They said no

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. 

Help save Priscilla!

A 17th century personality, "Priscilla Kimball Preston," reported by FamilySearch's FamilyTree causes a conflict in my family research. I've had problems directly identifying the source specifics reported about her on new.FamilySearch.org. I'm not even able to find a matching entry in the IGI. 

I've managed my way through the thicket to devise an explanation, but I know there ought to be a better way! We all know it shouldn't take 1,200 words to explain a transcription error. In the mean time, we do what we have to do ... 

Although you may find my journey through the briar patch interesting, if you can help me learn how to work with the references or finding aids better, I hope you'll jump over to the presentation at Genealogy.SE and give me a push in the right direction. 

"Priscilla Kimball Preston" and the source

In new.FamilySearch.org, this "Priscilla Kimball Preston" (_ _ - _ _) is combined profile no. L8WP-GM6. The profile was developed from only two underlying submissions (identified as KGH5-CSK and KGH5-CXH).

Better yet, the combined profile reports two sources (and only two)--both cite extracted records. The citations to these extractions appear identical, but for a different "Record Number." Details follow; emphasis added:

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 698, Batch number: I04821­2, Batch number: I04821­2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English ­ Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 691, Batch number: I04821­2, Batch number: I04821­2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English ­ Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

Question 1: From the citations above, is anyone able to otherwise identify a specific source title and source record from which the information about "Priscilla Kimball Preston" was devised?

"Priscilla Kimball Preston" and the IGI

I could not get the extracted record itself to return in a search of the name "Priscilla Kimball Preston" from the FamilySearch collection, "International Genealogical Index (IGI)" for "Community Contributed IGI" records." (Nor did it return in a search of "Community Contributed IGI.")

The batch number given in the citations is "I04821­2" (this batch number seems repeated twice in each citation). According to the wiki article, "IGI Batch Number Descriptions," batches identified with a leading "I" are indices. Unfortunately, these are not further explained.

Question 2: Should I be able to locate the actual extracted entry in a search of the IGI? If the answer is yes, then what is the correct way of using the citations and IGI search parameters so the extracted record indeed returns? In the alternative, was this extraction excluded from the IGI for some obvious reason? (I thought all extractions would have been in the IGI.)

Inferior/convoluted approach to devising the extracted record

The profile of "Priscilla Kimball Preston" (L8WP-GM6) in new.FamilySearch.org lacks much by which she would be identified directly (no birth or death information about her, for example). new.FamilySearch.org does identify her by associating problematic birth specifics for three immediate family members--two children and a husband (father of the children). Information from the summary profiles of the associated family members is shown below. The genealogical improbability impossibility should be obvious--a man born 1728 did not father children born earlier. 

Many submissions combined to develop those three associated profiles. Through a reasonably convoluted process, I'm able to identify underlying submissions in the other profiles that probably relate to the extracted data.

William Preston (profile K2NM-FNP). From among the submissions (54) making up his profile, I'm able to locate two submissions that each contain a matching reference (KGH5-CSK or KGH5-CXH) to those of Priscilla Kimball Preston. About him, these submissions do not report about a date of birth. They only report his (a) name ("William Preston"); (b) gender (male) and (c) wife's name ("Priscilla Kimball Preston").

More about his profile. There are many sources, including extracted records, for his profile. None that I could see refer to a specific submission, but two of the extracted records are identical to those of Priscilla Kimball Preston, as below; emphasis added:

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 691, Batch number: I04821-2, Batch number: I04821-2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 698, Batch number: I04821-2, Batch number: I04821-2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

In the case of the two daughters, I found similar but not identical submission references and in each case, these were the only entries that reported a mother "Priscilla Kimball Preston."

Mary Presson (profile LH8V-2PB). From among the submissions (21) making up her profile, one submission (KGH5-CSF) reports a birth 5 Mar 1695 at Beverly, Essex [County], Massachusetts; parents William Preston and Priscilla Kimball Preston. From among the many different sources and extracted records about this combined profile is one that is identical to a source in the profile of Priscilla Kimball Preston, as below; emphasis added:

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 691, Batch number: I04821-2, Batch number: I04821-2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

Ruth Preston (profile LH8K-8QC). From among the submissions (49) making up her profile, one submission (KGH5-CXS) reports a birth 25 Mar 1710 at Beverly, Essex [County], Massachusetts; parents William Preston and Priscilla Kimball Preston. From among the many different sources and extracted records about this combined profile is one that is identical to a source in the profile of Priscilla Kimball Preston, as below; emphasis added:

Source type: Other, Image number: 384, Record number: 698, Batch number: I04821-2, Batch number: I04821-2, Location in source: p 78, Source template: INDEX05, Locality: Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, Language: English - Repaging, Contributor: EXTRACTION

Using this convoluted approach, I have thus associated the names of two parents, "William Preston" and "Priscilla Kimball Preston," with what I believe are two indexed birth extractions, one for "Mary Presson," b. 5 Mar 1695 [sic] at Beverly and her sister, "Ruth Preston," b. 25 Mar 1710 at Beverly.

Question 3: I only know what I know. Lacking identifiable entries in the IGI (see Question 2), is there any way to locate all "extractions" about William Preston and Priscilla Kimball Preston that might similarly be associated with the same source and page "78?"

Likely the infamous "page 78"

All the sources/citations described above identify a now infamous page, "78" in materials authored by or about Beverly, Essex County, Massachusetts. I'm able to otherwise identify a set of "Preston" records that appear on such a numbered page. (Don't laugh.) Yet other obvious record groups about Beverly can be excluded because the Presson/Preston, etc., entries appear in those books on pages numbered higher than 78. (Don't laugh.)

Shown below is the upper section of page "78" from family pages in the Beverly town clerks records. See "Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Towns Records, 1579-2001"; digital images, FamilySearch.org, Vol. 3 (M to S), p. 78; viewed as image 385 of 589.

Although I can't explain why there are not similar entries for all the children of "William Preston and Priscilla ..." reported on the page, I suspect that this "Priscilla Kimball Preston" personality was created by a mis-transcription of what was otherwise the name "Priscilla Randall."

I'm comfortable with the logic ("Priscilla Kimball Preston" vs "Priscilla Randall"), but it would sure make for a more straight forward explanation if I was able to directly identify the source from the citations above (see Question 1) and/or locate the precise entry in the IGI (see Question 2).

We all know it shouldn't take 1,200 words to explain a transcription error. In the mean time, we do what we have to do. 

----------

Update: On genealogy.stackexchange, RobertShaw was able to use FamilySearch general search ("Restrict records by") to return two other extracted Preston entries from the same batch and page number.  The records returned were the marriage and death of Priscilla (Randall) Presbury/Presson/Preston's son "Randal Preston." Those extractions reported his mother's name as "Priscilla Kimball Preston." (No one has yet been able to have the birth records return for either Mary Presson or Ruth Preston that report parents "William Preston" and "Priscilla Kimball Preston.")

You'll see the two returns for Randal if you type "Priscilla Preston" in the name fields and restrict the records to batch number"I04821-2."