Genealogically speaking…
It’s a subject that keeps coming up, over and over, throughout the genealogical community.
It’s one that The Legal Genealogist has addressed, more than once, in the past.1
It starts with someone posting an inquiry somewhere online.
It seems perfectly innocent.
It’s just a request for help, and helping is something we do here in the genealogical community, right?
“There’s an Important Document about my family on Subscription Website that I’d like to have but I’m not a subscriber,” the inquiry begins. “Would someone who is a subscriber please get it for me?”
There’s only one honest and ethical answer that can be given to that question:
No.
The simple fact is, it’s wrong.
Just plain wrong.
For the person asking for that Important Document, it’s freeloading.
It’s like asking your neighbor who has high speed cable internet service if you can run your wire to his modem so you can use his service. Or if he’d mind sharing the password to his router so you can use his wireless system.
Pure and simple, it’s taking something without paying for it.
And for the person who subscribes to Subscription Website, it’s no different from taking a pencil from your employer’s stockroom for your friend to use — when you’d never dream of taking a pencil from your employer for yourself.
The fact is, TNSTAAFL.
Which of course means There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Not in genealogy any more than in other areas of life.
We may not like it, but it costs money to provide easy online access to a wide variety of documents. Somebody has to pay for acquiring the documents, scanning them, digitizing them, making the equipment and software available to serve them up online.
Subscription Website can only pay for those things if people pay it — fairly and squarely — for the information it provides. To stay in business, it sets terms and conditions for our use of the website.
And that’s what those of us who are subscribers agree to when we sign up. We may not like the terms and conditions; we may whine and moan about the costs.
But that’s the deal, and we’ve agreed to it. Subscription Website is keeping its end of the bargain by making the documents available. We need to keep our end by using the access under the limits set in the terms and conditions.
And those terms often say we can only use Subscription Website for our own research. Sometimes that includes research we’re hired to do for others, but particularly with some of the online newspaper sites, it’s limited to just our own personal research only.
So before we ask someone to violate the terms of service of Subscription Website, we need to think about the issue in terms of the ethics involved:
Is it right (ethical) to avoid paying for a subscription to a site’s content by asking for a subscriber to locate the content for me?
Just asking the question gives the answer.
No. It’s not right.
Now there is a difference between verifying that the document exists and actually getting a copy of the document. Knowing for sure that the newspaper is available on a particular pay website and that the article is in the paper may be the incentive that pushes me over into subscribing to the site to get that article.
But if I ask you to use your subscription to get me a copy of the article itself?
You know what to tell me. You know I really do have other options. You know I can write to the newspaper. I can go to a library that has the newspaper on microfilm. I can hire someone in that area to track down a physical copy. I can do all the things we as genealogists used to do before there were Subscription Websites, before there even was an internet.
So if I ask, just say no, okay? It’s wrong.
Because, really, we need all those Subscription Websites… and There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “TNSTAAFL,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 11 Dec 2020).
SOURCES
- See Judy G. Russell, “Just say no,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 14 Nov 2013, and “It bears repeating: just say no,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 5 Nov 2014 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 11 Dec 2020). ↩
Thank you for saying this. I’ve seen people on genealogy sites complaining that a source behind a paywall isn’t a valid source. And I’ve overheard conversations at our local genealogical library from folks compaining that they have to pay to use the library if they aren’t a member.
I get heat for this every time I write about it, but I’m not backing down. It’s just plain wrong to freeload. There’s always an ethical alternative.
I live in one town and work in another. Because it is more convenient for me to use the library in the town I work in, I pay the annual fee. BTW I also donate the same amount to my local library.
For newspapers, people can and should remember libraries often provide interlibrary loan (ILL) services, either for no or a small fee. For example, for obituaries, the name of the deceased and publication information (at least the newspaper name and publication date) for resources such as GenealogyBank have been indexed on FamilySearch. Users can then take that information and submit an ILL request with their local libraries.
There is ALWAYS an ethical alternative to freeloading.
This is something that bears repeating, as you have done.
And, I repeatedly tell friends who balk at having to pay for anything – think about how much you would have spent traveling to a repository, paying for a copy, etc.
Genealogy is a past time that I am more than glad to pay reasonable charges to do from the comfort of my home, saving travel expenses for those repositories not yet on line. Guess I’m saving a bit considering these times!
Yep: there is always an ethical alternative to freeloading.
Judy, you have so eloquently put into words what has frustrated me since I jumped into the genealogical community. My late mother plodded through before there was the ubiquitous internet that exists today. As the early web bubbled into my professional community (historians), too many people asserted that if it’s available, it must be free for me to use in any way I like. A lack of understanding of what it takes in both time and money to not only put but keep all of this great content underscores both of these conundrums. Especially, as you so adroitly point out, when there are many other ways to access the information — most notably at your local library (especially when so many have provided what is usually “in library access only” to patrons at home). Being treated as if we are “mean” because we won’t “share” only exacerbates the situation. Most importantly, “sharing” ultimately leads to higher prices for all of us. Kudos to you for pointing this out to your diverse community of genealogists and anyone interested in accessing online records. As I’m sure you agree, genealogical groups large and small have actually made excellent use of the pandemic as they’ve focused on reaching out to their publics online in new and enriching ways. And I’m sure you also remember the days when even indexes and finding aids were ONLY found onsite. Thus, as you also point out, we didn’t even know if the needle was even in the haystack we were investigating……I am so grateful for the infinite numbers of people who are primarily volunteers transcribing indexes for online use. They make all of the work we do so much easier!
