Protecting the Living

Cousin Kevin- Adorable? Yes! In my public tree? NO!

There are days I wish my family would stop breeding so I could catch up! Cousin Chris has a baby, then Cousin Lori. Few more weeks and Cousin Amber will be adding to her brood. If I'm not adding birthdays (how old are you now, Angela?), it's anniversaries (congrats on one year, Jared!), weddings (when's the party, Jack?), or funerals (miss you every day, Crystal). I want to keep this information straight and get it down in the tree as soon as I find it, but what rules are there for living people? How do I make sure I'm not infringing on their privacy?

Well the first thing to understand is that most professional genealogists won't list a living person in a family tree. This is a pretty good rule for us amateurs too. The thing is, when you add information about a living person to something that may be viewed by others, some of them possibly not even related to you, you want to make sure that there is no way their identity can be compromised or stolen. There are a few ways to go about that and the best way is to just keep them off your online tree!

I do have a list of living relatives and their current information, but I try to keep that off my online tree so that I am sure their information is safe and uncompromised. Ancestry does have a built in feature for protecting the living by not showing any information about them. Most of the time it works. I have noticed that adding a photo to a living person does allow others to see a thumbnail of the photo in their hints pages. All it takes is a copy/paste and that photo is theirs now. And if you share your tree with others, they can take anything they like and make it as public as they feel it should be. So use some common sense and either don't share your tree, or keep your information of living relatives out!

If you simply must add a living person (maybe you don't want papers that you can lose floating around), there are two precautions you should take. First, tell the relatives that you are adding them and what information will be available. Make sure it's okay with them. Some people are less open than others and will not want all their information out in the ether. I have a private tree with living relatives on it that I use for research and to connect branches that sometimes connect to other parts of my tree. I don't share this one, and I put only the barest information on it. Just enough to make my connections. Second, don't add pictures! Like I said, the thumbnail can still be viewable, even if the actual picture isn't. Just play it safe and add them to a file folder on your computer for the individual. Not everything needs to be online.

As always, I am going to remind you that once it's on the Internet, there is no going back. Don't put anything online that you don't want found. No matter how secure you think a website is, there is always the possibility that it can be compromised.

-Ana

Copyrights and Copy Wrongs

Inevitably, someone uses another person's information, photos and documents and issues of copyright come up. But what laws protect your rights and how do you exercise them? When have you relinquished your rights? How do you keep yourself from infringing on the rights of others?

According to the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ, to keep yourself from infringing on the rights of others, you should ask before you use someone else's work. What if you don't know who that is? Well, the copyright office will do a search for you for a fee, or you can go to their offices and search yourself for free if the copyright is before 1978. You can search online for anything after 1978. Of course, this only works if they have registered the copyright, and a lot of what you'll use in everyday genealogy isn't registered.

What about fair use? Well according to fair use doctrine, you can use excerpts or quotes for the purpose of commentary, criticism, news reporting or scholarly reports. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules, so sometimes you'll get away with it, other times not. If you are worried about not being protected by fair use, ask for permission to use the work. Always better safe than sorry. According to the copyright office, "Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work." So there is a lot of grey area on both ends of this argument.


What do you mean I don't own my photographs? That's right, you don't own any photo of your own family unless you yourself took the picture. The photographer, or the owner of the photography studio, owns those photos and reproducing them can be infringement! Of course, most photographers won't enforce this copyright unless you start to use the photos for profit or they somehow feel misrepresented with your use of the photo.

Acknowledging the owner doesn't transfer ownership! Just because you give the original copyright owner credit doesn't mean you can use the work unless there is an expressly written agreement to that affect.

So how long do copyrights last? Well that depends on a few factors including what the work is and when it was created/published. After January 1, 1978, a copyright lasts 70 years after the author's death. If there is no author, or it's a work for hire, the termination of copyright is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation (whichever is shorter). These are general rules and they get wonky when you start talking about publications before 1978, so I provided this link so you can familiarise yourself with some rules.



How do I protect what's mine???? Well first, know what's yours! Unless you created it, you aren't the owner. I don't care if you paid for a copy, you aren't the owner of the original work. You would need express written permission to post things willy-nilly on any website, blog or book. If someone contacts you saying you have their pictures/document/whatever and they want you to remove it, just do it. You can be facing serious litigation should they wish to pursue it and fair use isn't fairly implemented!



This is totes copyrighted!!!1!!11! Do not reproduce!



If it's a photo you are sharing online, add a watermark via photo software. If you're just worried that the people will attach the photograph to the wrong person(s) in their tree, do as I've shown here and label the people in the photo. Add a line about the date or location. Some people have complained that others are saving a copy of their photo and then uploading it to their tree. What this does on Ancestry.com is erase the original owner. Why's this a big deal? Well, when the next person wants more photos, they'll ask the copier who may have just the one. Meanwhile there you are with albums upon albums of precious memories to share and no one knows how to contact you!

