APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-06 > 1244082353


From: "LBoswell" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Charging clients for digital images?
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:25:55 -0400
References: <bb9.4509b1ee.375887a1@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb9.4509b1ee.375887a1@aol.com>


I think we're just talking past each other here. To me, respect for the
archive's rights trumps the user agreement at Ancestry. It's the archive's
actions that have made the images available, Ancestry is just the paid
servant. But you're right of course, the user agreement for most
subscriptions doesn't go past "personal use" of the images. Selling them on
to someone else might contravene copyright (the archives) and the
contractual agreement (and profit) of the website providing the access. By
selling on the original (or passing it on as part of your professional
activities even without charging for it) you're circumventing both of the
above. I don't charge for the image or copies thereof, but I also don't
provide any image at all if the user agreement states that acquiring the
image is for 'personal use' only. In that case it's url, source citation,
and transcipt only.

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>; <>;
<>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] Charging clients for digital images?


>I didn't say it was an alternate repository. The fact remains that you are
> accessing the images as a subscriber to a service and that subscription's
> terms of usage to which you have agreed.
>
> Joan
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/3/2009 9:20:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> The subscription service in many cases have agreements that
> allow them exclusive rights to provide the access, but the images come
> from
> the archives directly (in case of the above). The UK censuses say
> "Images
>
> reproduced by courtesy of The National Archives, London, England." The
> images may be originating with the UK Archives as is the case with
> Canadian
> ones. The subscription service is simply the means by which the images
> are
> displayed, it is not an alternative repository.
>
>


This thread: