Genealogy from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon, LDS)

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

What is Happening to the Books in the Salt Lake Family History Library? Part One


During the last year, while I was in Annapolis, Maryland digitizing documents at the Maryland State Archives, I had a number of conversations with people doing research at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah. The comments centered around books. Specifically, missing books from the library and that were not available online.  I have had several such conversations since returning to Provo.

Few people are aware that the FamilySearch.org website has a fairly large collection of digitized books specifically on the topic of family history. Recently, the books section of the FamilySearch.org website has had posted the following notice:


In case you can't read what it says on the image, it reads, " FamilySearch is upgrading its digital library application. Look for a new interface and enhanced features coming January 2019!" Well, this post is being written in February and there is no change to the website. The current number of digitized books in the book section is 372,472. However, we do get this cryptic message frequently when I try to open a book that I need or am interested in:

The book that I click on in this example is as follows:

Mabee, Erin M. 1995. Clear Creek Cemetery inscriptions, Camp Verde, Arizona. [Glendale, Arizona]: [E.M. Mabee].

Since that book was written in 1995 there may be a question as to whether or not the book is subject to a copyright claim. Normally, it would be subject to copyright protection automatically under the current copyright law in the United States.

Here is the issue. What has been happening at the Family History Library is that once the books are digitized they are removed from shelves and are unavailable. I have been repeatedly told that the books are actually cut so that they can be to digitized easily. Essentially, the book is now unavailable both online and from physical access in the library. Patrons are being told that the books are in a warehouse and unavailable except by special request.

According to WorldCat.org That particular book is available as follows:


Ironically, the book would have been available at the Mesa Arizona FamilySearch Library which is unfortunately no longer in existence.

There is also a serious legal issue as to whether or not a book of cemetery transcriptions could be subject to a claim of copyright. I suppose it would depend upon whether or not there was any additional information in the book such as photographs or commentary. However, the cemetery inscriptions would not be subject to a copyright claim by someone who transcribed them. If there was any possible copyright claim it would be by the person who made or created the cemetery inscription on the headstone. Yes, headstone inscriptions can be subject to copyright claims. But that is another issue.

 But there is a much larger issue. The real issue is why the Family History Library is not a library? It is true that the Family History Library is a "noncirculating" library. This means that unlike a public library the books cannot be checked out and removed from the library. But once the book is digitized it becomes a different entity. From working with the Mesa, Arizona FamilySearch Library, I am aware that before we digitized the books in the library which eventually ended up in the digital collection on FamilySearch.org, we had to obtain permission to digitize the book and put it online from the owner of the copyright. When I gave a book to the Mesa library for digitization I was asked to sign a paper saying that I own the copyright and that they had permission to put the book online. For this reason alone, there should not be an issue with copyright restrictions.

Let's assume that FamilySearch failed to get permission either to digitize the book or to put it online and make it freely available. Why then is it digitize the book or put it online in the first place? Why put it in the catalog and say that it is available online and then put up a notice that says that it is unavailable because of copyright restrictions? If the book was digitized without permission and then put into storage and is no longer available in a paper version that seems like a serious mistake.

Now let's further suppose that permission was granted but there is still some other issue. Nearly all of the books I read now are digitized and online. Additionally, nearly all of the books that I read online are subject to copyright claims. Why then can I read the book online? Hmm. In this case, we need to go to Section 108: Copyright Exceptions for Libraries and Archives of Title 17, section 108 of the U.S. Code.  This section allows libraries and archives to use copyrighted material in specific ways without permission from the copyright holder. Here are some of the provisions of that section:
Section 108 permits libraries and archives to:
  • Make one copy of an item held by a library for interlibrary loan;
  • Make up to three copies of a damaged, deteriorated, lost, or stolen work for the purpose of replacement. This only applies if a replacement copy is not available at a fair price;
  • Make up to three copies of an unpublished work held by the library for the purpose of preservation.  If the copy is digital, it cannot be circulated outside the library;
  • Reproduce, distribute, display, or perform a published  work that is in its last 20 years of copyright for the purposes of preservation, research, or scholarship if the work is not available at a fair price or subject to commercial exploitation;
  • Make one copy of an entire work for a user or library who requests it if the work isn't available at a fair price.
Some of these restrictions require the library to determine the copyright status of a particular book or work. That is the big issue with the library. Clearly, the book I indicated above could be circulated in the library without any question as to its standing with regards to copyright claims.  But I'm guessing, that the book that I cited above was donated to the library by the author. At that time, permission should have been requested to digitize and distribute the book online regardless of any copyright claims.

According to my friends who have been working in the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, there are thousands of books missing and/or unavailable. For example, they are complaining that there are links in the FamilySearch Wiki that go to books that are unavailable.

The reason why this is part one of a series is that I have not yet had the opportunity to physically visit the library in Salt Lake City. When I do, I will see if there is any further information that I can obtain about the status of the books.

