An inconvenience…
We all knew this day was coming.
The Legal Genealogist and everyone else who has been watching the slow but steady demise of the microfilm business over the past several years could see the handwriting on the wall.
FamilySearch and the Family History Library have been moving over from microfilm to digital for years now. Cameras out in the field copying records today are all digital, more and more of the microfilmed record sets are being digitized — and it’s been more and more trouble to keep microfilm readers working and even to find raw microfilm to make new copies of microfilmed records.
So it’s really no surprise that the end of microfilm as a medium for records access was coming.
And now we have an end date: August 31 of this year will be the last day on which we as genealogists can order microfilm from FamilySearch.
The announcement came earlier this week:
FamilySearch, a world genealogy leader and nonprofit, announced today its plans to discontinue its 80-year-old microfilm distribution service. The transition is the result of significant progress made in FamilySearch’s microfilm digitization efforts and the obsolescence of microfilm technology. The last day for ordering microfilm will be August 31, 2017. Online access to digital images of the world’s historic records allows FamilySearch to service more people around the globe, faster and more efficiently. …
FamilySearch has now digitally reproduced the bulk of its microfilm collection—over 1.5 billion images so far—including the most requested collections based on microfilm loan records worldwide. The remaining microfilms should be digitized by the end of 2020, and all new records from its ongoing global efforts are already using digital camera equipment.1
Bummer.
This will be an inconvenience.
And, occasionally, a major inconvenience.
And, occasionally, a major convenience.
And one that we’re all going to have to adjust to, so let’s get to it.
Here’s the bottom line:
By the end of 2020, many of the records now available on microfilm will be available digitally.
Many of those digitized records will be available easily, to anyone with a computer; some we’ll have to access only at a specific location.
Some won’t be available in the interim until the transition process is complete.
And some won’t be available at all, period.
Let’s look at these.
1. CONVENIENT: More and more records will be digitized and put online without any restrictions. That means many basic genealogical records will be available from the internet, from any computer, at home, at 3 a.m., in our bunny slippers.
This, of course, is the good part. As time goes on, more and more of the records we all need and want to access will be available free to anyone who has a computer and web access. Whenever and wherever the contractual arrangements with the original provider allow, the records will simply be there, for all of us to use whenever and wherever we wish.
Take a look at the record sets now available just for the United States with digital images: there are, as of today, 821 record sets ranging from Alabama Civil War service records (available in partnership with Fold3.com) to obituaries from the Star Valley (Wyoming) Independent.
And it’s not just those in the Historical Records sets either. If you go through the FamilySearch catalog for any location, and choose the option for records online, you’ll see that there are many more record sets that have been digitized already — and more coming online every day.
Considering that this is free to most of us,2 this is a truly wonderful thing. And a major convenience for us all.
2. MINOR INCONVENIENCE: Most records digitized but available only with restrictions should be accessible at the FHL and Family History Centers.
A fair number of record sets now available digitally come with contractual restrictions: FamilySearch isn’t being allowed to put them online for everyone to access at any time. To access most of those, we’re going to have to be at the Family History Library (FHL) in Salt Lake City or at a Family History Center (FHC).
This is really only a minor inconvenience, since that’s the same way we access much of the microfilm today: if the record isn’t available online, we either go to the Family History Library and use the microfilm there (or hire someone to do it for us) or we order it to be delivered to a local Family History Center and use it there.
Now… there is a hitch here. Right now, we can view the microfilm right at the FHL if we happen to be in Salt Lake City, or order the film to be delivered to any of the FHCs or to a Family History Library affiliate. It’s that third group that we’re going to be losing for some of these records.
Both the FHL and the FHCs are directly associated with the LDS Church and under its control. The affiliates are not. They’re often public or genealogical libraries like, for example, the DAR Library in Washington, D.C., or the Clayton Library in Houston.
And because of contractual issues, some of the digitized record sets aren’t available at the affiliates.
That will be an inconvenience, since there are a lot of affiliates with a lot more hours of accessibility than any FHC can offer. Most FHCs are open only a day or two a week for only a few hours at a time.
I don’t want to understate the inconvenience here, but I don’t want to overstate it either. Before there was an affiliate program, and before any records were digitized, this go-to-FHL-or-FHC system was all we had. We handled it before. We can handle it again. And once we get there, we won’t need fancy readers (many of which were broken when we needed them), and we won’t have to crank any films: it’ll be digital on any computer on site.
