@erica - I don't know how long the MyH price break will last, so I can't really give it time. I won't buy the MyH Data Subscription until I know if I can place the image on Geni. I don't see any definitive answer on the existing Geni or MyH blogs or FAQs. I don't believe that I will get a straight answer by asking the folks at Geni or MyH. So I'm in a bit of a quandary.
Would anyone with a MyH Data Subscription care to run a test to see if you can capture the jpg or pdf image of a Matching Record, and upload it somehow to the corresponding Geni.com profile?
Mark Harold Melmed Yes, you can download the actual census page to your comp and then upload it to Geni if you wish.
I just went and double, triple checked for you before opening my big mouth ;) Here is a link to the profile of my 2x great grandfather, who has a match to a census on MH: Abraham Gudka
As you can see, the GUI places a small icon of the census on the profile, which you can then click and look at on MH (if you have a subscription). However, if you have the Mh subscription owner, you are able to download the census record directly to your comp and should you want to upload it to Geni and put it on the profile under the media or source tabs you can.
It's pretty cool actually. They do have records for other countries as well. The only time there isn't anything to download is a birth or death record since those are generally only attainable by ordering them from the appropriate state.
Also, with the tree matches, you can view public profiles on the trees, but not private ones, so if you get a match to someone deceased, but one of the relatives you click on is marked on MH as living then the info is private much like it is on Geni.
I'm going offline for the night, but if you send me a message to my inbox here I will get it on my blackberry for the next hour or so and will happily answer any other questions you have. Also, just keep in mind that they will be developing the matches and capabilities even further in the future, so might as well get in early when the price is a bit lower ;) I grumbled at first too, but I think it's worth it, especially if you don't have access to those records elsewhere.
It does work! I promise you :))
As a non-subscriber since I wasn't logged into MH, I see the cute icon of the census and when I mouse over it, it shows me the transcribed text per the below with the option to click to see the actual record. When you click you get the page asking you to subscribe.
Added May 4, 2013 by Wendi Newman
1900 United States Federal Census
Sep 1850 - Russia
1900 - New York City, Kings, New York, USA
Fannie Gudka, Minnie Gudka, Bella Gudka, Paulean Gudka, Rosa Gudka
Also, if you look under the source tab of Abraham Gudka you see the census record from MH with the transcribed text as well. That was put there automatically by the system. However, you can just as easily d/l the image from MH and upload it to the profile as a public document so your family/friend/etc can see the full image.
Mark Harold Melmed Read my posts above....
Mark, if you can see it on your screen, then you can make an image out of it (on records like Census & Newspapers they give you a download button) and you can certainly upload an image as a document to a Geni profile. So from a technical standpoint - it is easily done. What I was unsure of is the copyright agreement and the license granted as part of the data subscription. Does it give you the legal right to copy and then upload to the public. I don't know, may be perfectly fine (not even sure you can copyright an census image), but I didn't want to say yes without knowing as these things can be tricky.
Copyright IS tricky, and there's rarely a cut-and-dried answer. In the case of the U.S. Census, most of the actual records are in the public domain - so there shouldn't be a problem, right? Except, if you're making a copy of an image you found online, that image is probably proprietary. In other words, the individual or agency that got permission or paid a fee to make a copy of the census and then put it online can claim copy right to their image - not to the actual census itself.
In reality, no one is going to prosecute a violation of census copyright in court. It's too expensive and the courts are overwhelmed. There could still be consequences for violating copyright, though - it's against the TOUs of Geni and most other sites and could get you kicked off; it sets a bad example; it's unethical; and widespread violation of copyrights results in higher costs to companies that provide the records - which results in higher costs to subscribers. Us.
I am not an attorney. This is my rudimentary understanding of relevant copyright issues, based on years of working in a patent and copyright law office. It's not meant as a substitute for legal advice, nor as a permission slip to break the law. Yada yada yada. Best, always, to err on the side of caution!
