1841 census on Ancestry? .....

[scooter]

Cheers John,

So pretty much 'watch this space'!

How does the affect the FreeCen website being that they have transcriptions too?

Very best,

Scott

[Kathy]

I already had some information from 1841 found on SP, when I checked this information on Ancestry, I found Ancestry had transcription errors.

Kathy

Kathy

Details would be of interest.

David

I will search through my pile of, not filed in any particular order, paperwork, and locate the SP printout, and get back to you.

Kathy

Hi David,

I did manage to find a couple of my printouts, the transcription errors are not major.

On one it gives place of birth for two family members as: Renfrewshire, Ireland.

On another its the street name wrong, for Sinclairs Close Port Glasgow it lists the street as Sinclaius Closs.

the above are the only two I checked, and they both have errors on Ancestry, which I know are wrong, because I rechecked them on SP.

Kathy

[sporran]

Hello Scott,


I do not know any details of the arrangements with FreeCEN, but I would assume that they asked GROS for permission. The project started in 1999, before the commercial boom of SP and its predecessor using Scots Origins. FreeCEN may be looked on in a different way to Ancestry because it will be years before the records are complete and they are not reselling the data. A lot depends on the wording of the conditions when buying census films.

Whatever the outcome, as David pointed out earlier, copyright of the images remains with GROS.


Regards,

John

[Tom-W]

I've just seen a post on Rootschat regarding an ancestry newsletter. In it Ancestry make a comment about trying to work with GROS to enable posting of the images of the 1841 census.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.ph ... 051.0.html
(hope it's OK to post a link to another message board!)

Would GROS ever consider letting Ancestry use the images as well as SP? Would be interested to hear if anyone has any knowledge of this.

Tom

> (hope it's OK to post a link to another message board!)
As there are occasional links on RootsChat directing folk to articles on TalkingScot, I don't think we can complain. - AndrewP

[alexandra]

The difference between the "southern" situation and Scotland is that GROS are in partnership (currently with ScotlandOnLine) to put records on the ScotlandsPeople site, and may wish to preserve this situation. GRO (covering England and Wales) do not have a partnership and allow companies to resell their indexes and census images. At present, GRO still controls the images of BMD records through the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

There are merits in both situations: the "monopoly" and the "market forces", with quality control and costs affecting the user.


Regards,

John[/quote]

Sorry John, but you're not quite right there

Unlike GRO Scotland, GRO in England do not control the historic census returns; these are held by The National Archives (TNA), who have granted a Licensed Internet Associateship to Ancestry to reproduce and index census images 1841-1901 on their website.

So in England and Wales there is an official partnership with Ancestry, it's just not with the GRO, because the division of records is quite different North and South of the border. The Ancestry.com site is allowed to to use TNA's official logo on its site, and TNA earns a royalty from hits to the site. A number of other companies have purchased non-exclusive licences from TNA to reproduce census images, but this does not include the right to use TNA's logo. There is quite a lot of competition between various commercial companies, but all of it is with TNA's approval, and it gets an income one way or another from all of them, since the images are Crown Copyright and can only be used with permission - ie on payment of a royalty.

This is quite different from the situation is Scotland, where as far as I can see there is no official sanction for Ancestry's use of the census data, unless anyone knows to the contrary?

I doubt if GROS has gained any income from Ancestry beyond the sale of the microfilm in the first place, but I am quite prepared to stand corrected on this. It is also interesting to note that Ancestry's index to the English and Welsh 1841 census does not include either the street or occupation fields.

[sporran]

Hello Alexandra,


thanks for the correction. I should have checked before posting and I am pleased that we all know the relationships.