We may want to have everything available online at 3 a.m. in our bunny slippers, or even at an affiliate at 1 p.m. on a Friday, but we can live with this.
3. INCONVENIENCE: Records not yet digitized will only be available on microfilm at limited locations. If the specific microfilmed record hasn’t yet been digitized, it may only be available at the Family History Library or, if the film is already on long-term loan, at a Family History Center or affiliate where it is on long-term loan.
This is an inconvenience for sure, but we can help make it a relatively minor inconvenience — or at least it should only be minor if we order microfilm we think we might need in the coming months before the August 31 deadline.
Anything we think we might need before the end of 2020 that isn’t digitized now can be ordered for what’s called extended loan before August 31. So right now we can all make a major effort to consider what our research priorities will be in the next 40-44 months (until the end of 2020, when the digitization will be pretty much complete) and pony up to have the films for that research sent on long-term loan to one of the FHCs or one of the affiliates.
Film that’s already there at any of these locations doesn’t have to be sent back: “centers, including affiliate libraries, may continue to maintain microfilm collections already on loan from FamilySearch after microfilm ordering ends. Centers have the option to return microfilm that is available online or otherwise not needed.”3
Now I get it: this isn’t fun and it isn’t free. Long-term loans are $18.75 a roll, and it isn’t realistic to think we can anticipate — or afford — all of the films we might need in the next three-plus years. But we can mitigate some of the pain by planning ahead and getting key record sets we know we’re going to want local access to into a convenient FHC or affiliate now.
If we don’t get the film into a convenient location now, we’re going to have to access it in person only at the FHL or hire someone to retrieve the record for us.
That’s inconvenient.
4. MAJOR INCONVENIENCE: Some records now available only on what are called vault films won’t be available at all until they are digitized. Depending on where a specific roll of microfilm is in the filming queue, if you need access to a specific set of records, you may not be able to get to it until the end of 2020.
For example, right now, Book 7 of the Circuit Court Minutes for Cherokee County, Alabama, is divided between two rolls of microfilm. Pages 1-107 are Item 4 on roll 2296893, and that’s at the Family History Library. But Pages 107 to the end are item 1 on roll 2296894 — and that’s listed as a Granite Mountain Record Vault film.
That’s a problem.
Because, according to the Frequently Asked Questions page, anything not already at the Family History Library isn’t going to be accessible even at the Family History Library: “The library will no longer be able to offer ordering of new films from the vault.”4
That doesn’t mean I can’t get to any copy of these records. They’re on microfilm at the Alabama Department of Archives and History, and likely at some local libraries in Alabama as well. That won’t be convenient in any way — it’ll be a major inconvenience to get to them — but it doesn’t mean they won’t be available at all.
And, again, if I plan ahead and order the film for long-term loan now, I may be able to have it available locally until it gets reached in the digitization process. Or I may simply have to wait it out until the digitization process gets around to this film.
That’s certainly a major inconvenience.
5. HUGE INCONVENIENCE: Some records now available only on what are called vault films won’t be available at all if FamilySearch can’t resolve contract issues. The biggest issue I can see is that some of these vault films — and that includes some critically important international films — may never be digitized because of contract issues.
If it can’t be digitized at all, and it can’t be ordered for access even at the FHL, then we’re going to lose any chance of getting to the record except in its native locale.
I’m using the term “huge inconvenience” here when what I really mean is “potentially catastrophic record access loss for everyone not wealthy or healthy enough to travel, sometimes internationally.”
We don’t know and won’t know for some time how many films fall into this last category.
We can only hope they will be few and far between.
Sigh… we knew this day was coming.
Progress doesn’t always look like progress, does it?