Not watching Castle - although I wish I were. ;-)
@Jennifer, what you wrote about about copyright of images of census records is not correct. A copy of a public domain record is itself public domain. There is nothing original in the copy, which is a requirement for copyright protection. Copyright doesn't depend on how much it cost or even how much work it took, but on authorship of original material.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, Randy! Which is totally fine. But it's my understanding that Ancestry, for instance, licenses the use of the census records from the owner - the U.S. Government. As part of that license, Ancestry asserts and is granted the right to restrict the further duplication of the records it has licensed. This does not constitute a copyright of the material - it's a copyright of Ancestry's copy of the material. It's a fine point, but I've seen it argued and upheld.
Just as a photographer could take a photo of the Mona Lisa - back when you could get permission from the Louvre to take photos - and would own the rights to his photo. It could not be duplicated without his permission.
Neither Ancestry's use of the census records, nor our long-ago photographer of the Mona Lisa, gain ownership nor rights to the source material, and their use of such material does not restrict others from doing exactly what they did. It *does* grant them ownership of *their* copies, and prevents others from using their copies without appropriate permissions.
The Mona Lisa is an example that's widely used in copyright explanations because it illustrates that the issue really comes down to one of access... public domain doesn't mean ownership. A license or copy *can* be owned.
Ok. I don't want to step on your toes, but unlike you, I am an attorney. I also know a thing or two about copyright law. So, you can "agree to disagree," but I wouldn't want any others to be misled by your opinions. Ownership of the physical object is not the same as copyright. Those are two distinct property rights. So, you can own the painting, and you can even restrict access to the painting, but that does not give you any copyright. You might take a look at Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that reproductions of public domain artworks do not satisfy originality requirements for US copyright). So, using your example, an exact photo reproduction of the Mona Lisa could be copied by anyone because the photographer would have no copyright in the photograph. Similarly, copying a census record might violate the terms of service of the provider, but not the copyright. Lots of people get this wrong, so you are not the only one.
Okay, Randy, thanks for the explanation! It's always good to get more information. Perhaps I misunderstood the information my attorney has given me concerning my copyrights as a photographer and artist. I'll give him what you said and find out where I went wrong, or where his opinion differs from yours.
Randy! I asked my attorney/friend/former employer where I'd misunderstood and he said I should just shut up now, lol!
He said that it can be complex and is often misunderstood (as you said). He said there's a reason he gets paid to do this stuff and I don't - which reminds me of the time I was singing along with the radio and a friend nicely commented that the radio singer gets *paid* to sing... He's right, and this is me shutting up now!
(Okay, he was nicer than that, but that's the bottom line...) Sheesh. ;-)
No problem. I am grateful and impressed that you checked with him. As I said, lots of folks make mistakes in this area (Gary Mokotoff just made the same mistake in his Jewish genealogy e-newsletter last week.). I lost the only big copyright case I brought (concerning the Pink Panther) on a 3-0 decision in the 9th Circuit. None of the judges understood the argument. My only consolation was when David Nimmer, who edits his father's treatise on copyright, agreed with me and wrote in his book that the ruling was wrong and made no sense. I must not have been a good enough lawyer to get through to them. As I said, copyright is not easy.
A. When I worked at Kinko's I hated having to try to explain copyright issues, so I feel your pain - just on a much smaller scale.
B. Pink Panther = awesome
C. Does this also apply to the images attached to the JRI-Poland indexes as there is all sorts of "copyright stuff" and I wouldn't want to cause any trouble for myself or the JRI-Poland people.
Erica Howton - re: "I am finding the "screaming in your face" analogy a little OTT for cute little well behaved icons to be honest." -
1] it took me a while to decipher OTT - am I correct that it means "over the top"? if not, what does it mean. I am still quite unlearned it this lingo.