As always, I remind you that ANYTHING shared publicly online can be taken by anyone who knows how to copy/paste. It doesn't make it right, and there are laws to protect you if you wish to retain a lawyer and pursue a suit. Many people will feel that if you chose to display it publicly, you are implying consent of use. And any site, whether it is Ancestry, Facebook, Youtube, etc. have terms and conditions that state that copyright infringement will not be tolerated if you can prove it and that they take no responsibility if there is an infringement, beyond helping to take it down. Ancestry even takes it farther to specifically mention that they take no responsibility for what you post (outside of obscene or copyrighted material), what people share, or any public member tree errors. So if you want your information to stay your information, don't post it publicly and don't share it. Even if you don't post it online, any family member you give it to can do so and lead to world of trouble. So know your rights and what the company will do to help you BEFORE you post.

With that all said, I'd like to end by asking that you share any and all information you feel comfortable with. I know there are those who feel that they spent time and money to hunt these items down and they don't want to just give them away; but for me, anything I have that can help means that that is one less step you have to take on the journey. It becomes a collective move forward. And by sharing the factual items I have, you can build a better family tree. There are always those who will abuse the right and add things that aren't true. But there's little I can do about that besides stress out. I can only hope that they will be a minority and that people following their research will see how flawed it is and ignore it. Life's too short to go scream at the wind.

-Ana

Share and Share Alike

I can tell you I troll a few Facebook communities and genealogy forums and I watch what people are saying. One thing that has come up quite often on Ancestry's Facebook page is whether or not to make a tree "public" or "private". And since I was trapped this weekend at a relative's house looking through all her old photos, and the repercussions that followed, I got to thinking.

First, the weekend's conversation (in short form):

Me: Aunty, I've been looking for birth records on Great Uncle RumRunner and I can't seem to find them. Do you have a copy or know more about him?

Aunt Kooky: Well he was adopted. But that still means he's family.

Me: Of course he is. Did he know he was adopted? Do we know his birth relatives? Just for history's sake, really. It's not about him not being family, but maybe his kids will one day want to know about it and adoptions are hard to trace.

Aunt Kooky: Oh, well, yes he knew. Uncle RumRunner was the son of Great Grandma's first marriage. Grandpa adopted him when he was three. But you can't put that on your tree. I know you have a public tree on Ancestry and he might see it and feel like he's singled out.

Me: Uh, okay. Well it's not exactly how the tree works. *Explains how I can set Great Grandpa as "preferred" parent and being a public tree just means that if his "real" father had more kids, we may connect with some half-siblings and cousins, "and isn't that exciting?"*

Aunt Kooky: Oh well that makes sense. Here's photos of his real father and Great Grandmother. You can share those on your tree now that I am understanding it a bit more.

----

Me: Oh make me copies of these family reunion photos please!!!!

Cousin Helpful: No problem, I have a scanner and I'll make you a file to take to your computer. Let's spend the next several hours noting who is in each and every shot.

Me: Well if we're on the computer, let's add them to my facebook for the family!

Cousin: Splendid idea!!!!

----

*Phone rings early next morning*

Aunt Overreactive: HOW DARE YOU PUT PHOTOS OF ME ON THE INTERNET! I DON'T WANT ANY PICTURES OF ME ANYWHERE AND YOU WILL TAKE THEM DOWN RIGHT NOW!

Me: *half joking* Who is this?

Aunt Overreactive: I don't like my information just floating in the ether of the internet! I know your Facebook is friends only, but once something is on the internet, it never comes off. Dateline told me so! Now get up and get rid of those pictures before they're cached or something! And say hi to your dad when you see him Sunday.

*Not wanting to get into the "If you're worried about privacy, why do you have a Facebook account, I go to the computer to comply with her request*

Me: Well, golly, did every one of her kids have to email me about removing their mother from my pictures???? And there's an email from Cousin Somewhat Related saying some of the older photos are copies he gave to my cousin and didn't want them shared online........crap on a cracker.

Now, this is very truncated from the whole three days I spent with family trying to whittle information and photos out of them, but it seemed to really bring home some points people were making on the forums. Once something is on the internet or in someone else's hands, how much control do you have over anything? I've seen many complaints by people who's information and photos have been attached erroneously to someone not even related to them in another tree. They bemoan the heartache of their family member being used so unjustly. Their request to have the error fixed goes unanswered. There are those who have private trees specifically to protect the privacy of their relatives and they share only upon request. And what happens? Much to their horror, someone adds their private information on a public tree!!!! "I asked them not to share it and they did anyway!" Again, their request to rectify the mistakes goes unheeded. The weird one is the people with public trees that want to make it so private trees can't save their information. Why? "Because if they aren't sharing, I don't want to share with them." Really?

A note on the types of trees:

When you use Ancestry.com as a place for your tree online, you have three options:

1. The public tree. All that you add will be searchable. People, stories, photos, news articles.... all of it is available and anyone can find it and attach it to their tree. I use public trees. I want to help others by making the information easier to find and hopefully connect with another relation that may have different pieces of our collective puzzle.

2. Private, searchable tree. This means that when someone searches for information about their relative, they'll see a connection to your tree, photos or stories, but won't see the actual information. They'll need to contact you to get it. This is for those people who for whatever reason don't want the stuff just floating around, but feel they should be willing to share with a legitimate relative.

3. Private, unsearchable. This means that it won't show up in searches and no one knows it's there unless you tell them it is. This is a good option for those worried about privacy or if they know their information may be filled with errors and they want to correct them before compounding the problem by sharing the information.