SOURCES
- “FamilySearch Digital Records Access Replacing Microfilm,” FamilySearch, posted 26 June 2017 (http://media.familysearch.org/ : accessed 28 June 2017). ↩
- Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints pay for this through their tithes; those of us who are not church members are along for a free ride. ↩
- “What will happen to microfilms at family history centers once ordering is discontinued?,” FAQ: Digital Records Access Replacing Microfilm, FamilySearch, posted 26 June 2017 (https://familysearch.org/ask/faq : accessed 28 June 2017). ↩
- Ibid., “Will microfilm continue to be available at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City?” ↩
I recently retired after many years as a genealogy librarian and have wondered about this happening ever since the decline in available reader-printers began. I consider inconvenience a massive understatement. First and foremostfar fewer people have access to decent computer services than is good even with foundation grants and libraries attempting to fill the hole. In my area stake libraries are small and have limited hours. After all we cannot expect volunteers to be as obsessive-compulsive about their work as I am. As for going to Salt Lake, it is expensive and you must have a research plan and stick to it. The heart of my worry is the internet’s growing “attraction” factor for those who seem to enjoy disrupting others services and making money while doing it…firewalls, virus protection etc cost. I love using digital records but I am far from certain relying completely on them is a good idea. I back up my digital media several ways on a regular basis but believe paper and fireproof storage is still the best way and even better when the original documents are shared. I have used books and documents printed in the 1500’s. Digital is not there yet.
The reality is, however, that many more people have access to computers than to microfilm readers. And that’s only going to be more and more true as time goes on.
This is an affirmative decision by the new director of the LDS genealogy program. They could have kept microfilm working for many years and could have waited until the scanning project was finished. They chose NOT to do this.
Their goal appears to be retirement of all LDS microfilm to storage as quickly as possible. I would not order any films because they are likely to be recalled to Salt Lake from the local history centers. I hope this is not their intent, but only time will tell. Their new vision of a Family History Center is a computer lab without microfilm or books.
I view the prediction that the scanning project will be finished by 2021 with skepticism. The mid 2020s is a more realistic time based on past progress with scanning.
Who wins under the current director?
New researchers, younger researchers, those who live in Western states, and those whose immigrant ancestors came to America after the Civil War.
Who is left by the wayside?
Elderly researchers who will not “survive” to see these films become available again.
Advanced researchers, those of us who have Southern US families, and those of us with colonial US ancestors. Land research projects and research on colonial families are now much more difficult.
I have canceled four land research projects for colonial Virginia and NC because of this decision. Now I have to use courthouses within driving reach, published abstracts, and non LDS sources. There is still plenty of analysis to do, but certain older families are closed off to further research for now.
Could you also address the quality of the digitized versions? I’m thinking that they are creating digital images from the microfilm, instead of from the original source material so we are now two steps away from the original. Secondly, my experience with FHS digitized copyrighted material is that even if it is available online only one user at a time can access it, just as if it was a physical book checked out to someone. Will copyrighted digitized microfilm be subjected to this same restriction?
In general, the digitization is as good as the microfilm. If the film itself is “iffy,” the digitization won’t be better — but in my experience it’s no worse. And I’m sure that some digitized materials will be subject to various restrictions, whether based on copyright or on licensing. How many items and how restrictive the conditions will be will vary.
I volunteer in my local FHC, and some of us were discussing these issues yesterday. One additional issue you did not raise involves not being able to digitize all of the information on some records. In particular, records by church officials in Germany and Poland will sometimes have notes next to the record that provides additional information–such as noting the person’s date of death next to a birth record, or documenting that the person moved to another parish. These important notes are going to be lost if the films are not available to check. Also, it may very well be that local decisions will be made to get rid of readers, and films, before the 2020 date. That remains to be seen, but appears possible under the current plans.
There’s no technical reason why everything that can be seen in a film can’t be seen in the digitized version… but of course that doesn’t mean it will be done. And yes it will be up to each FHC to determine what will be accessible — and what won’t be — during the transition.
I thought about ordering all the films from a small German parish. It would probably cost about $100. But when I clicked on the film icon, I was told I could not order these films. That was pretty disappointing. I worry that these films won’t be digitized. Of course I live close enough to SLC (California) to make the trek at least once a year.
I understand the concerns, Lisa. I have the same fears about some records I need…
Unfortunately, the FHC in my area is open 1 1/2 hours a week, if at all. Years ago, they began telling people who wanted to order microfilm to order it through the public library. Since this FHC doesn’t appear to meet even the minimum standards that FHL says they do, I think my public library should be able to offer access to those films that are restricted to FHL and FHCs. Yes, I have made that request in writing to the powers that be and citing my reasons. I don’t hold much hope though; I doubt I will even receive a response.
