Help us determine the level of censorship at GenealogyWise

Today is the one-week birthday of GenealogyWise. In the last couple of days we have had to face some censorship issues for the first time. We have not been around long enough to have set policies for these kind of issues. So, we want to turn to you, our members, to help us set our censorship policies. We invite each of you to respond letting us know whether or not you think the following types of posts should be censored:

(1) Content related to pornography or adult content
(2) Content promoting products and services not related to genealogy (business opportunities, etc.)
(3) Content that is disrespectful or rude (name calling, etc.)

We value your feedback and want your help in setting policies. What do you think?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Craig Manson on July 17, 2009 at 7:40am: Facts are not subject to copyright. Thus if you have compiled burial information from cemeteries, you cannot claim a copyright in the factual information itself. The fact that John Doe was born on a certain date and died 85 years later cannot be protected by copyright. There may be unique features of the compilation that could protected by copyright--but not the factual information.

Unpublished works created since the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act are in fact protected by copyright from the moment of their creation. "Creation" in the 1976 Act occurs when a work is fixed in a copy for the first time. Books, manuscripts, video, sheet music, software, all constitute copies in which a work may be fixed.

"Publication" is defined in the 1976 Act as:

the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

So the answer to your example about the society publishing its data is that there is no "publication" of the work until it is distributed "by sale or other transfer of ownership" or offered to be distributed for further distribution or public display.

Again, publication is no longer required in order to claim a copyright. But publication still has some legal significance because the year of publication may affect the rights of the copyright holder in certain cases and because works "published" in the United States must be deposited with the Library of Congress (although failure to do so does not deprive the work of copyright protection).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Debbie Kennett on July 17, 2009 at 2:56am: There is no copyright in the cemetery listings per se. If you go into a cemetery or a churchyard you can transcribe the inscriptions and freely publish them on the internet. However if a society transcribes all the cemetery records and publishes them it has copyright over its own transcriptions. I don't know anything about US copyright law. In Europe if you publish something I believe you automatically have copyright regardless of whether or not you include a copyright statement. I think when people upload material to Ancestry there is something in their terms and conditions which states that they can basically do what they want with your material. For this reason I have never uploaded a GEDCOM file to Ancestry.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Luckie Daniels on July 16, 2009 at 1:46pm: I believe all three types of content you've identified above should be censored from the site.

I come to GenealogyWise to connect with other researchers in the Genealogy space. That's why I'm here - that's what I want. We can be assaulted with unwanted SPAM in any number of online environments - please protect it from us here.

However, I do believe a platform is only as strong as its community. That said, respectful forums and dialogue that may in some respect offer constructive criticism, should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

It's healthy to see [and voice] things differently - it keeps us all in check!:-)

Luckie.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FamilyLink on July 16, 2009 at 2:06pm: I agree. We value diverse opinions and debates from people who have different views.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James F. Henderson on July 16, 2009 at 2:00pm: (1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes, if it is especially disrespectful; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FamilyLink on July 16, 2009 at 2:05pm: Good point on #3. Maybe it is only an issue if it is an especially serious form of disrespect. Maybe we should let the lower levels of disrespect go because some people are going to disagree about what is and what is not disrespect at that level.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas MacEntee on July 16, 2009 at 2:00pm: I am not a person that usually looks back in life (but I do when it comes to researching my ancestors) but I missed the original forum post about the Genealogy Wise contest which was removed and I'd like to get all the facts (I am a researcher and genealogist after all).

I think Genealogy Wise could go very far in resolving this issue by somehow re-posting the forum post and letting others give their feedback. It would help you determine a censorship policy as to rudeness, bashing, and disrespectful - which many agree to be subjective.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FamilyLink on July 16, 2009 at 2:04pm: Thomas,
Unfortuantely, when we deleted the thread it was deleted permanently. I can't recreate it or put it back up. I'm sorry I apologize for doing this. Going forward we will not delete threads that are disrespectful of GW.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shy Genealogist on July 16, 2009 at 2:01pm: My 2c on GW "censorship" of disrespectful posts. Since discussion threads don't show up on My Page automatically, I'd have to go LOOKING for disrespectful posts. I'd never have known about these posts if they hadn't been removed (and then Tweeted). Openly offensive posts (name calling) should not be allowed, but anything beyond that will be too difficult to judge fairly. I would hope that this would be a pretty rare occurance - but maybe I'm being naive.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FamilyLink on July 16, 2009 at 2:02pm: Thank you for the feedback Shy.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FamilyLink on July 16, 2009 at 2:01pm: I just spoke with Paul Allen, our CEO, and he feels that we should allow all feedback about GenealogyWise without removing it, even if it is disrespectful. I apologize for the posts I removed that I felt were discrespectful to GW. That will not be our policy going forward. So, go ahead and bash away. :)

I think it might make sense to have some kind of rules about treating other community members with respect, but we won't have those same rules for negative posts about GW. What do each of you think about that?

Also, Paul would like us to ask the community what you think about profanity. Should that be censored at all, and if so, what types of profanity?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas MacEntee on July 16, 2009 at 2:20pm: Thanks for this reply - it goes a long way to calming nerves right now.

Obscenity (foul language or suggestive language) should be moderated and a standard such as the following can be set:

Obscene, foul and suggestive language will not be tolerated . . . If you are quoting a historical document and such language is used, we ask that you partially obliterate the possibly offending words with asterisks. Such as h*ll . . .

Thoughts?; ▶ Reply to This