nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off topic: chat

pinkypinky

I know there's not much going on the genealogy world but there's no reason we can't chat.

So this is a first for our board: an off topic chat thread. Please be nice!

So where's everyone gone these days? Are you all on summer holidays?

I'm not but I did just sit outside on freshly cut grass enjoying my lunch and my book (Ready Player One by Ernie Cline - love it!)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

tabbey

It is great when people start their genealogy research when still surrounded by uncles aunts etc.

In reality though, most people only get the time after they retire.

I only started after my parents died. An uncle wrote saying that an Americanlady wished to meet as many as possible descendants of R&BF, of whom I had never heard, and was thus introduced to one strand of my ancestry.

But it was only after retirement that I looked at paternal line ancestors in the censuses, and for better or worse, am addicted since. My eyesight went downhill after many hundred hours of looking at parish registers in the NLI, but that might have happened anyway.

Hermy

Just been reading the latest from Irish Genealogy News and wondered if it might be connected in some way to the above guidelines recently issued by the RCBI. Are the RCBI setting out their stall before the government set out theirs?

For Irish family historians, perhaps the most intriguing mention is a €10m allocation within the cultural and creativity package for 'digitisation of national collections'. The plan states 'Some projects which should be available online in the short-term include ... Church Records, which consist of parish registers for baptism, marriage and burial'.

With images and indexes of the National Library's collection of Roman Catholic registers already online, dare we assume the records alluded to will be Church of Ireland registers?

pinkypinky

Well, their collection is technically the same up to 1870, since the COI was the established church of Ireland, all their records are public records.

pedroeibar1

response on placename in the 'deciphering' thread:

KildareFan wrote: »

Portach in Irish means a bog - so sometimes the port in a place name refers to a bog.

Agreed on portach/portaigh but it is not relevant to Port Ryan or most if not all other Portxxxx placenames. There are two meanings of ‘port’ – a landing-place / bank / harbour / haven / port; or a fortress/military station / chieftain’s residence. The landing place meaning is referenced in the Leabhair na h’Uidhre. Later, in the Four Masters in a reference the death of King Malachy (in 1022 A.D.), Port used synonymously with ‘dún’.

Joyce (PW) maintains that the ‘port-‘ names on a river/lake are landing places, elsewhere they are residences. He also says ‘Port-‘ forms the beginning of about 140 townlands, parishes and villages in Ireland. A few in the CastleConnell area – Portcrusha (landing place of the cross) where a bridge was erected by an O’Brien in 1506 (per Four Masters), Parteen (little landing place). Portland the townland above Lough Derg is from port an tullchán, the bank/landing-place of the little hill.

An Act of Henry VIII, reinforced by Charles II in 1665 required place names to be in English, not Irish, as they “are very troublesome in the use thereof, and much retards the Reformation of that Kingdom,”

KildareFan

I'm wondering if Port could refer to a door or gateway if there were any Normans around [Porte - french for door or gate]. Camden Street Dublin used to be called Kevin's port....

Jellybaby1

KildareFan wrote: »

Feeling really disappointed at the guidelines issue by the RCBI for copying/transcribing Church of Ireland parish records and headstone inscriptions - in particular the restrictions on posting photos and headstone transcriptions. A tragedy for family history if these are more widely adopted.
https://www.irishgenealogynews.com/2018/04/rcbl-publishes-new-guidelines-for.html

It will be a problem for this group I'd say:
http://historicgraves.com/donate

pinkypinky

Practically speaking though, I'm not sure how the RCBL will police this. Are they going to take legal action against every website that puts up grave records?

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

Practically speaking though, I'm not sure how the RCBL will police this. Are they going to take legal action against every website that puts up grave records?

I’ve had another look at this since my post #175.. The document issued by the RCB is headed ‘GUIDELINES’ (in capitals) some of which are sensible, standard best practice, others just plain silly,
In my opinion it’s derrière covering, a box-ticking exercise probably provoked by the upcoming change in the data protection laws (due May 25). Any breach of data protection – if successfully prosecuted - could render the RCB, NAI, GRO or PRONI subject to penalties. However, it is hard to see for dead people what data / copyright could be breached and how any prosecution could be successful.

In the Republic, copyright for C of I registers of

baptisms and burials before 1871, and
marriages before 1845

is subject to the National Archives (Ireland) Act, 1986.
However,

registers of baptisms and burials after 1871 and
post-1845 registers of Church of Ireland marriages

are subject to the Civil Registration Act, 2004 . Copyright is held by The Representative Church Body and subject to internal regulations

The Church’s Constitution and Irish law requires that members of the public may access data. (C of I rules state access must be supervised and no photography is allowed.)

Members of the public may transcribe entries by hand but are not permitted to publish that information without permission from the copyright holder. Does the RCB really think this will be requested?

Guidelines state details for marriages, baptisms or burials newer than 100 years should not be posted on the internet or published in any other formats.

[Comment – nothing about policing all this is mentioned. Also, how can it be proved that a date of death record was obtained the C of I and not from the GRO or the NAI’s probate file? Not being allowed photograph a record in a register is a nuisance, worse for a page of a vestry meeting, but access remains available, so this is no big deal.]