Regards,

John

[DavidWW]

Kathy
Details would be of interest.
David

I will search through my pile of, not filed in any particular order, paperwork, and locate the SP printout, and get back to you.
Kathy

Hi David,
I did manage to find a couple of my printouts, the transcription errors are not major.
On one it gives place of birth for two family members as: Renfrewshire, Ireland.
On another its the street name wrong, for Sinclairs Close Port Glasgow it lists the street as Sinclaius Closs.
the above are the only two I checked, and they both have errors on Ancestry, which I know are wrong, because I rechecked them on SP.
Kathy

Kathy

Thanks

David

[DavidWW]

This starts to get more and more interesting

The situation is that there has been a contract in place for nearly 4 years, recently extended for the next 2 years, which involves GROS and ScotlandonLine as their sub-contractor for the provision of the ScotlandsPeople website, - exclusively so in terms of the GROS indexes and images. (I'm assuming, BTW, that the 2 year extension is going to be taken up .........)

It's further my understanding that the provision by Ancestry of the 1841 index is being very carefully considered by GROS and linked UK government departments such as Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) in terms of breach of copyright as well as breach of contractual commitments, implied and otherwise, by Ancestry, but that the contractual aspect in terms of terms and conditions placed on the purchase of the microfilms has not turned out to be considered as significant.

In other words, Ancestry's provision of an on-line index to the Scottish 1841 census is unlikely to be challenged...............

I understand that Ancestry's sub-contractor have completed the indexing of all but the 1901 census, and that these will be rolled out over the next few months, - the best commercial return is not obtained if they are all released at the same time

As regards 1901 I had heard that GROS were considering not fulfilling this aspect of the Scottish census microfilm purchases by Ancestry, but I'm not sure of the outcome ..........

Regardless of all the above it has to be considered unlikely that any sub-contractor other than ScotlandonLine will be used for the provision of the GROS indexes and digitised images until the contract is put out for bids in accordance with the European Union public procurement directive in early 2008, given the end date of the current contract, - always assuming, of course, that the 2 year extension option in the existing contract has/will be taken up.

In other words, any attempt by Ancestry in the interim to persuade GROS to allow them access to the census digitised images is probably doomed to failure, this being simply a true reflection of existing contractual commitments, - in other words GROS are bound by those existing contractual commitments.

I write probably because I have picked up some relevant "gossip" (including the 3rd or 4th hand reference to the opinion of a very experienced Edinburgh lawyer in this field) to the effect that current UK Freedom of Information legislation can be argued to over-ride copyright and other considerations as regards access to both the Scottish statutory and census indexes, and, as well, critically, the associated digistised images.....

One interpretation of this is that, were Ancestry to forge ahead and make available their own digitised images from their copies of the microfilms of the open Scottish censuses, that this could not be challenged by GROS

Given the fairly recent and US venture capitalist nature of the new owners of MyFamily.com/Ancestry (My Family is the parent company), I'd be less than happy to see them as a successor GROS contractor for the provision of the ScotlandsPeople site, - US venture capitalists have a very simple view of the situation, - if an investment isn't producing the predicted returns within a short period, - typically 2 or 3 years, - the "plug is pulled".

GROS face the major constraint that any future bidding process has to meet the requirements of the European Union directive relating to such public services.

In that context, unfortunately, in the last few years, it has been UK government, and therefore Scottish Executive policy to stick to the absolute letter of the apparent, exact terms of such directives, to the detriment of the UK.

As long as the terms of any contract are clearly laid down in the EU Journal Notice inviting applications, and this can include the basis of assessment of any bid, which can include the extent to which bids are assessed on the basis of price and quality, - this can range from 100%/0% to 10%/100% as regards these two factors, - then there is no problem, - except that the UK/Scottish authorities have not always concurred......................

And except that the UK and Scottish governments have a history of not being willing to consider such "departures" from very strict adherence to the terms of the EU public procurement directive .............

David

[DavidWW]

Hi Alexandra

And welcome to TalkingScot !!

.....snipped ..........

There are merits in both situations: the "monopoly" and the "market forces", with quality control and costs affecting the user. ....

Indeed, very neatly expressed , not least in terms of quality control.

David

[scooter]

Hi David,

Interesting stuff. A little unrelated to the census issue, but am I correct in thinking that Ancestry have also digitised all of the surviving WWI service records and will be rolling them out sometime this year too? I thought I'd ask seeing that you seem to have your ear very close to the ground on such things 8)

Cheers,

Scott