Copyright and Constraints on the use of BMD Certs

[Ken Boyce]

Came across this today

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/copying-of-birth-death-and-marriage-certificates-and-marriage-registers.htm

BMD Certs are not facsimiles or copies of old records like say an image of a census page.

Thay are notarised legal documents and as such have constraints on their use in addition to any Crown Copyright constraintsl

[Waitabit]

Reads as tho' we can still share with a Cousin of the same line, or in the event of awrong cert, pass it to a member of the correct Family. In a genealogical way of course. ;)

[mfwebb]

I produce my own transcripts of certificates I and my wife obtain.

I have a master form (as an Excel Spreadsheet) for births, marriages and deaths (red, green and black respectively). I input the information into the appropriate columns then save as a pdf file. That way, I have a full transcript of the certificate and I can send them to family in America.

They are clearly marked as a transcript done by me, and have my name and the date of the transcription clearly marked.

I presume this is not illegal!!

[Ladkyis]

A transcript is ok but copying as in creating an image of the certificate is really a big fat no.

[Guy Etchells]

First point the 1988 Copyright Act is not retrospective therefore it only concerns certificates produced since 1988.

Second all the various Acts of Parliament allows unlimited copying of all Parish Register and Civil Registers by the Public.
This has also been tried in courts with the finding in favour of individuals copying registers. Precedents have already been set.

Third Parish Registers including Marriage Registers are the copyright of the present incumbent of the particular church. They are not, repeat not subject to Crown copyright.

The government can have any policy it wants, policy is not law.


Regarding certificates (not the registers they are extracted from) these are subject to Crown Copyright.
However such copyright expires 50 years from date of publication.
This means any certificate over 50 years old is not subject to Crown Copyright.

Cheers
Guy

[Mary Anne]

Regarding certificates (not the registers they are extracted from) these are subject to Crown Copyright.
However such copyright expires 50 years from date of publication.
This means any certificate over 50 years old is not subject to Crown Copyright.


Guy

Just a small clarification on your last point. If I receive a paper entitled "Certified Copy" from the GRO, and it is for a BMD that occurred BEFORE 1988, but it is copied onto their "Certified..." paper form, and dated with the date they copied it for me (e.g. 2008)... Is that then considered the "date of publication" and would the "Certified Copy" that I have, in its entirety, be considered to be under Crown Copyright? (that would be for 50 years from 2008)

This would then lead me to the conclusion that, if I were to pass on this information to anyone, I should transcribe the content (except the reference to the recent date and "certified copy") and pass only that along. As mfwebb does... And in no circumstances copy or pass along an image of the full "Certified Copy"... although it seems to me I could copy just the image form the register, could I not?

This is all a bit confusing, since it is unlikely that the research I am doing would REQUIRE a "certifed copy" (I am usually not needing to PROVE identity, lineage or BMD information, as if I were applying for a passport, say), but if I order my certs from GRO, I am essentially forced to have a "certified copy".

:confused: this about sums me up...sigh


Mary Anne

[Guy Etchells]

Yes the day the GRO prints the certificate is the day that particular certificate was published.

However many family historians have old original certificates for themselves, their parents grandparents etc. if those are over 50 years old they are out of copyright.

If you transcribe the details there are no copyright implications.

If you print a blank certificate form and fill in the details there are no copyright issues but it could be said you were passing the home made certificate off as an official certificate, but this could be overcome by writing "not an official certificate" on the form.
Cheers
Guy

[Mary Anne]

Thanks, Guy. This gives me some ideas for going on with....

[ChristineR]

This would then lead me to the conclusion that, if I were to pass on this information to anyone, I should transcribe the content (except the reference to the recent date and "certified copy") and pass only that along. As mfwebb does... And in no circumstances copy or pass along an image of the full "Certified Copy"... although it seems to me I could copy just the image form the register, could I not?

You can pass along copies ...
scroll down to "Completed Certificates" 10, paragraph (d)
in my words :)
It is allowable to subject your copy to "limited distribution" for genealogical purposes. It specifically says that copies are not to posted on the internet.

Christine

[Katlin]

Hi, |wave|

Having read about the problems concerning copyright on this site I have contacted the OPSI today to ask about the situation regarding including photos of certificates on online family trees - in particular those that are kept private and only accessible to invited family members. (Thus complying with the limited distribution rule.) I was told that the position with specific sites is complex as they may have negotiated directly with relevant government departments. :confused:

A site I use regularly (not sure if I am allowed to name it) actually suggests that photos of certificates should be included in family trees! :confused::confused:

In addition I was told that the guidance on this subject is at present being updated and they are hoping this will become available to the public in April this year.

