|
I know that sharing our trees with each other is part of the fun of Genes Reunited, but is it generally accepted that if you are allowed to view someone's tree, you are also allowed to copy it into your own if you share common ancestors, without their permission.
I have a contact who has done this and I now appear in his tree along with all my ascendants/decendants even though we are only very distantly related. He hasn't shared any information with me, other than I can view his tree so I suppose I could copy his tree into mine if I wanted to. Don't feel comfortable with this though, or see the point really.
Any views? Am I being over-sensitive?
|
|
If you gave the access, by implication you have given permission for the info to be used.
If you don't wish people to copy info, don't allow access to your tree.
Reg
|
|
This is a long on going problem & I must admit, it makes me very wary of opening my tree.
It seems that if you open your tree you are giving permission for that tree to be copied however no living persons details should be added without their consent.
The way I get around this is if someone wants some info from me I send then a genealogy report from my Gedcom as that way I can restrict the number of generations shown.
This person needs to remove your details along with other living people & if they won't then contact Genes. I'd suggest that this is sorted out asap before your personal info is spread amongst his/her other contacts.
|
|
It seems that some people when getting access to others trees think it gives them carte blanche to take from that tree. I always ask the tree owner if i can add something to my tree when we establish that its a common factor.
Unfortunatley some others aren.t that polite!!
If you dont want your tree taken then be wary who you open it too first ,and then, when you are ready to "swop" info you can open your tree
if you are happy for them to take wahtever info they want.
Shirley
|
|
I open my tree quite freely once I am pretty certain that we share ancestors.
However I usually request that the contact only uses information on my paternal branch, for example, if this is the relevant part. I also request that no living relatives are used.
Before I did this, my whole tree had been copied. This leads to bizarre "Hot Matches" with my own name appearing as a "Hot Match" on someone else's tree!
I agree with Titus, it's a question of politeness.
If you open your tree I suppose you are implicitely giving permission for your information to be used but it is better to ask!
It is also more fun, in my opinion, to do the research yourself,. Other people's shared information is an excellent starting point.
|
|
When I allow access to my tree I expect contacts to use the information.
Some do and some do not.
I currently appear in name search twelve times
8 James
2 Living
1 Jim
1 Boy(that's a laugh!!)
|
|
Hello Kathryn! Having learned of your existence here the other day, shortly after I started using the boards, I added an initial to my name to avoid confusion. (I hadn't known I had a username to start with, and then it didn't occur to me to check or change it.)
I used to spontaneously open my tree to people whom I contacted about a possible match, just as a kinda innocent-abroad gesture of possible-familial warmth. I just thought everybody was as genial and eager to know me as I was to know them. I must have been a Labrador retriever in my previous life. ;)
Eighteen months ago I contacted someone who had my mother's grandfather's ancestors in his tree. Twice in a row -- first after finding one of them in his tree on a search, and then right away when I found that one's father, clinching the match. I got no answer. I forgot about it. But I had opened my tree to him, and had never thought about housecleaning my tree accesses.
A couple of months ago, I was idly wasting time here and did a search for my mother's grandmother. I found her in the same person's tree. Well, this looked like a pretty close connection -- both my mother's grandparents! So I enquired again, and got tree access in reply, with a curt offhand comment about how the tree owner wasn't sure how my mother's grandmother was related to his wife, but I could look.
So I did, and discovered that his wife and I share grx3 grandparents. And that he had scooped me, my mum, my grandmother and my great-grandmother out of my tree into his. Without so much as a howdydo, literally.
Me, I just think that's plain downright rude. To get a message from me, use the access granted to my tree, take data out of my tree -- including about living people -- and stick it into one's own tree, and then not even bother to explain the relationship when asked once again, let alone to acknowledge that the reason my data appears in his tree is that *I gave it to him*!
I'm not particularly exercised about rigorous documentation of stuff I find; this is a hobby for fun, and that kind of thing makes it drudgery. But whenever I do pass info I have to someone else, I always acknowledge where it came from, if someone else gave it to me. Some people have been enormously helpful, whether just by handing over what they've already done or got that I could never have done or got myself, being limited to on-line research, or by going out of their way to help me find missing people, and I *want* to recognize them for it.
So I'm in the same situation as you, Kathryn: I'm in the tree of someone to whom I am distantly related -- although I consider shared grx3 grandparents pretty close, the relationship seems destined to remain distant! I'd never really thought about this before, but now that I do, I'm not sure I like it. My own tree is a sparce thing, just focusing on people I'm actually interested in, and I'm not about to go dragging all of the other people's families into mine, just like you. I haven't minded my name and details being in the trees of a few family members I've met and am in on-going contact with on a cousinly basis, and even being shared with family members of theirs. On only one other occasion has someone imported my details like that into their own trees as a result of such shares, without contacting me, and when she turned up in one of my searches, she replied immediately to my message and we established off-GR contact too, so I'm cool with that.
It seems to me that the problem does arise in that situation, though -- someone you're happy to have your details passes them on to someone else, whom you don't know, and without you knowing.
So I think maybe what I'll do is ask that my living relations' details be kept private in other people's trees, and make that a condition of granting access. I'm only in my own tree to help orient anybody looking -- my sibs and their kids, and my parents' sibs and their offspring, aren't there, so this simplifies it.
It's kinda like when someone sends you an email that they've sent to a dozen other people, strangers to you, and there goes your name and email address out into cyberspace beyond your control. I always send pointed messages back instructing my correspondents on the use of the "BCC" email function, and to all the other recipients asking that they delete my details from any forwards of the message they send. So I guess the same policy applies handily, mutatis mutandis, to my personal details in my GR tree! "You" may have them, but you may not pass them on without asking me.
Of course, Labrador retriever that I am, I'll just trust people on that. ;)
|