There are many reasons why someone would want to privatise their information. A belief in personal privacy is the biggest. Wanting to share information with legitimate family or serious researchers is another big one. People who have just started (or have little information to share) may not want a public tree until they've gotten used to the system. They don't want to add to the myriad of already incorrect trees. On the other hand, sometimes a well-seasoned researcher can make someone feel awfully low for being wrong. Newbies are sensitive, sometimes overly so, and they take it as a personal attack when someone else is trying to be helpful by reminding them to check their work. So they hide until they have the confidence to jump into "the big leagues". These are just a few of the more often cited reasons I've seen, there are more I'm sure. And not everyone who makes a private tree is unwilling to share..... they just want to be asked first.

When it comes to what you pick for yourself, it's just preference. Now, I'm going to say this and take it how you like, but- no matter how "private" you make your information, it is on the internet and stored in someone else's server. If you truly do not want something to get out of your control, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. While Ancestry and many sites like it are very secure, you are accepting a level of risk by putting it out of your hands and into the web. I don't put anything out that I don't mind people finding and as such, I have had only one private tree. When I got a GEDCOM from an Uncle, I privatised it simply because I didn't know what he had. What he had was a load of errors. I've since added much of that tree to my public ones and I am slowly pulling it apart one person at a time. I have connected with a few private tree members and follow their wishes to keep their information off my tree. That stuff is saved on my computer or printed out. It makes my organisation a bit harder, but that's the agreement. More often than not, however, the private tree member has no problem with me adding it to my public tree if I cite where I got the record properly.

Now, when it comes to what other's choose to do with their tree, and this is important.....You have zero control.  I've found that most public member trees are ran by those with an altruistic approach to genealogy. They figure why make someone hunt it down if they've already done the legwork and can help. That's awful nice of them, and they usually understand that that means it'll not always be reciprocated. They may connect to someone who has less than they do, or is unwilling to share what they have. People may abuse their generosity and connect it to the wrong people on accident or purpose. Sometimes they express frustration, like private tree owners, that they message a member and get no response (or a rude one). But what can you do? Maybe the other person is no longer using Ancestry. The information doesn't get deleted, so it's out there forever. Maybe they don't want to connect to other people. Or maybe they aren't actively checking that branch or person and are engrossed in fact-finding elsewhere on their tree. It's on their "things to do", but just not "to do right now". Or maybe they are really that silly and believe that they have all the proof they need to make their case that their tree is right and your's is wrong. (Isn't everyone able to find their royal connections within the free 14 day trial?)

Whatever the case, trying to change them is like trying to scream at the wind. It'll do what it's going to do and all you get is high blood pressure and a sore throat. With that, I conclude by asking that you always try to see the other side's view and collaborate rather than contaminate. We are all at different levels of expertise and everyone needs a helping hand. Respect the wishes of your contributors and family on private matters, but also remember that privacy means different things to different people. I've learned my lesson on this one. I've asked permission from my relatives to make the information I'm given public. We also have an understanding that anything that should be kept "private" will be, as long as they tell me. I've taken the time this last weekend to explain to those concerned just what I am putting up there. I even invited a few of them to the tree and helped them set up their account to view it. And Cousin Somewhat Related gave me a happy email on Sunday with all the permissions I needed to have his photos.....for which I traded several family recipes and the promise to visit him soon.

-Ana

How to Date a Photograph- Part II

The last post covered how one dates a photograph by the method and type of the photograph. We've got a starting point, since photos started in 1839, the photo certainly can't be older than that! Our next step is to use the image itself to date a photo. I've got a few examples we'll go through together. Now, it should be noted I'm no expert and that we all get better the more we look at photographs. These are just some examples with a load of guesswork involved to show what a layman can find out.

 First photo we'll try is this one of a young woman. Now, there are no names or dates on the photo itself, so I'm doing a bit of research and guessing. This photo is a 4" x 6" in an oval mount. That size was popular 1860's to 1920's The card stock is light. The back is a grey color. Popular 1890's. The studio "The Lloyd Studio, Troy, N.Y." is stamped at the bottom.

First thing, let's google that studio! Lloyd Studio, Ltd. has been around since 1880... okay, that's narrowing our search a bit isn't it? Card colours were different front and back during 1880-1890... still good. 1880's were light card stocks.... still within that decade, good, good.

Now the girl! Head and shoulders only, popular in 1889. Her clothes don't tell us much, but the sleeves seem loose. Hair is pulled up and to the sides.... and that seems to be popular late 1880's to early 1890's. Well, I think it's pretty obvious we've got a late 1880's photo on our hands!

Another 4" x 6". This handsome gentleman is on a heavier stock. Still no name or date. Worse yet, no photographer! Well there is in the corner, but it's faded and I can't seem to use the embossed lettering to make a rubbing with a piece of paper and a pencil (little detective tip, that). Too faded to make an accurate guess at least. Different color backing still, so that helps narrow it down. That became popular 1890's. Embossing still puts it as 1890's and on......

