with originals. These days, I probably find about 10 articles a year about my family on GenealogyBank.
It is bulky and risky for an individual to manage the rights on tiny bits of historical/public domain materials that are otherwise subject to variable terms of service--those terms can be changed at anytime.
Considering the risk and rigidity of these terms of service, GenealogyBank is more expensive today than it was to me a week ago, dollar for dollar. Given the neon "do not distribute" notice flashing across the images, the original content is just not as valuable, either.
I love newspapers, but I don't think GenealogyBank "gets me." Now that I certainly "get them," things will change at my end.
I agree with you about this response. I expect that you're looking into alternate sources.
ReplyDeleteI've never found anything on my family there (they lived in the wrong places?); now I'm glad I never signed up after one of the "free" periods.
Sue
Thanks, Sue.
DeleteI've been looking over some additional interesting twists and turns on this. In the mean time, I'm still hoping GenealogyBank will at least recognize this is a problem.
Thanks for sharing. A sorry shame... they are.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDr. Bill, I've been a subscriber as long as I remember there being a "GenealogyBank." I would continue if their terms of service were workable as far as these public domain materials are concerned. I don't care if they require me to ask permission on every such article I download for permanent storage, share via e-mail or post to my blog. I don't care if they want to limit the number of such requests they will honor in a given year. Until GenealogyBank comes up with some workable policy on the public domain materials, I'm out.
DeleteI haven't used GenealogyBank but it's certainly disappointing to read their response to your request, especially since the article comes from a paper that's past copyright date. It seems to me that after having found your ancestor with the help of their search engines, you could find a copy of the original newspaper and make a photocopy or photograph and use it on your blog. Not necessarily an easy way to do it but still, you could....
ReplyDeleteHi Nancy. Thank you for commenting. Taking your notion a step further, the current terms of service make GenealogyBank more of a finding aid than a content provider. (A fairly expensive finding aid, I might add.) Today I tallied different news clippings that are now on my blog. Not many were from GenealogyBank. More to write on the topic, though. Thank you again.
DeleteI concur, a very expensive finding aid. I've had a subscription for about a year and haven't found more than five articles. That is just a factor of small town newspapers not in their catalog. However, the lack of pertinent articles mixed with your news makes me want to reconsider my subscription.
ReplyDeleteHi Heather Kuhn Roelker,
DeleteThank you for commenting, Heather Kuhn Roelker. Newspapers are a great source of information about the lives and times of our ancestors. Whether it is five, ten or twenty a year, these articles often provide a perspective on families and life/death that isn't apparent from other source materials.
Family historians need terms of service with reasonable (and understandable) limits that both work for GenealogyBank and also allow us to work. On these out of copyright materials, I don't want to be told that I can't permanently archive records that are about my family. At least in part, my "peer group" is made up of cousins who live elsewhere. The Internet brought us together and we live in a digital age.