I know it’s a matter of contract limitations, Suzanne, and that FamilySearch wants to make everything as available as it can. What it can’t do is get into the business of manufacturing supplies and readers…
Judy, I understand the contractual issues. I volunteered for eight years at a FHC which was open five days a week including evenings and kept their decrepit film reader/printer chugging along until it was replaced with new computer reader/printers. For FHL to assert that we can still access certain records at an FHC is a bit disingenuous when the local FHC decides when or even if they will be open to the public. There is no way I can determine client needs now for the next 3-4 years. I have a good idea of what I will need for my own research, but it will cost $400-500 minimum for indefinite loan status. I really think this could have been presented and handled better.
I understand the inconvenience here — losing the affiliates is a real pain. But it’s what we had before there was an affiliate program. We survived then; we’ll survive now.
You could volunteer there and they would be happy to have you. One 4 hour shift a week would be a great help toany others and you often could have time to do your own research.
It’s been a long time since I ordered any films, but still find the “change” difficult. My state archives has many films, but the number of working microfilm readers is getting fewer.
None of us like change… but we will survive.
I am curious if there has been a similar announcement from the National Archives, which has its own microfilm archive and is also digitizing records.
Not exactly, but NARA does have a fairly strict policy against allowing access to original records when they have been microfilmed — which is sort of the same thing. The point of all of these decisions is to make access as available as possible for the most people at the lowest cost with the least risk to the original records.
I’m happy that after more than 35 years of extensive work, I have finished almost all of my family lines. I was a non-church member volunteer at a FHC for 7 years. Then there was a change in the Director and lots changed. Since she took over and did some “cleaning up” ..she send back some of my films that were on “permanent” loan. They pushed the film readers to a small room. The center is never open on any sort of regular basis due to not enough volunteers and when I do go to view items that can “only be viewed at a FHC”, there are so many people on the few computers that I can’t use them. It ends up being a wasted trip. I don’t know if it’s the same every where, but our local FHC has become a sad imitation of what it used to be.
That’s certainly a shame.
Easy solution. Every genealogist doubles their effort of transcribing records, specifically for Family Search. If every genealogist who has transcribed doubles their effort that’s two times the records processed and those who never have start to that’s even more. We COULD have the records by next year! (Not 2020)
Wonderful theory, but it doesn’t help for records that can’t be indexed because they can’t be viewed.
Micofilm has a proven track record for a useful medium that lasts well and provides wide access (when you have working machines), we have no idea how well the digital media will travel into the future – I certainly do miss using them, as in the National Archives of Australia all the microfilm holdings are being withdrawn. Some will be digitised but other will not.
Sounds like we’re all going boldly where no man (or genealogist) has gone before, Gregory — hope we don’t end up tripping over our feet…
Digitization might be another form of publication, but it does not offer the same “access”, at least currently. It’s incredibly faster to scroll through microfilms, backwards & forwards, than it is to advance a digital image, page by page. So, we are losing a lot more “access” to film records than just the facts of when their digital image will be made available.
It’s certainly going to be different, but doesn’t have to be worse in the long run. The filmstrip viewers on some record groups will help.
Judy,
I want to let you know that your post is listed in today’s Fab Finds post at http://janasgenealogyandfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/2017/06/janas-genealogy-fab-finds-for-june-30.html
Have a great weekend!
Thanks, Jana!
I’ve ordered 2 rolls of microfilm since I read this and they’re both listed as $7.50 for extended loan. Usually, it seems like it’s $7.50 for short term and $18.75 for extended, with some rolls being $4.25 for extended with no short term option. It’s possible that they’re granting long term on all of the remaining orders for the regular $7.50
Yes, it does appear that they’re charging $7.50 per roll for extended loan right now.
Well, I understand the need for the FHL and FamilySearch to move in this direction, but I am not very optimistic right now regarding my research interests. Mesa (Arizona) FHC, which has been a sorry shadow of its former self for a couple of years, decided to send back all microfilms to SLC. That means even those films that patrons paid $18.75 to keep at Mesa FHC will go back. I am also not optimistic regarding records related to my research interest: New York City. Vital record indexes are online at FamilySearch, but none of the certificates have been digitized – notwithstanding FamilySearch’s statement that their priority is to digitize the most used records (I cannot believe that the NYC records are little used). Rather, I suspect there are challenges convincing NYC Municipal Archives to allow digitization. Not a pretty picture.
Contractual arrangements seem to exclude affiliates. Were owners of originals offered contractual arrangements that included affiliates?
