publishing information with names of living people

[Richard Olsen]

I noticed on this forum that people publish death notices and other information containing names of living people. In North America, that would be frowned on. I have death notices of Norwegians, but did not publish them due to names of living people.

 

Question:

Do Norwegians, in general, believe that it is alright to publish information with names of living people, such as death notices, on the internet?

 

I ask this question to decide if it is alright to publish Norwegians' death notices.

Endret November 2, 2023 av Richard Olsen

[Torbjørn Igelkjøn]

Norwegian death notes are public in the same way as American obituaries.

[Richard Olsen]

Yes, I am aware of that. In North America, the unwritten rule in Genealogy  is that you do not publish names of living people. Genealogy sites, such as Ancestry, do not allow published names of living people. It is to respect people's privacy.

 

My query was an attempt to determine if there is a consensus by Norwegians on publishing names of living people. To ensure that I do not upset anyone, I will continue to not publish death notices containing names of living people.

[Anne Hildrum]

There are however lots of Americans that publish names of living people. Some may frown on it, while others obviously don't. I have found my own name on several genealogy reports published by very distant relatives. I would not publish that myself, however if you ask for the death notice of someone who died that is public information.

I may not have access to the newspaper it was published in while others do, and they may post if after someone asked if they could find it for them.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

There are two things to noted here:

 

First, that Norwegian death notices do not give much personal information.

 

Typically, a notice gives the full name and birth and death dates of the deceased.

The residence (town) and/or place of death can be mentioned.

Then, first names of the nearest family  (spouse/partner, children w.sp/p, grandchildren, parents etc. ).

Surnames are not included. They can differ from the surname of the deceased.

No birth dates/age or residences are revealed.

In rare cases we see information like "my dear husband during 58 years" - indicating the time of marriage (always high age).

 

Death notices are issued by the family, who can chose not to make a notice. They can chose to publish the notice

only in the paper version of a newspaper, or also in the online version.

 

Second, to the question

"Do Norwegians, in general, believe that it is alright to publish ..."

you will get answers covering a spectrum from "not at all" to "sure/I do not care".

Many individuals would think that there is a difference between the local newspaper and some (your) web site

(actually, EU/EEA law makes this distinction - but the information in a notice is too limited for its application).

[Aase R Sæther - Gloppen]

The rules of this forum says Anyone can view the content of discussions, therefore exercise caution when discussing individuals or yourself. You may not openly disclose information about individuals, living or deceased, which may cause harm to said individuals or their descendants/relatives. https://forum.arkivverket.no/announcement/2-ordensregler-for-debattene-discussion-forum-rules/

 

I agree with Ivar, but in my opinion it will depend on how old the death notice is, and according to that, how likely it is that there are living people in it. A notice from 1940 MAYBE includes small children who are still alive today, and one should always think of "would I think it was OK to see this if it was my own family"?

 

[Richard Olsen]

Thank all of you for your replies.

 

One important issue that was not mentioned is the fact that the published Dødsannonser, dødsfall are copyright protected. Reproduction (placing copies on internet forums, for example) is prohibited by law unless permission was granted by the copyright holder. I assume the laws are similar in Norway.

 

Aase R made a valid point. Would those who post information containing names of living people want their names published on the internet? Their children's names?

 

Ivar S, thank you for your reply, however, my question concerned publishing names of living people (not the amount of personal information). Also, obituaries from North America are published, and they can contain more personal information. Who issues the death notice is irrelevant, the legalities (and morals) remain the same.

 

Anne Hildrum, thank you for your reply. Most people I know would send a copy of an obituary by private message or email.

 

 

[Jackie K Marler]

 

Obituaries published in newspapers are already considered public records, since they have been published.

Obituaries published on funeral home websites are already considered public records, since they have been published.

 

There is not a right of privacy to public records unless a copyright is asserted.  So if you want your family information to be private, write the obituary without that information you consider private.  Instruct the funeral home that you want nothing on the funeral program or that printed programs be gathered after the service and destroyed.

 

This was a shocking obit but an individual pays advertising rate for most of the obituaries published like this these days.  Her children wrote it and felt some satisfaction to finally have the last word on her.  One newspaper refused to publish it as too  offensive.  The other local paper published it but eventually took it off their website.

