I always receive a lot of e-mail from readers, but I received a large number of messages in response to that column. Among the e-mail was a surprisingly large number of people reporting another type of problem that produces bogus information: the researcher who intentionally inserts incorrect data into his or her research.

In "Along Those Lines . . ." this week, let's discuss this very questionable practice, consider the possible repercussions for researchers, and focus on copyright laws.

Why Would Someone Falsify Data?
It is bad enough that poor-quality genealogies are published. It is worse when these errors are perpetuated in others' research. However, to most of us, it would seem inconceivable that any "reputable" genealogist would intentionally include false data in his or her research. Unfortunately, though, it is true. Why?

I received several e-mails from people who asserted that the reason for inserting incorrect data was so they could identify when someone else was using their material. One man went so far as to proudly recount that he only does this with children who died in infancy. In effect, he said he adds or changes middle initials for these children because it supposedly doesn't make any difference; since they didn't marry or produce any offspring, no one will research a direct line. Another man wrote to say he did the same thing, making changes to "the date of death by one day, because nobody cares." (In both cases, these men said they wanted to protect the copyright on their research data.)

A woman wrote to tell me she has "a family member from another line who has blatantly been falsifying [information] and has even admitted it in e-mails to some of the family. He said all family historians put markers in their work so they will recognize it if someone else uses it. He has also been threatening some of the family with lawsuits if they use his work."

I strongly disagree with that man's statement, and with those of the other two writers. This practice is not something to be proud of; in fact, I find it downright unethical and detestable. While they may feel there's nothing wrong with altering the facts about a child who died in infancy, the repercussions to other researchers who encounter and perhaps reference their work can be decidedly negative.

Consequences for Other Researchers
Pretend for a few minutes that you are a researcher who is seeking evidence of a family line for which you have little information. Let's use a fictional example. Perhaps it is that of your great- grandfather, John Jones—a somewhat common name—born in 1849. You know his father's name was James Thomas Jones, but you do not know his mother's name. You have been told that your great-grandfather had an older brother who died quite young and who was named after his father. You think they lived in Fairfax County, Virginia. These are all the facts you know.

Your next research step is to examine the 1850 federal census for Fairfax County. Let's assume the index to that census shows seven heads of households named James Jones, none of which show any middle initial. Which family is that of YOUR ancestor? If you have been told that your great-grandfather's older brother was named for his father, you would probably search each household for a young male child, born before 1849, whose name was listed as "James Jones," "James Thomas Jones," "James T. Jones," "Jim Jones," "Jimmy Jones," "J. T. Jones," or whatever. You would look for all variations, with an emphasis on a child named after his father. You find there are three households with children named James Jones and John Jones. You still don't know which is your set of ancestors.

You subsequently find a GEDCOM file at a Web site that shows a Jones family in Fairfax County, Virginia, with a father named James T. Jones, a mother named Mary Wilson, two sons, James W. Jones and John Jones, and a daughter, Mary Jones. The dates look about right, and the son, James W. Jones, died in 1852. However, the middle initial for James is wrong, and you know nothing about a daughter. Could this be the right family? What do you do?

Unfortunately, the researcher who encounters this information may take one of at least three paths:

1) He/she may search further for additional evidence to corroborate or refute the hypothesis that this is the correct family line.

2) He/she may abandon this family group, deciding that young James' middle initial and the presence of a heretofore-unknown female child rules out this household.

3) He/she may return to the 1850 census and come to the conclusion that another household is a more appropriate avenue of inquiry.

In all three cases, the researcher is confounded, confused, and sidetracked in the research. In a worst-case scenario, a less tenacious researcher may decide this is a dead-end line and stop researching.

Now, what if all this confusion and extra work was caused by someone who, in the interest of supposedly "protecting" his or her work, inserted or altered data?

The Copyright Issue
Some genealogists make the incorrect assertion that their work is their own and that the data they compile and place in their GEDCOM files is protected by copyright. But there are two crucial points here.

First, information gleaned from public records of any sort is not protected under copyright law when someone copies it down onto a standard genealogy chart or enters it into a database. Vital records are public records. Court records are public records. Facts gleaned from tombstone inscriptions are public records. A wealth of other sources can provide the researcher with facts that also are public records. Even your own birth date is a matter of public record and cannot be called "private"; it certainly cannot be copyrighted.

Second, copyright law does not protect the data content of anything published. Data can be acquired, compiled, justified, and cited. Copyright law protects the presentation of the material. Therefore, data presented in a standardized, common format that is generally accepted by the community is not copyrightable. This means that the GEDCOM file you extract from your database program, the pedigree chart you complete, and the family group sheets you fill in cannot be copyrighted. If, on the other hand, you compile information about your family and decide to write and publish a book about them, your presentation of the material in a unique format could be copyrighted; the factual data about their dates of birth, marriage, death, and so on could not be copyrighted. In addition, U.S. copyright law allows you (and others) to quote small portions of text from others' copyrighted publications, so long as it meets the "fair use" standard, as defined at the Library of Congress' United States Copyright Office Web site.

By altering the data of supposedly unimportant individuals, the people who think they are "protecting" their research from others' unauthorized use are actually doing no such thing. If they make their information public in any form, they are inviting other genealogists to review and use their data for research purposes. If they want to "protect" it, why do they bother to make it public in the first place? They are, in reality, compromising their own data, damaging their own credibility (if and when the truth comes out), and hurting other genealogical researchers.

If their point is to claim credit as the first person to "prove" a relationship or line of descent, there are other ways to do so, including maintaining a detailed research log and an organized, annotated collection of evidentiary documentation.

It is not my intent to start a battle over copyright law as it pertains to the genealogical research community. Likewise, I do not want to receive a barrage of nasty e-mail from people who believe they can "protect" the research they've compiled on standard genealogy charts and forms. Copyright laws do, indeed, protect people's unique intellectual property and unique methods of presentation of otherwise commonly available materials. People concerned about protecting what they believe is their own work should not alter data and therefore subvert others' research; they should invest in a consultation with a qualified legal professional or contact the United States Copyright Office.

Protecting Yourself
As a good genealogical researcher, it is always important to maintain a healthy skepticism of all material one encounters. When you find contradictory information, always look for other sources, especially ones that are separate and independent from the material in question. Don't automatically discard contradictory information. Retain it in a "might be related" file for future reference when you find other sources. And if you find those wrong initials and date discrepancies, remember that someone may have purposely altered the data for his or her own purposes. It's up to you to find the truth.

Happy Hunting!

George

George G. Morgan is a proud member of the International Society of Family History Writers and Editors, Inc. He would like to hear from you at atl@ahaseminars.com, but due to the volume of e-mail received, he is unable to answer every message. Please note that he cannot assist you with your individual research. Visit George's Web site for information about speaking engagements. George is also the author of The Genealogy Forum on America Online.

© Copyright 2000, MyFamily.com. All rights reserved.