As the take up appears to be zero, one suspects not.
Have talked to a couple of affiliates and they have apparently not been informed of their status in future. All they know about is the discontinuance of loans.
Have there been any announcements they have missed?
All that the library affiliates I have spoken with know is the short term films have been recalled. The status of the long term films or the affiliate program had not been addressed. Their expectation was the affiliate program will be the next thing to be shut down and that is how their planning is being done.
My take on the current director of the LDS program is his goal is the rapid removal of all microfilm and machines from the Family History Center system. We will see what happens.
I can’t speak for FamilySearch and its communications with its affiliates. All I can do is remind everyone that the microfilm program has been an enormous gift to the genealogical community, with very little cost to us and a great and growing cost to FamilySearch. Let us not forget — and let us be grateful for — what we have been given even in the midst of our disappointment over what this may mean for the future.
This is disappointing, considering FamilySearch’s terrible deal with Cook County (IL) a few years back, where FamilySearch took down all images of vital records from the website, in exchange for millions of new database records. Those previously scanned images were still available on microfilm, but it sounds like they won’t be any longer.
I have need of potentially dozens of records from Chicago, and I have no intention of paying Cook County Vital Records $17 each, especially when their scans are of such poor quality.
Interestingly, one of the indexing projects on FamilySearch right now is Cook County marriage certificates. I wonder if they’re going to make the images available online, despite the deal. I hope people aren’t indexing for nothing.
FamilySearch didn’t have a choice; Cook County had the right to pull the records, and it chose to do so. Indexing is never a waste of time, since knowing what records exist will still save time.
Cook County in its entirety (prior to the cutover to all digitization) has been retained by the Wilmette Family History Center. We have ordered all the Vital records and started down the path of ordering the Naturalization records before there was a computer glitch which now prevents the ordering of any films. The error message is “This Film Does Not Exist.” That message even applies to films already in our collection. Thankfully we have a paper copy of the indexes to help Patrons find the exact reel they need – and of course, we have it on site. Thanks to the wonderful effort of our volunteer staff and the patron donations (still being accepted) to make this dream a reality. Since June we have added more than 1000 films to our FHC. wilmettefhc.org
The issue I have is that collections formerly available on microfilm that have now been digitized are not always available to non-church members. I have been told this is due to contractual agreements but I find that hard to believe since I was able to look at these collections on film for many years. Now that they are digitized and the microfilm loaning program is closed, I have no way to access these collections, even at my local FHC. Some of the other patrons who are church members are nice enough to look things up for me but that is certainly not a solution. I am upset as I spent a decent number of hours as an indexing volunteer and now my access is far more limited than ever.
We need to be very careful in distinguishing between “collections … not available to non-church members” and “collections … not available to non-church members ONLINE AT HOME.” There’s nothing fundamentally different between making a non-church member use a digital copy at an FHC or affiliate library the way we have to use the microfilm now at an FHC or affiliate library, even if church members can use it online at home.
You have misread my posting. I am referring to the fact that without logging in as a church member AT THE FHC, I am unable to view the same collections as the church member sitting beside me. An actual message comes up stating that these collections are only viewable by LDS church members. I used to be able to order the films of these collections so I am very confused as to why the restriction exists now. I have no trouble going to the FHC.
That’s something you’d have to have up with FamilySearch, and most likely has to do with its effort to clarify contractual language that, in the past, was … um … fuzzy. But I would definitely ask them.
This new change has made the FHL microfilm practically inaccessible to me. The local FHC has been mostly inaccessbile for years and is rarely open even during the posted hours. I’ve had to ask for refunds for the microfilm I have ordered in the past because they were never open to view it. Now most of the Southern records I seem to need are not available anywhere but at FHL in Salt Lake City or driving over 1 1/2 hours to hope there is a microfilm machine available and they are actually open at the next closest FHL center. My question: Why doesn’t FHL just contact the original record holders (who are mostly county courthouses/officials) and have them sign new access agreements? I’m sure most of them would do so. I see our local courthouse has these restrictions even on their records and I’m sure they would want them accessible as it cuts down on wear and tear of originals and genealogists bothering them. Just a thought!
They have a team of lawyers trying to do just that — but they have thousands and thousands of contracts that need to be handled, and they do NOT have thousands and thousands of lawyers. We’re just going to have to be as patient as we can be.
That is great to know.