Memorials/headstones/burial grounds
The Guidelines on this area are silly, I cannot see any justification for them.

The Guidelines speak about ‘worthy projects at local level’ and say the recording work by local groups is to be commended and encouraged adding there is a need to be mindful about copyright restrictions. This is putting their own clergy /vestrymen in a very difficult position.

They go on to state the memorial and its information belong to the descendants, adding that clergy and select vestries need to proceed with caution because they are responsible for the management of burial grounds. Any proposal to publish details relating to graves should be scrutinized and it’s strongly recommended that neither images nor details of inscriptions on memorials erected within the past forty years should be uploaded to the internet or published in any other formats.

Comment - Legally, publication is defined as making information known in a general sense. Placing information on a notice (gravestone) in a location open to the public is publication. Where could there be a cause for a legal action under data privacy laws? Even if the information is incorrect or even defamatory, the dead cannot be libelled or defamed. Why should the C of I be interested in this when it does not own the copyright? My (non-legal) view the RCB is digging a hole for itself by getting involved in the process.

I cannot see the guidelines discouraging most from uploading information. However, they will adversely affect that very worthy bunch, the local parish history group, who out of respect for their local ‘authority’ will be deterred from publishing graveyard lists/inscriptions.

Vetch

Churches are permitted under Article 91 of GDPR to make rules regarding the processing of data. I think by publishing their rules, the RCB are probably covering themselves if there happens to be an issue, especially as some of their records are held by other bodies and it seems to be permissible to look at records of living individuals in their registers (?). I’m not sure they have to actively police it but they will have to respond if someone complains or takes a case, and they have set out their rules by issuing this document.

I only skimmed through but the restriction with memorials seems to be with copyright rather than data protection. It would be interesting to hear a legal opinion on whether the text on a memorial is original or long enough to attract copyright protection but perhaps the RCB has that advice. It might also be that if some memorials are of unique design (and most are not) that the memorial itself might have copyright protection. It is possible that the rules to do with memorials may have to do with distress of relatives at seeing photos of memorials of recently-deceased loved ones online. That is understandable.

L1011

The biggest debate about copyright on headstones is how the church can claim any ownership to it at all, seeing as they neither paid for nor wrote it.

Vetch

L1011 wrote: »

The biggest debate about copyright on headstones is how the church can claim any ownership to it at all, seeing as they neither paid for nor wrote it.

I don't think they are actually claiming ownership of copyright. It's more that these memorials are in their graveyards, they are the custodians of the graveyards and parish committees may be asked for permission. Practically speaking if copyright clearance is required it would be next to impossible to get it unless you knew who owns every memorial.

In an organisation like a church where you have dispersed authority among parishes and where local pressures may be brought to bear, it's not easy but perhaps experience has meant the RCB felt it has to issue guidelines of some type.

pedroeibar1

L1011 wrote: »

The biggest debate about copyright on headstones is how the church can claim any ownership to it at all, seeing as they neither paid for nor wrote it.

I agree.
This is not the place to get into a debate on copyright but the basics are clear. It is sad that the RCB have taken their present stance, unlike that of both the GRO and the RC Church who have made their records available FOC, albeit with DP protection limits.

The purpose of copyright is to provide a balance between protecting creative works and allowing the public access to them. For copyright to apply, a work must be creative/original – i.e. its creator must use skill, labour, judgement and effort to create it. I’d accept that the RCB’s BMD registers (a substantial body of work/records) meet those criteria, reinforced by its economic rights and thus merit copyright protection. However, I also would argue that publication of a few disparate entries on a family website or parish publication do not constitute a meaningful breach of that copyright.

A tombstone inscription does not meet copyright criteria. You cannot for e.g. copyright a name. In any event, copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author plus seventy years, after which period it is in the public domain and no permissions are necessary to use it. Tombstones pre-1948 thus could not be copyright protected.

Should the RCB take issue with me for publication I would point them in the direction of the CLDS and free / fee-paying websites that provide both images and inscriptions and claim that the information is already in the public domain. They might, of course, prevent me from future access to their registers on the basis that I did not respect their rules. That certainly would be of concern to professional genealogists.

tabbey

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

both the GRO and the RC Church who have made their records available FOC, albeit with DP protection limits.

A tombstone inscription does not meet copyright criteria. You cannot for e.g. copyright a name.

The RC Church does not actually make their records available FOC. It was the NLI which made them available, first on microfilm to NLI visitors, more recently online.
Personally I think the manner in which the NLI put the RC records online without consulting the church, was a mistake, as it destroyed goodwill, a valuable commodity when we seek access to further records, perhaps towards 1920, rapidly approaching the centenary.

Any time I visit a church office / sacristy, I am treated with courtesy and friendly assistance, but the notion of getting a digital image is not entertained.
Some years ago, a browse of the register or transcript was more readily obtained, but less so since the NLI put the registers online, mostly up to 1880.

