Birth before Marriage Maybe?

[Pam Downes]

Talk about a grasshopper mind!
What about the 1871, 1881, 1891, and 1901 census entries with Edward, Emily and their children?
They should prove to you that the second marriage you found in Birmingham is totally unrelated to you.

Also, please note, what you were told in post #17 of an earlier thread about uploading images, especially those from commercial sites.
https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...Marriage-Maybe
If you do it again you are likely to find the whole post deleted because I'm not going to waste my time transcribing the details/relevant information.

ADDED: I've just noticed that Edwin Evans from the 1863 marriage has altered into Edward Evans by 1911. Is this because the household schedule may have been completed by daughter Rose (she signed the form) and she got her father's name wrong?

Pam

[RustyH]

Also, please note, what you were told in post #17 of an earlier thread about uploading images, especially those from commercial sites.
https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...Marriage-Maybe
If you do it again you are likely to find the whole post deleted because I'm not going to waste my time transcribing the details/relevant information.

Pam

Can I ask that you be very careful in future about uploading images. I think you're in breach of copyright. The ruling is that you may post a part of an image - enough to help with a query. See this for example
https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...ate?highlight=

Posting whole images is not really allowed, and you may find them removed by Admin.

Most of the forum members have access to either Ancestry and/or FMP, so if you (ideally) give the title of the dataset or at least which site you found the information on we can usually find the image(s) and look at it/them ourselves.

Pam

Hi Pam,

Post 17 advised me to not post images, incase there is a breach of copyright. Since that post, I have tried to ensure any images I have posted are of documents that I have purchased from GRO, and also that I only post cropped section of those documents that I have questions about.

My post #40 had links to Ancestry documents, which I checked before posting that were only accessible with an ancestry subscription. So seeing as these were only links to documents that those with subscription have access to anyway, there were no copyright negligence, and Section 7 of your T&Cs were met

As as in your post #17 you stated most members of this site had access to ancestry, I assume these links would suffice to under stand my question.

[Pam Downes]

Hi Pam,

Post 17 advised me to not post images, incase there is a breach of copyright. Since that post, I have tried to ensure any images I have posted are of documents that I have purchased from GRO, and also that I only post cropped section of those documents that I have questions about.

My post #40 had links to Ancestry documents, which I checked before posting that were only accessible with an ancestry subscription. So seeing as these were only links to documents that those with subscription have access to anyway, there were no copyright negligence, and Section 7 of your T&Cs were met.

No, Section 7 of our T&Cs were not met. Your subscription to a commercial site such as Ancestry allows you to download images for your personal use. It does not give you permission to post that entire image elsewhere, and you are therefore in breach of copyright of the image and also of the T&C regarding your subscription to the commercial site. (As you say, posting a small portion of an image to allow people to give their opinion of what is written is permissible.)

Furthermore, Section 6 of our T&Cs specifically says

You may not post links to any other website or to information contained on any other website except where that website is a government repository such as The National Archives.

You might argue that we are hypocrites because within the last twenty-four hours we've allowed links to FamilySearch which is not a government repository, but the crucial element is that FamilySearch is a free site, not a commercial one.

As as in your post #17 you stated most members of this site had access to ancestry, I assume these links would suffice to under stand my question.

I also included a few extra words, my whole sentence reading

Most of the forum members have access to either Ancestry and/or FMP, so if you (ideally) give the title of the dataset or at least which site you found the information on we can usually find the image(s) and look at it/them ourselves.

At no time did I say, nor does it say in our T&Cs, that it is permissible to post a link to a commercial site, so please do not do so again.

Pam