9 comments:

  1. Hello James,
    I am looking forward to reading more in the series of this post. For over a year I’ve been wondering what is going on with the digitized books at the FHL. I tried accessing several different books from my local FHC. I got the same insufficient rights message as you. I asked the volunteers how come I couldn’t access them and was told I could only access them at the FHL. No problem- I live in the Salt Lake area. However, I did some research when I got home and came across this Q&A on the FamilySearch Wiki:
    "Q: What does "you don't have sufficient rights to view the requested object" mean?
    A: Books with this message are copyright protected and can only be viewed by one user at a time from the Family History Library, a local FamilySearch Center (also known as Family History Center), or through one of our FamilySearch Partner Libraries. If this message is encountered while in a Family History Library, a local FamilySearch Center, or a partner library, please try back later to see if the book is available for viewing. The book will be made available for viewing after the current reader has finished with the book. Some readers forget to close the book when they are done for the day, so the system automatically closes the book after 24 hours."
    https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/FamilySearch_Online_Book_Collection_FAQs

    I went to the FHL a few weeks later and tried accessing the same books and got the same message. I tried accessing other books and got the same message. I tried accessing books that I thought nobody would be interested in and got the same message. I tried waiting a few hours and got the same message. It seemed that the only books I was able to gain access to were books that were free of copyright restrictions. Again, I bothered the volunteers and was told they were still in the process of digitizing the copyrighted books (not sure this explanation is true; one of the books I was trying to access, I had accessed years earlier). Another explanation I was told was somebody had been downloading the books and selling them on eBay, and now the Library was being more careful about the usage. This made me wonder if they were resetting the copyrights and they were still ironing out the issues. I haven’t tried accessing any of the books since. I’ve just been buying and using the hard copies. Looking forward to reading about your discoveries. Good Luck!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friends who have been at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City have been getting some of the same responses to their inquiries. I have a lot more to say on the subject. Thanks for your comment. It helps to have different perspectives.

      Delete
  2. I was at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City a few weeks ago and requested a book that, according to the catalog, was in Compact Shelving. I went to the basement and requested the book and was asked, "Who told you it was in Compact Shelving?" I replied that it said so in the catalog. After doing some checking the staff member said it was in Off-site Storage and they would have someone change the catalog. Now the catalog says that there are two copies, both in Off-site Storage. Couldn't they have kept one copy in the library?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting question. Shelf space has been reduced.

      Delete
  3. Now why doesn't this surprise me? Why on earth is the error message not properly specific? It is so generic as to be useless. Where else have I seen a lackadaisical attitude to quality and a prioritisation of quantity over almost everything else?

    Oh yes, I know where I've seen such attitudes: Familysearch family tree! Name hunters; those obsessed with completing as many record transcription batches as possible; those with massive temple name lists (in the hundreds or thousands); awful data management practices leading to tens of thousands of duplicates being added to record transcription databases and with those entries having non-standardised locations so that they don't even trigger then record hint suggestion algorithm properly; tens of thousands of entries in record transcription databases for the person named /; the continued refusal to shut off the GEDCOM import facility.

    The really bad thing is that it is not just users of the system displaying such an attitude, which is to be expected with any large sample of people. The really bad thing is that it is staff employed by Familysearch displaying such an attitude as well. The refusal to shut off the GEDCOM import facility is a prima facie case of that attitude. It's not the upload facility to genealogies that is the problem; it's the "match" facility which then shovels the data into FSFT which is the problem. We are fobbed off with nonsense about this only being responsible for a low percentage rate of duplicates compared to other data entry methods. My response to that is, so what? It is a mass import method that can create hundreds or even thousands of duplicates extremely easily and totally destroy the integrity of a particular bit of FSFT by filling it with drivel and duplicates. Switching off the comparison facility in the workflow is a trivial bit of coding and would leave the ability to put GEDCOM files into the genealogies section intact.

    So why the refusal to do it? Prioritisation of quantity over quality. Wrong-headed attitudes which lead to extremely justified criticism of FSFT and reduce it to a laughing stock in some circles. In short there is a cultural problem which only root-and-branch reform will sort out.

    LDS general authorities need to get involved and knock some heads together to deal with the stubbornness. Until that happens this problem will persist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have long agreed about the problem with adding GEDCOM files. The problem goes back to new.FamilySearch.org.

      Delete
  4. That's a funny example with WorldCat directing you to Mesa, when Mesa is closed. I noticed the items in the new books section in the FHL (3rd floor) were stamped Mesa Family History Library. So, it sounds like they are moving them to SLC.

    In addition to the FSWiki, WeRelate uploaded the entire FHL Catalog five or more years ago to their website. Their hyperlinks will lead people to these inaccessible books.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I came across a book I needed a few months ago on my Dad's family that was once at the FHL in SLC. WorldCat told me it is available at one small library in Alabama. AbeBooks had it for sale for $1000+. Many of these now inaccessible books had extremely small print runs and are very rare and hard to find.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In 1998, I donated a copy of my book, Richard Currier of Sedgwick, Maine. At that time, while I expected that the book might be microfilmed and gave the FHL permission to do that, the concept of digitizing a book and making it available to the world in the privacy of the home was simply not thought of.

    My book Is filled with information about living people, information which would not have been given to me had the individuals considered that it might be easily and widely disseminated.

    Based upon this experience, I will not give permission to the FHL to digitize my subsequent books until 50 years have passed since their publication. Now, I make PDFs of my genealogies and give those to family members only.

    ReplyDelete