X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"ROOTS-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU"
Newsgroups: soc.roots
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:03:38 -0500
Reply-To:     "(MELODIE SANDERS)" <MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU>
From:         "(MELODIE SANDERS)" <MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Legal position of current genealogy
Comments: To: ROOTS-L@VM1.NoDak.EDU

       Kem Luther <kem@CSRI.TORONTO.EDU> wrote:
> In genealogies I have (self) published before, all of the players were
> dead.  In this one, about a third of the people (out of about 1500) are,
> I suspect, alive.
>
> What are the legal implications of this?  I certainly see enough genealogies
> on the shelf with lots of live actors.  But is this precedent enough?  Why
> does the LDS Ancestral File not give information about persons potentially
> alive?

In the information sheet sent by the Family History Library of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, "Family Search, contributing
information to Ancestral File," sent to registered owners of PAF in
January of 1991, they explained to some extent why they will not give
information about persons potentially alive.

	"Information about Living Persons. In order to protect the
	 privacy rights of living persons, Ancestral File displays
	 genealogical information for deceased persons only.  If
	 you contribute information for a person who lived within
	 the last 95 years and for whom you have no date of death,
	 the file usually displays only the word LIVING in place of
	 the name or other information...

	 Make Sure Your Information Is Acceptable to Family Members.
	 Do not include information that is confidential or
	 embarrassing to any living person.  To protect rights of
	 privacy, Ancestral File displays full information only
	 for the deceased."

There are at least two privacy laws that I suspect the Church is using
as a basis of their decision, the privacy act which closes the census
records and the privacy act which allows students to close their
records to "outsiders" in higher education. Also I suspect that as a
religious organization which places the family in high esteem, they are
being sensitive to the individual's right to privacy. With all of the
infringements on privacy which has been occurring in recent years, there
is certainly a need for more organizations to follow the Church's
example in that area.

(As I do not have any connection with the Church, I should emphasize
that this is *my speculation* of their motivations based on behavior
and material I have read on the Church.)

After many years of researching and uncovering quite a few "scandalous"
incidents that had been shoved up under the carpets, I suspect that it
would be wise to either send a copy or show a copy of anything you plan
to publish on a specific person to that person and obtain their permission.
It also wouldn't hurt to be sure to verify if information you are
being told is "confidential" and treat it as such.  Also if you intend
to publish the information and plan to cite your informant as your source,
it might be wise to be sure that person is willing to be cited. Whether
or not the person is willing to be cited, you should find "evidence" to
support or disprove the assertion. Until it can be documented, this type
of information should be treated as unsubstantiated information and
suspect.

If you did get permission, the chances of being sued, hard feelings, and/or
upset family members should be less.  Whether or not you publish all of
the information available to you, you should keep documentation over the
everything including the scandals and permissions. Unpublished
documentation maybe valuable to your descendants long after the people
involved are gone.

Be sure to document *everything* you publish. If a lawsuit is brought
against you, documentation may save you both money and anguish.

I should also point out, I am *not* a lawyer. Only someone specialized
in law, specifically the laws concerning publishing and privacy can
fully answer your question concerning legal implications.

In looking over my response to you, I would like to point out that the
line between "censorship" and "selection" of material to include is a
very fine line. Unfortuately, the items which make a "history" the
most interesting are often the very ones which could be considered
objectionable!

	Melodie Sanders		Internet: MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU
	Serials Cataloger/Reference Librarian
	McFarlin Library
	University of Tulsa (Oklahoma)