You have added a lot of reasons why we need to behave ourselves. There is always an ethical alternative to freeloading.
I agree with Judy about being ethical. I take issue with gratitude being the price people are paying for indexing. It seems a bit hypocritical to benefit off of free labor when condemning the free sharing of an article from a paid site. What is the difference between a genealogist sharing an article at the request of another genealogist and a professional sharing that article with a client? (Just asking. For the record, my answer to these types of requests is always “no,” although I have put forth the effort to have requests granted with proper permissions.)
Also, there are many free sites that would appreciate support through financial contributions. Not many genealogists know that this is possible, especially with FamilySearch, which receives its funding and volunteer benefits from members of its sponsoring church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“Not many genealogists know that this is possible, especially with FamilySearch, which receives its funding and volunteer benefits from members of its sponsoring church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
I have indexed 30,000 records through FamilySearch, and am not (and have never been) a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
It irritates me and other non-Latter Day Saint Indexers that this incorrect assertion is often repeated by FamilySearch, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint and other genealogical institutions. Non-Latter Day Saint volunteers play an important role in keeping FamilySearch operating. That is not to downplay the vital role played by the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members in founding FS 125 years ago and keeping such a large and complex undertaking operating efficiently and for no charge to the general public.
Alec van Helsdingen, I just want you to know that I read your comment. I apologize for failing to acknowledge all those who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who index records for the benefit of all. This was not my intention.
You are to be more than commended for indexing 30,000 records!
thank you for saying this the first time… and being willing to repeat as needed..
Thanks Judy, this is a good reminder and a link to keep for use as a resource for responding to such requests. So, maybe my friends will be mad at you instead of me 😉
A question. Would you view a request from friend to examine the source and relate facts that it may contain? Or a response along similar lines, e.g. “Sorry, I can’t copy it for you, but it may be worth it for you to get access, because I see that it does show the mother’s maiden name was Jones…”?
A couple of years ago, I belonged to a FB group that was part of an extremely well-known national society. Members kept asking for others to provide items from behind pay walls for them. I have no problem checking to see if the doc/image existed on the website, but would not give digital images out. I also commented that the practice violated user rights, was unethical and would damage the group’s reputation. Members shot me down saying it was harmless, the admin basically said I was a trouble maker and a snail mail letter to the national leader was never acknowledged. I left the group.
Totally agree. Thank you for repeating the message. I’m happy that the Genealogy Squad FB group and the companion DNA group that Blaine Bettinger runs both have strict policies against even asking for lookups. I did point out to one admin of a group set up for asking for help that this was unethical. I was ignored.
Thank you, Judy. People fail to realize that it cannot truly be an “act of kindness” if you’re breaking rules or abusing a business to do it.
There is a FB group whose sole purpose seems to be these kinds of lookups, at least they’re about the only thing people ask for. I’m with Judy on this. I pay for my subscriptions and don’t provide copies of documents. I’ve been hanging out in this group for a long time because once in a while I will ask for help from free sites that I’m not aware of. Finally left the group recently when a woman made 22 requests for obituaries in a matter of hours and no one called her out on it.
There is more than one group like this Robin. And, you and I belong to one where every time this comes up, I am vilified and demonized for saying this.
going through that right now!
I have access to Ancestry.com at a public library that subscribes (on site access only), and at a university library that subscribes (it’s possible that institutional connection is needed, not sure). These are taxpayer supported, of course, and an option for folks otherwise $$ locked out.
The difficulty for me with your point comes when a subscription service facilitates and encourages sharing by providing mechanisms to do so. One newspaper subscription database allows a subscriber to clip an article and then provides multiple avenues for sharing…email, Twitter, Facebook, link, Ancestry. The resultant share links to what is labeled “Freeview” which is clearly being used as a marketing tool. In fact, this same company’s instructions for clipping includes this…
“Share interesting stories you find
You can easily share clippings by email or on Facebook, Twitter or other social sites. When you share a clipping, your friends can see the image even if they don’t subscribe to…”
It doesn’t appear to me that the company disapproves of sharing content and, in fact, uses subscriber sharing to facilitate possible customer acquisition. If a subscriber prefers not to share that’s perfectly fine. But I see no violation of the terms of service when the company supplies the tools for sharing.
The terms still limit you to sharing about your personal or professional research, not that of any person who asks you to do them a favor because they don’t want to buy a subscription.
You mention that “And those terms often say we can only use Subscription Website for our own research. Sometimes that includes research we’re hired to do for others, but particularly with some of the online newspaper sites, it’s limited to just our own personal research only.” Does that mean that you could find a newspaper article at a subscription site, but could not clip it for use in a client report? Knowing it existed, you could find it in another way and use that copy. I don’t do work for others, but do sometimes submit articles to publications.
There are some subscription websites where, correct, you may NOT clip it for use in a client report. You could certainly find another website that had the same newspaper digitized and use its copy if its terms of use were more favorable.
Thank you for saying this! I haven’t had the courage myself to say it on the genealogy FB groups. Digitizing records, including newspapers, must be very expensive for the businesses who do it. Just as most of us wouldn’t go into a store and steal merchandise, I hope we won’t steal digital content, either.
Judy, I agree with you, but today on WikiTreeG2G someone has asked about newspapers.com free sharing links as a response to requests for free lookups. What is your opinion of that?
Personally, I think it’s skating close to the line. The sharing links should be read with the terms of service, which suggest that we should be using them for our own personal research, not as a way to help others avoid the costs of a subscription.