 Okay, now on to our fella. Let's start with coat. Buttons, lapel and pin striping all hold clues for us.... Now, men's fashions don't change as radically as women's, but when taken as a whole you can get a good guess going. Okay, so suits as we know them started sometime in the 1870's. Stripes were also fashionable on and off since the start. However, the rounded lapel looks like it fits more with 1910's. The necktie would've been popular late 1900's to 1910's. The short hair with a side part became popular right before WWI for the most part.... but his waistcoat isn't high enough for the 1920's. So we're back to 1910's or so. I'd feel comfortable with a decade of 1900-1910 and if I knew more about this one, I might be able to pin him down a bit more.

 Now this next one is a cabinet card on heavy stock. I only took the one copy of this one, but the card stock is light front and back. The bottom is ornate with "J. Penna, Brazil, Ind." A Google search didn't bring up a quick answer, but a newspaper article from 1935 mentioned J. Penna moving his photo studio. Now, obviously this photo wasn't made in 1935, but he was in business for a while it would seem. Still a 4" x 6" photo. Full body photo's were popular in the 1860's, but I think we're back in that 1880-1890 time period. Why? The hairstyle is severe and pulled back; the dresses have pleats; the sleeves are tight. That would seem to put itself late 1880's, early 1890's. All in all, I'd place this late 1880's. Now, it could be off by a few years depending on if these ladies were at the height of fashion, or lagging a bit behind.

  

Now this last one is from my own personal stock. This is the family Brown (my maternal Grandmother's line). After talking to Grandma, I know she is the baby being held on the right. That makes this photo early 1930's. Of course, if I knew it was Grandma, but didn't know her birth, I could still use the mode of dress (of which there are a plethora of examples) to date this photo and narrow her birth date down! Short hair on women came into vogue in the 1920's. And a quick google search of images of dresses and men's ties can give me a healthy example of different styles popular from 1920-1940 to narrow it down more. A quick search of children's fashion can also give me some clues.

And that's it! Just like that, we've checked out four photographs and got a pretty good idea when they were taken. With more information on the subjects, we can narrow these dates down even more. And it really only takes one person in a group shot to make it easier to date the rest. Knowing Grandma's birthday and which one she is in this photo lets me pick out her mother (holding her), her father (behind), her half-brother from her father's first marriage (behind right), her half siblings from her mother's first marriage (boy and girl in front, right), brother (in the middle of half-siblings, front). Her Uncles, front left with two of her cousins. Her paternal grandmother, middle. Possible aunt behind grandmother. Just look how fast the picture gets identified!

Again, I'm no expert. And there are people who will, for a fee, find out when the photo was taken. But just look what we were able to accomplish on our own! That should give you at least some hope that you can do a lot of the leg work on your own. At the bottom here I've put the sources I've used to date these (and other) photos in my collections. Practice makes perfect so I always try to narrow dates on new photos as I come across them. One last note: Try to use as many sources for your references as possible. I'm a big fan of wikipedia; not for accuracy, but for the sources of their articles. ALWAYS check the source of your source if it's a blog or online community. Don't want someone blowing smoke up your kilt!

-Ana

Sources:
Hairstyles
Fashion History
Costume Gallery
Dating a Photo

How to Date a Photograph- Part I

How was your holidays? Mine was full of travel and family, sadly tearing me away from my precious blogging..... but bringing me more stories and interesting facts to add to my family history. So now I'll just dive back into this whole thing:

One thing I see on a lot of message boards is, "How old is the photo I have?" We all have those photos that don't have a name or date on them and God knows who the people are. So what to do? Well, there are actually two places to start, the Image and the Photograph itself. There are some who propose dating a photo from one way or another, each having it's pros and cons. I think that using both methods can be beneficial in estimating dates. We're going to start with the more technical approach as best used by an amateur. An expert can go into greater detail of each process, but as one is usually just trying to get a "guestimate", we'll not go so far into it. As you progress in your finds, you'll become used to how certain eras of photography look and it'll be easier to accurately guess the date of your photos. Now this will only cover the more popular types of photographs that you're more likely to run across. As with any technology, there are castaways; attempts to make something new that doesn't catch on (8 track players, Beta max, and Vanilla Ice come to mind). We won't cover those here, but you may be the lucky duck that finds one, so note that this is just a sketch of photography. Also, things pick up at different times in different countries; so take into account where the photo is possibly from to help narrow down the era.

Daguerreotype (1839-1860)

• 2 1/2" x 3 1/4"
• Image is made on a silvered copper plate- very easy to scratch off the image!
• Because of the fragile medium, these are usually cased in glass
• Americas- usually framed in wood with a leather or paper covering
• Distinguishing feature: depending on the angle of the light, the picture can appear as a negative.