2] I was not referring to the icons, but to the Full-Page Ad -- As I say above, I am quite unlearned in this lingo. I have seen folks explain that writing in capitals is "shouting", and analogously it made sense to me to refer to full-page ad that totally takes over your screen, complete with large type and etc. (as opposed to ads to side or etc such as on my e-mail account) as "screaming in your face" - what volume term do you feel is more correct?
3] As for what you call "cute little well behaved icons" - well, cute is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. To me, not cute. Also, they are not always "well behaved" - sometimes they bobble, sometimes they sit still. I am one of those folks who finds 'busy' distracting and not pleasant.
1) yes, OTT means "over the top." I try & resist jargon & slang but I was "triggered" by GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).:):)
2) when you say "full page ad" you mean the "pay wall" graphic when you try a function you haven't paid for? For instance, I am not logged into MyHeritage on my phone, so when I follow a SmartMatch from Geni on that platform, I get an ad to buy MH.
Graphically - standard & low key IMO (in my opinion).
Now to back up my opinion - I worked for the ad agency that "invented" direct response advertising. All the creative ways to nag at consumers and get their attention to buy the product. All those mailers full of cards and coupons and come - ons? You can blame us. All those late night infomercials repeating an 800 number? You can blame us.
Those ads were OTT. An Internet "standard" (actually lower key) "pay wall" ad marketing a service that costs quite a lot to offer? Not OTT in any ad agency manual these days. Sorry, it's an area I do have some (aging) knowledge of.
3) yes, of course graphics are in the eye of the beholder. But there is a science to it as well as an art.
Again I disclose my "special knowledge." I have an eyesight impairment that affects my field of vision; it's why I have found iPad to be my most comfortable computing platform.
Anything that "bounces in" or "pops in" (there's a subtle use of animatics in the Geni SmartMatch icons) could, if poorly done, induce actual physical pain and double vision for me. So I think I'm about as good a "tester" on this as can be found, for one person, anyway.
I find these remarkably well done. The designers got the timing of the animation exactly right if it accommodates my disability of "slow muscle reaction.".
If I were really, really tweaking (fine tuning someone else's design, which I wouldn't do!) - my suggestion might be, in tree view, for the "blue dots" to be a smidgeon smaller & a few pixels higher placed. But that is such a minute critique; it may not be the right suggestion; I am not a Flash software designer and I'm not even sure it's doable.
The utility of the service on offer is what matters most to me. Its almost unimportant that I do happen to like this design.
Lois, The Genealogical Helper was the main tool for connecting American genealogists until the Internet killed it. It started in 1947, and continued through (I think) 2009.
It was a quarterly magazine. It had some articles, but the real draw was the classified ads. If you were looking for information about an ancestor, you placed an ad, and hopefully everyone who was working on that family responded.
I think I started my subscription about 1967 (when I was 12!). It was a huge deal for me when it arrived. I would spend hours pouring through the ads looking for anyone who was working on my lines. I would answer the ads that interested me and for months after I would get huge envelopes from other genealogists stuffed with photocopies.
There were no computers in those days, so I would hand type new Family Group Sheets and Pedigree Charts (blank forms available by mail order from Everton Publishers in Logan, Utah -- the same folks that published The Genealogical Helper).
Through ads in The Genealogical Helper I first connected with the older generation of genealogists, all those people who were working in the 1920s, 30s and 40s who had become *the* expert on certain lines. They helped me connect my lines to theirs, and in some cases I ultimately inherited their files.
I think I put my first ad as a professional genealogist in 1982. That one ad kept me in business for years, as I networked out from referrals. In fact, a couple of my clients today chain back to that ad.
Nowadays, of course, most genealogists are much newer to the field. Some of them came in after the Roots miniseries in 1976, and even more started only after Ancestry.com and the Internet. When you meet someone who remembers The Genealogical Helper, you're talking to an old-time, hard-core genealogist ;)
That sounds pretty cool... are old copies available online anywhere that you know of? I cvould Google it of course lol