Hope this info might be of some use to people who are concerned. :)

Katlin

[v.wells]

You can pass along copies ...
scroll down to "Completed Certificates" 10, paragraph (d)
in my words :)
It is allowable to subject your copy to "limited distribution" for genealogical purposes. It specifically says that copies are not to posted on the internet.

Christine

This makes me feel better and not so much a criminal. I never post certs on my website but fill in the details in the marriage/birth/death sections. :D

[Procat]

Hi, |wave|

Having read about the problems concerning copyright on this site I have contacted the OPSI today to ask about the situation regarding including photos of certificates on online family trees - in particular those that are kept private and only accessible to invited family members. (Thus complying with the limited distribution rule.) I was told that the position with specific sites is complex as they may have negotiated directly with relevant government departments. :confused:

A site I use regularly (not sure if I am allowed to name it) actually suggests that photos of certificates should be included in family trees! :confused::confused:

In addition I was told that the guidance on this subject is at present being updated and they are hoping this will become available to the public in April this year.

Hope this info might be of some use to people who are concerned. :)

Katlin

Thanks for this information Katlin. Hopefully the rules will be cleared in April.

[mfwebb]

For every certificate I obtain, I make my own transcription by typing the information into my own blank forms.

I use separate ones for births, deaths and marriages which contain all the information recorded on the official certificate and they are clearly marked at the top "Transcription Copy". I then save these as pdf files so I can pass them on to relatives. I have a first cousin in America and that is how I pass certificate information to her via e-mail.

It is an Excel spreadsheet -- I don't claim any originality as I obtained it from elsewhere many years ago (I can't remember where), but I have drastically altered it to suit my own requirements.

If anyone would like a copy please send me a pm and I will gladly e-mail a copy and you can adapt it as you wish.

[Katlin]

Hi, Malcolm, |wave|

Many thanks for your offer. I have sent you a PM with my request.

Katlin :)

[mfwebb]

Referring to my earlier post offering to share my transcription form it appears as though I cannot attach a file to a pm. If anyone knows how to do it, please let me know.

Otherwise, pm me with your private e-mail and I will forward by return. It as an Excel spreadsheet, 52kb in size.

[Katlin]

Thank you, Malcolm,

Have now received your form and am sure it will be most useful.

Thanks, again, for sharing. |angel|

Katlin :)

[ET in the USA]

Not sure if I can mention the name of the magazine, but I purchased the April 2009 issue of a genealogy magazine which appeared on the shelf Mar 20. On page 92 - "reader to reader, can you help" section they have printed a copy of an 1876 birth certificate. Was this OK because it is over 50 years old or have they violated copyright ? They have omitted the bottom of the cert. which reads "Certified to be a true copy ..." and the date, so not sure if this is a cert. issued 1876 or a copy ordered 2009.
I was surprised to see it because on this forum we snip the unreadable word & only post that portion, no matter which year the cert was originally issued.

Elaine

[Ladkyis]

Usually magazines get permission before publishing anything that is copyright.

The fact that they have done it doesn't make it right. We will continue to make sure that our members don't breach copyright rules simply to ensure the continuance of Brit-Gen.

[ET in the USA]

Usually magazines get permission before publishing anything that is copyright.

The fact that they have done it doesn't make it right. We will continue to make sure that our members don't breach copyright rules simply to ensure the continuance of Brit-Gen.

Thanks. I was confused & wondered if just leaving off the bottom certification was enough. Odd thing is that the magazine reader only wanted clarification of the mother's maiden name, so it could easily have been snipped instead of circled on the copied certificate.
Elaine

[billgardner]

The charge for a certificate is quite small really and probably is just aimed at recovering the costs involved in supplying it.
The point of copyright law is surely to protect the originators from losing money through other people claiming work as their own. Authors, film makers, song writers, photographers etc are the people who need this protection. However, in making legislation you can hardly restrict it to certain types of people.
There is a legal phrase - 'de minimus' - which means that 'the law does not concern itself with trifles'. I think that sharing a certificate is a trifle but using one to illustrate a book, for example, would be more than that and would want an OK from the copyright holder.
That is not to say that a jobsworth somewhere would not get himself excited over it and seek to prove a point.
Was it Mr Bumble, when told that the law holds a man responsible for the actions of his wife said "If the law says that, sir, then the law is a ass, sir"

[Ladkyis]

As with most laws they are put in place because someone tries to take advantage of someone else or deprive soneone else of what is rightfully theirs.
The law-abiding citizens are the ones who pay the penalties because the law breakers will continue to break the law no matter what. They seem to think that they have an exemption certificate that entitles them to do what they like when they like - and to squeal like stuck pigs when someone stops them.

~|soapbox| climbs down off her soap box and wanders away muttering.~