Ambrotype (1851-1860)

• Like Daguerreotypes, they are usually mounted on glass. However, they appear as a positive image no matter the angle of the light.
• Using a dark background or dark piece of glass creates the positive image
• Usually mounted in a metal frame

Tintype (1854-1950)

• Sized ranged 3/4" x 1" to 11" x 14"
• Bon-Ton style sized 2 3/8" x 3 1/2" to 4" x 5 3/4" and was popular from 1865-1910
• Not actually tin, but a thin sheet of iron!
• Because of the speed of exposure, these were often taken at fairs and carnivals
• Not as delicate as Daguerreotypes or Ambrotypes, Tintypes didn't need to be mounted in a case
• Tintypes lost popularity with the introduction of amateur cameras by Kodak and were a curiosity piece after the end of the 19th century even though a few people still made them in the '50s

Card Mounted Photographs
These various sized card mounted photographs are what I've found just about everywhere when antiquing. The size, card thickness, card color, and photographer's logo can all be helpful in dating these photos. The following list is from Wikipedia's article on Cabinet cards and is very helpful.
Card Stock

• 1866-1880 Square, lightweight mount
• 1880-1890 Square, heavy weight card stock
• 1890s Scalloped edges

Card Colors

• 1866-1880 Thin, light weight card stock in white, off white or light cream. White and light colors were used in later years, but generally on heavier card stock.
• 1880-1890 Different colors for face and back of mounts
• 1882-1888 Matte-finish front, with a creamy-yellow, glossy back.

Borders

• 1866-1880 Red or gold rules, single and double lines
• 1884-1885 Wide gold borders
• 1885-1892 Gold beveled edges
• 1889-1896 Rounded corner rule of single line
• 1890s on... Embossed borders and/or lettering

Lettering

• 1866-1879 Photographer name and address often printed small and neatly just below the image, and/or studio name printed small on back.
• 1880s on... Large, ornate text for photographer name and address, especially in cursive style. Studio name often takes up the entire back of the card.
• Late 1880s-90s Gold text on black card stock
• 1890s on... Embossed studio name or other embossed designs

Carte de Visite (1854-1900)

• 2 1/2" x 4" (the photo usually was 2" x 3 1/2" to keep a border around the photo)

Boudoir (1880s)

• 5 1/2" x 8 1/2"

Cabinet Card (1863-1920)

• 4 1/4" x 6 1/2"

Imperial Mount (1890s)

• 7" x 10"

Cigarette Card (1885- 1895, 1909-1917)

• 2 3/4" x 2 3/4"
• Used mainly like a trading card

Stereograph

• 3 1/2" x 7 or 5 x 7
• 3D image that required glasses to view

Dating the back of a card mounted photo can help as well! http://www.cartes.freeuk.com/time/time.htm is an excellent UK dissection of photo backs as well as other great tips (just remember that the Americas would probably be later dates for the same style as it "hopped the pond"). He has some great photos for examples, so I often check his site to figure out my photos.

Also note that some photos are actually photos of older photos. Sometimes, they would make a copy just by rephotographing a picture simply because it wasn't easy to make a copy (like a Daguerreotype which can be copied only by taking a photo of the photo). Heck, even I take pictures of pictures. I'm just too cheap to buy a scanner!

It can be a chore trying to find out how old a photo is, but it can be rewarding as well. Before Kodak came along and put a camera into the hands of every John Q. Public out there, it was an important thing to get one's photo taken. They usually dressed well and made a big deal out of the whole thing. As soon as we were able to make a picture, we were figuring out ways to get it into the hands of every family member and friend we had. We made business cards (the visiting or "calling" cards) out of it to trade with contacts. With the advent of amateur cameras, we were making wallet size and poster size and everything inbetween! This meant something to them, make it mean something to you and treasure it.

-Ana

How to Use Someone Else's Research

As you start to gather information on your family, you'll find many avenues to follow. While records like birth, death and marriage certificates, population censuses and church records will give you some degree of accuracy, there are those other sources:

Other Family Members
Your great aunt has been doing research on the family tree for 40 years; or maybe a cousin is compiling a book listing your family back to Moses. The thing is, they may have loads of time put in and proof, but it may all be wrong. When I told my family I was interested in their information, my aunt claimed to have loads. On a computer. In her garage. Somewhere. The best I was able to get from her was an unsourced family GEDCOM (GEnealogical Data COMmunication file) taking us to A.D. 1430 on one side and A.D. 1670 on another. Which is fantastic, but without sources, I'm forced to ask where she got the information. How does she KNOW those are our relatives? What proof does she have that these people existed? Oh right, it's on her old computer. In her garage. Somewhere. My Great Uncle gave me another GEDCOM from his 30 years of research with some sources, but some leaps of faith it seems too. He had relatives listed twice, sometimes with different parents. How had he not noticed that? My cousin had proof of our Native American line..... as long as our great great grandmother's father was born after she died..... oops.

Not that there isn't information to be had here, but it's not Gospel. I'm pretty sure they know the names of their cousins, neices and nephews. They may know some distant relatives that lived in or around their lifetime. However, without outside sourcing to back it up, linking yourself to these trees should be done with caution. They are excellent places to start, but you will have to do some work to clean them up. I have one tree I have for all my factual (official records) sources that only get a relative added to it if I can prove it. That's my end result tree. But I have these other trees that I'm sure are full of errors. I comb through each generation, person by person. Sometimes I've proven the link, sometimes I've had to remove a person or two (or ten). But often I use these trees just as a way to jump start my research. My father spent years calling various court houses and historical societies in Texas looking for any record of his grandmother's birth. After I found a Census showing her birthplace as Missouri, we were able to track her down to a little town called Texas, Missouri..... I don't think my dad's stopped laughing about that yet.