As for publishing images of gravestone inscriptions, it is probably no different from doing the same of a house frontage form a public street. It can be discourteous to a host, but hardly a crime.

I have little doubt but the RCB finds it necessary to make these rules / guidelines, to cover its own potential liabilities, following legal advice and pending clarification of how data protection issues will be treated by the courts in the future.

What I could never understand, was the complete ban on photography in the RCBL reading room, while many historic CoI parish register images are already online at irishgenealogy.ie / church records.

pinkypinky

tabbey wrote: »

Any time I visit a church office / sacristy, I am treated with courtesy and friendly assistance, but the notion of getting a digital image is not entertained.

There's definitely not consistency here. I had a helpful priest offer to snap pictures and email them to me over the phone quite recently. Marriage in the 1930s but both parties were dead.

tabbey

pinkypinky wrote: »

There's definitely not consistency here. I had a helpful priest offer to snap pictures and email them to me over the phone quite recently. Marriage in the 1930s but both parties were dead.

This is probably a case of the priest having the confidence to make such a decision, while the parish secretary / sacristan feels obliged to obey the rules.

KildareFan

On another topic - the Windrush landing cards were destroyed by the British government... using data protection arguments - and now many emigrants from the Carribbean who arrived in Britain in the 1960s are threatened with deportation because the very records which could prove their right to remain have been destroyed.

Imagine if Ellis island had tossed the passenger lists in the bin? At least the consequences for family roots researchers would just be a brick wall, but for the Windrush generation, the destruction of records means they are being threatened with deportation to places they left 60 years ago.

I feel that genealogical research on our current generation is going to be impossible if this trend towards destroying records continues.

pinkypinky

Funnily enough, I was just reading a letter I wrote to the Irish Times about the DPC taking down the old electoral registers yesterday. :mad:

I made the point that the 20th century would yield the most comprehensive and easily readable (typed and alphabetised) records that we've ever had. These records will still be valid and public but I expect the release of many will be thwarted because of this.

Hermy

tabbey wrote: »

Personally I think the manner in which the NLI put the RC records online without consulting the church, was a mistake, as it destroyed goodwill, a valuable commodity when we seek access to further records, perhaps towards 1920, rapidly approaching the centenary.

Given the nature and scale of the abuses committed by the Catholic Church against the people of Ireland, and the lengths they have gone to to conceal and cover up those abuses, thus leading to further abuse and suffering, it's them who destroyed the goodwill. That being the case you'd think that they'd be doing everything in their power to repair the damage and the NLI uploading their collection of parish registers should be the least of the Churches worries.

JDERIC2017

Hi

Looking for some advice please.

I have been long trying to find proof who my great grandfather was.

Anyway i was 80% sure of the man i found and his family that we were related.

Got DNA tested and there was the proof. Anyway I found a Grandson of said man, found out where he lived and posted a letter and waited.

I got an email two days later and he said he was very interested in his family history (I didn’t go into much detail) and would love to meet and chat, but his wife was ill and he wouldn’t leave her but said he would be in touch.

That was in november last year, how would you go about it, would you email again or wait for further contact.

Thanks

Hermy

I think you've waited long enough.

I'd send a followup correspondence asking after him and his wife and inviting him to pick up where you left off.

pinkypinky

Have you checked death notices in the paper for the wife?

tabbey

pinkypinky wrote: »

Have you checked death notices in the paper for the wife?

Or rip.ie ?

JDERIC2017

As sad as it seems I set up an alert on rip.ie. I bit the bullet and send an email asking after them...will see if I get a reply. Thanks.

JDERIC2017

Just to let you know I got a reply to my email and meeting this man next week, am beyond excited &#55357;&#56860;

Jellybaby1

That's great news, best of luck. I've also been blessed by communications online with new cousins I never even knew before. Its been brilliant chatting and meeting some of them and sharing the family history and we all said that we were sorry we never knew each other growing up. Unfortunately one or two who started off online with high hopes of us getting together have suddenly clammed up and there is no reply to emails or messages on Ancestry. God knows why, maybe they just got cold feet. Hope to hear again from them at some time in the future.

pinkypinky

I always include my email in Ancestry communications because you never know whether people have a subscription or not. They may not be able to reply.

Jellybaby1

pinkypinky wrote: »

I always include my email in Ancestry communications because you never know whether people have a subscription or not. They may not be able to reply.

Always a good idea. This is what I normally do anyway. One of my contacts did give me their email as well but they still don't reply to mine now. Oh well, I live in hope.

srmf5

pinkypinky wrote: »

I always include my email in Ancestry communications because you never know whether people have a subscription or not. They may not be able to reply.

I'm pretty sure that you don't need a subscription to message DNA matches. Users without a subscription can also reply to messages from non DNA matches once another user with a subscription has initiated contact. I could be wrong but I think that's right.

Jellybaby1

You're right 'cos that's how we started communicating and I don't have a sub. but they just stopped replying after a few messages.

pinkypinky

They may well have changed the rules but I don't want to shut down avenues of contact. It might be me with the subscription someday waiting for someone else to contact.