I am doing a one-name study on the Qualtrough family. In the interest of serving the future of Qualtrough family history a website is being developed to upload all the Qualtrough references gathered in the course of my one-name study in various database format lists.(URL qualtrough.orcon.net.nz)Lists comprise in all cases names, dates and places which are public information.

Out of courtesy I wrote to the main websites from where information has been gathered off the Internet over the course of time. (Of course I am aware there are other non-electronic sources as well, but for the purpose of this posting I use the internet sources as my example.)

ROOTSWEB (bless our dear friends at Rootsweb) wrote back stating exactly what I know to be correct..... that names, dates and places are public information and therefore are free in all instances of copyright claim.

ANCESTRY.COM however had the BIG BROTHER approach of the money-hungry grabbing organsiations well-known in our genealogy and daily midst. That I could under NO CIRCUMSTANCES use information got from their website!!!!! That all I could do was create a link to FREE information they have available.

I wrote back telling them that their information was based on names, dates and places and as such were free from all copyright claim!! Have not had a reply yet.

A believer in free and readily available information, I am not phased by the likes of Ancestry.com and in the interest of serving the future of my fellow Qualtrough family historians am proceding with the project. Lists which are being compiled from information obtained from ancestry.com do not replicate their format. (I guess the only copyright they can claim is the format it is presented in, but they cannot claim copyright over the information. To do so is illegal)

This posting is to make people aware of the difference in approach OUT THERE.

I salute the likes of Brian Lawson and many others who like myself are providing a service based on good intentions. We cannot allow ourselves to be continually dictated to by the likes of Ancestry.com and those of similar ilk who consider it their right to charge for what is and should be freely available information. We must make new people to genealogy aware of how easily they are being sucked in by the subtle stand-over tactics of some of these organisations who claim that they are providing a valuable service when in truth their bottom line is the balance in their bank account.

Elizabeth Feisst, Bundaberg, Australia.