Online Family Trees
We live in a glorious age when you don't have to travel the world and spend years pawing through dusty file cabinets to find a possible match to your ancestor. Nor spend your life calling government, church and historical societies until you are broke financially and emotionally. When my father was working on the family tree, he'd spend vacations driving to other states to hopefully find one shred of evidence that his grandparents existed. I go online and within a month I have every U.S. Census they were in listing their birth places and children. He was jealous to say the least.

But along with all this plethora of digitised official documentation, there is also the online family trees. Just like the research your relatives have done, these may be well crafted, documented treasure troves. Or they are trash heaps of ineptitude. If anything can be learned from Ancestry.com's commericals, it's that most people want to be related to someone famous for something, a royal, or a unique individual that will be impressive to other people. It's not impossible to trace your family back to the beginning of time, it's just not probable. Prior to the 18th century, churches were your best source for family history. But the problem was that they had a great tendency to burn down. Royals keep great records, but they also tend to marry in close circles that the common man is unlikely to have broken into. So just like with your family's research, you can use what you find, but double check it. When you come to a conflict, keep an open mind and work both angles until you can prove one over the other. And remember, your relatives don't have to be special to the world to be special to you.

Vanity Genealogies
Now you've checked over all the data your family had. You've plucked carefully through online sources compiled by amateurs. Now, you've found the holy Grail.... a professionally documented genealogy. Uh....

Gustave Anjou, Orra E. Monnette, C. A. Hoppin, Horatio Gates Somersby, Charles H. Browning,  John S. Wurts and Frederick A. Virkus are some well-known con-men who created hundreds of false genealogies. And there are more "genealogists" that if not intentionally lying, they were obscenely inefficient in their research. As long as someone was willing to pay a good fee (Anjou would receive $9,000 for his work), they would provide a coat of arms, royal lineage, famous relatives.... anything to please the client. These were even more insidious when they would actually include a real document with facts and then add their own corroborating document they had falsified to make a connection. People were fooled for years! So if you find a book of your family, check the author. Then check their sources. And keep your mind open.

Have you ever received an email from Nigeria saying you are the last relative of a dead businessman who's money amounts to the millions? It's easy to claim this money. All you do is send this lawyer a fee of a couple grand and he will be able to provide the documents to prove your legitimacy and release the money to you. Surprisingly, this isn't new. A hundred years ago, fraudsters used to put these in the paper asking for someone to come forward as the heir to a contested fortune that didn't exist. People would naturally reply hoping to make a quick buck. These con-men would then ask for a fee to provide documents and legal help, sometimes encouraging whole families to chip in to be part of a membership of "heirs" fighting for their estates. Con-artists don't change their game, they just use better tools. If you find mention of a lost family fortune in your searches, be ready to find out your family was bamboozled.

So in the end.....
Spend time on any message board, forum or Facebook page about genealogy and you will see people that have thousands of family names on their tree. They can trace themselves to Charlemagne or Pontius Pilate or Adam himself. Their great great grandmother was an Indian princess (more on that one in another post!). They are distant cousins to dozens of famous people.

These people may be right, but the probabilities aren't on their side. Most people will get stuck in the 1800's when censuses didn't list everyone, just the head of the household. Churches, hospitals, city halls, libraries all burn down and lose centuries of records that were only kept there. False records abound; if you're willing to pay for proof, there's someone willing to make it for you. Even people who've been looking for years may still be stuck on this side of the ocean simply because they can't find any record of their founding ancestor's arrival and thus can't find where they departed. Europe has been a hotbed of wars that span years, decades or centuries destroying entire towns and all that they recorded. I have photos of my grandfather in France during WWII standing next to the rubble that once was a church. I've thought many times about who's history was lost that day. If not properly stored, documents can simply deteriorate. Like Dr. Who. I'm a huge fan of the show. However, because the BBC didn't properly store the film from the first two seasons, most of the episodes are lost to us, never to be seen again. Imagine what we've lost from documentaries and photos made in the early days of film. Lost, lost, lost.

And people lie. A family member looking for a new start or running from something shameful may have changed their name. My maternal grandmother's family has Jewish roots that to this day the older generations won't talk about for fear of persecution. My paternal grandmother used to yell at my father when he was a child if he "acted like an Indian" when he played, because racism against Natives was so strong when she was growing up. It was a point of pride to her to be able to pass for White. It was common to claim the child of your unmarried underaged daughter as your own rather than face familial shame. A man could have two families. Adoption can muddy your waters, especially if the family couldn't afford to make it official. Every now and again I lie awake wondering about all the people in Witness Protection....... what hurdles lay in front of their descendants????

You don't need to find a famous person to have an interesting tree. It may seem exciting to find these bright shining stars in your family history, but genealogy isn't a road to travel while you point out the landmarks. It doesn't matter if you find something interesting to someone else. Your family may toil in the background of world history, but they lived and that is the important part. Your unique family history is a tapestry of interwoven lives; vibrant colour and story all it's own. It's a panoramic landscape full of beauty and character. While you admire the sky and count the stars, I'll admire the land and take care of the roots.

-Ana

Preserving History 1- Photographs

Grandfather as a boy with siblings, Kentucky

Most of you have piles of old photographs that the family may or may not have organised (most likely not) sitting in boxes in the attic or basement or some out of the way closet. Almost all of you own a digital camera and have pictures floating in the ether of Internet or on some flash drive somewhere. First off, shame on you. Second, you are not alone.

One of the greatest inventions of man, in my opinion, is the camera. While we could always draw a person, or sculpt them, the accuracy of the camera has never been rivalled. Whether it is a still shot or a moving picture, you are looking at the person. Living. Breathing. Real. There's no beating that. It is no wonder some believe your soul is captured in a photograph. So how do we protect and preserve that soul?

Step 1: Organise!
First thing you need to do is separate your photos. Everyone has a different way on this depending on how they want to find them. I tend to clump by era, family, then individual. So if I'm looking for a childhood photo of my grandfather, I am looking in the Gibson family boxes, 1930-40, then his specific file. Events and group shots are in a group photo box for that time period. My dad is straight individual. In a group shot, it's whoever is oldest. So some photos of Grandpa are in one box, some in another if he's pictured with his parents/grandparents..... I find that weird. But hey, as long as he can find what he's looking for, right? You want to do this with digital photos too. Separate them out in folders by event, person, date, whatever.

Once you have the photos separated, you need to LABEL them. How is anyone supposed to know who's pictured if you don't tell them? If you label a photo directly, use a soft pencil to keep from damaging them. I don't like to label photos directly, I put them in a photo sleeve and label the sleeve. I'm always worried about damaging old photos. On the other hand, Grandma wrote on all her photos in ballpoint pen, so......

Step 2: Display
What's the point in photographs if you never look at them? Who (besides my crazy mother) doesn't like to see the smiling faces of family proudly displayed in the living room? Here are some rules to displaying a photograph:

1. Display a copy rather than the original whenever possible.
2. Use ultra-violet filtering glass or acrylic for framed photos.
3. Use an acid-free mat or spacer to keep photos from touching glass.
4. Minimize light damage by turning off lights when you leave the room; use low watt bulbs.
5. Keep out of direct sunlight as much as possible.
6. Rotate the photographs on display by storing some and then changing them periodically.

Really it comes down to Light is Your Enemy. I'm sure you all can attest to sunlight's color sucking abilities. Don't let it happen to your family history! Don't let the sun shine on photos. Don't put them on a table directly under a lamp. There's a reason art museums don't like flash photography!!!

I actually scanned all my photos and have those handy-dandy digital photo frames around the house. Each frame has a revolving assortment of a person or event or the like. Dad says it's like walking into Harry Potter's house with all the moving pictures. I like that.

Step 3: Backups!!!!

This is the step most people forget. I want you to think for a moment, though. What would happen if you had a house fire, tornado, earthquake? We lose so many possessions in such a circumstance, but you know what most people really talk about missing? The photos. The irretrievable memories lost. So you need a backup. And then a backup of your backup! I have several myself. Like I said, I store the original photographs rather than display. There are old photos as well as printed copies of my best digital shots stored, with copies displayed. That's backup one. I store any negatives of old film in a second location (currently a safe deposit box). That's backup two. I have a hard drive of digital copies of all photos new and old. Back up three. I keep a second hard drive at my father's house. Back up four.

I'm not one for "cloud" services. I don't like the idea of the Internet holding all my music and photos. I'm always worried about too much being online. However, if you don't care, that's also an excellent place to store. Just make sure it isn't your only place. God forbid their servers crash or get hacked.

Step 4: Store

Now that you've organised and picked out the pictures you simply MUST have on display, it's time to store the rest. The rules of storage:

1. Wash your hands! Photographs can be damaged by your own natural oils. Make sure your hands are clean and dry. Wear gloves if you can.
2. Store photos in acid-free sleeves or envelopes (or polypropylene pages).
3. Store photos flat to keep them from damage and curling.
4. Never put adhesives onto photographs! If you are putting in an album (acid-free pages, please), use photo corners or sleeves.
5. Handle all photos and negatives by the edges to avoid touching the surface.
6. Store in a cool, dry place where the temperature and humidity won't fluctuate wildly (basements and attics won't cut it!)

A few notes:

On media choices- Everything has a shelf life. Depending on the paper, and the storage, a photo can last without fading from 5-200 years. Old photos started to fade within a decade, so take the most care with them now. New printers and paper are less acidic, so they can last you quite a bit longer. But they will still fade within 50-200 years..... more than most of us have to be concerned with, but think of the generations to come! CDs and DVDs can seem like eternal things, but does anyone remember the floppy disk? And what about format? What if you have a Mac now, but an IBM system later? What if the software you use isn't around in ten years? Will you be able to convert? You need to dutifully keep up with technology and transfer your files so they aren't trapped on an outdated system. And again, depending on storage, they can be degraded and unusable in a decade! Memory cards run into the same problems (does anyone besides a Canon user have a CF card?). Their life span is only expected to be 2-5 years. That's not a lot of time, people! And I've already voiced my opinion on cloud services and their ephemeral nature.

On scrapbook materials- I don't like run of the mill scrapbook materials. Some aren't as safe for photos as they say. I mean, they're perfectly fine for making a new scrapbook with new photos. I just don't trust them with my heirlooms. I prefer using archival quality acid-free sleeves you can find online at any number of curator outlets. (University Products is just one such store). Just be sure whatever you use has passed the standard photo tests and your best judgement.

On gloves- There is some argument about whether or not gloves are necessary. While most people have no problem, some people's natural oils are too acidic. And one doesn't find out if they should wear gloves until they damage a photograph first. The consensus with archivers seems to be that as long as the photo is properly stored and your hands are clean and dry (wash prior to any handling), then you'll have no problem. Some even go so far as to say gloves ruin the ability to feel the object and can lead to more damage. I personally feel that you should handle all photos and very old materials with gloves if you are not a careful handler. A "better safe than sorry" kind of thing. I would personally hate to be the one to scratch a photo with a nail, or leave a fingerprint on a negative. A powder-free latex glove is what most "amateur" curators use, but white cotton gloves have been standard for a while. There are actually quite a few options depending on what you're handling. For photos:



Nitrile- This is the new standard curator glove. The pros are that it's disposable, has a good grip for slippery objects and any tears are obvious so you don't use bad gloves. The cons are they don't always fit tightly for fine handling, and you have to make sure you get the ACCELERANT FREE ones if you have an allergy (or are handling anything with silver as the accelerant can tarnish). The reason these are popular is because of the great number of things you can handle (from paintings to bone) without damage.

Nylon- These are good if you can't get Nitrile. The pros are they don't leave fingerprints, fit more snugly than cotton gloves, and are reusable. The cons are they don't reliably keep oils and sweat from objects, they can deposit lint and must be washed regularly.

Cotton- As I said, this used to be the standard for all curators. The pros are reusable gloves that won't leave fingerprints. The cons are they aren't really recommended for photographs as they can leave lint, they can transfer contaminants if not washed properly and don't protect against sweat and oils reliably. Plus, if they are loose-fitting, you can't get a proper grip.

Latex or Rubber gloves- Because of the cotton cons, these are often used in conjunction. The pros are disposable gloves with protection from sweat and oils. The cons are (obviously) possible allergic reactions and they can degrade easily, depositing residue on your photos. They aren't actually recommended for any archival use.

*Sources National Parks Conserve O Gram Sept. 2010 on choosing the right glove, IFLA.org December 2005 newsletter "Misperceptions about White Gloves"

Bottom Line

Whatever way you choose to display, organise and store your photos, above all, treat them with respect. The more care you use now, the longer they'll be around. More important than how you handle them is how you remember the people in them. Take the time to look at your photos. Bring them out at family gatherings and remember. Laugh and Live.

-Ana

What I Did With My Weekend

So how was your weekend? I just moved to a new area, so I was checking out the downtown. I ended up in a few antique stores trolling for goodies and look what I found:

 

Several Photos, some with names/dates

This part always makes me sad. To imagine someone just selling their history.... it happens all too much I think. So you don't know who someone is and no one is alive that remembers them? Why throw it out? Terrible.

Then there are the ones with names. I was talking to one shop owner who told me she bought the entire estate of a woman with no living relatives. She had photos, marriage certificate, playbills.... everything this woman had ever been. No living relatives? Are we sure? And even so, did that mean she deserved to be relegated to a second hand shop? To be purchased by a stranger for kicks?


Physician's daily record, postcards, photo of a man/his car



Then there are the postcards. I found packets of postcards that had some blank, some used. I don't collect them, so I'll be selling the blank ones, but I plan to transcribe the used ones on a page here soon. Some are in Swiss or German or something. Very interesting. And again sad; The store had so many from one family spanning years...... imagine all that you were being forgotten by your family (who are probably the ones selling this stuff). I forget the culture, but there is a belief that one dies three times. Once, when you literally die; then when your body is buried; and lastly, when no one speaks your name anymore. That is the most tragic thing I've ever heard.

Unknown men, tintype

And my favorite new find? A 1942 Physician's Daily Record. One year of a doctor's patients. I found an envelope with the name Dr. F. W. Cowgill, in Nevada, Iowa. It's a pretty good guess this is his book. I've set up a page to transcribe the entries. I'll list them by name to make them easier to search. Keep in mind that handwriting is hard even for an expert (which I am not) and I have no medical training. So there will be some parts marked illegible. Once I can get my scanner working (or pay for someone to scan a year's worth of pages), I'll post them. If you think someone may be a relative of yours, I'm willing to send you copies of the pages they are on, just let me know. It's a very interesting read. I've researched a little about Nevada and there was a Sanitarium that was the only hospital for a while. It burned down in '43, so I may have something you can't find elsewhere! As for the photos, I've put up a Flickr page with the individual pictures and any information that was on them. You can access it from the right sidebar. If you recognise someone, let me know. If you have your own unknowns, send me a copy and I'll add it to Flickr.

I've put up four posts that should get you started on your search, so I'll not be posting daily. I'll have a weekly post and anytime I feel like something needs to be said. The transcription of the record and postcards will take some time and I still have to devote my energies to my own lineage, so I'll be occupied for quite a while I think. Not that I mind at all! This is my favorite part, being knee deep in real world history. Not just some dry date with some facts, but a face with a breathing past.

-Ana