Washington Post wrote about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/05/this-world-is-a-better-place-without-her-a-familys-savage-final-send-off-to-their-mother/

 

And Daily Mail interviewed the children and got their reasons:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5812453/Children-wrote-brutal-obituary-mother-explain-decision.html

 

If you feel that someone might be in danger from stalkers or trolls if their location is revealed  you might not want to copy and paste anywhere.  Somehow I doubt Gina and Jay will care if it is published here...

 

 

 

 

Endret November 3, 2023 av Jackie K Marler

[Richard Olsen]

Jackie K Marler

 

Public Records are for viewing, or possibly for private use. You can not reproduce public records without the consent of the copyright holder.

 

Actually, you are in copyright violation by posting that notice about that woman. You may have been attempting to make a point, however, think about what you did by posting that here.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

Regarding "copyright":  I did not mention it, because I do not think it is relevant. Norwegian death notices are not protected.

In Norway "copyright" (Opphavsrett) it is regulated by Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk,   https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-40

and over state borders, the EEA treaty (EU law), and the Bern convention.

In this law, and presumably in the laws of other countries, there is a lower limit in terms of originality, individuality, creativity etc. 

("uttrykk for original og individuell skapende åndsinnsats" in the Norwegian law).  If the "artwork" simply is a reproduction of a

commonly used template or pattern, it is not protected.

The precise limits are set in court, but I am quite sure that a death notice is below the limit.

Some examples are shown in this thread (scroll for more):

  https://forum.arkivverket.no/topic/325948-søger-efterkommere-efter-norman-bøe-larvik/?do=findComment&comment=2548966

 

Who issues a death notice is relevant for the question whether and where you can find it.  The family can go for both newspaper and internet, just one of these, or no notice at all. They also decide what you can find in the notice; i.e. who are named.  Somtimes it is just "familien" (i.e., the family), and no individual names under the name of the deceased. If they do not want to be known, there are options.

 

Then, you are left with the moral issue. Some will not care, and some will dislike it.

 

 

Endret November 3, 2023 av Ivar S. Ertesvåg

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

Thank you for the information. I take every opportunity to learn.

 

Would you not agree that Newspaper Publishers own all that is published in their newspapers? Therefore, permission would need to be granted by these Newspaper Publishers for individuals to reproduce anything found in the newspapers.

 

There is a difference between copying and publishing part of an article, obituary, etc. and reproducing exact published material.

 

Respectfully, perhaps you presume too much.

 

Nevertheless, legalities and morals are present.

[Richard Olsen]

If this is too continue, I respectfully ask that all stay on topic. Thank you

[Jackie K Marler]

23 minutes ago, Richard Olsen said:

Jackie K Marler

 

Public Records are for viewing, or possibly for private use. You can not reproduce public records without the consent of the copyright holder.

 

Actually, you are in copyright violation by posting that notice about that woman. You may have been attempting to make a point, however, think about what you did by posting that here.

Of course you may copy them, as long as they are properly sourced.  Things published in 1923 are free of copyright anyway.  If I had retyped or clipped the photo differently, that version could be copyrighted by me.  As a nicety, I could contact Gina and Jay and ask their permission to use their text.  The practicality of it is this: if you Google that name you will find dozens and dozens of republished examples.  Did each of them get permission?  I don't have deep enough pockets to be of interest.  But if the Washington Post didn't get permission, they might be in line for some repercussions.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

52 minutter siden, Jackie K Marler skrev:

There is not a right of privacy to public records unless a copyright is asserted.  

 

39 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Actually, you are in copyright violation by posting that notice about that woman.

 

I am not familiar with US (federal or state) laws on copyright.  If Jackie is right (wikipedia says that she is right), that copyright has to be asserted,

reproducing this item seems not to be a violation (unless she cut away this assertion from the note).

In Norwegian law (and, as I understand, most of Europe) the protection is by law, and no specific claims are needed.

When crossing borders, the Bern conventions implies that is a workpiece is protected in the country of origin (USA for the note above), 

it is also protected in the country of reproduction (Norway, this forum where Jackie reproduced the note) - and vice versa: not

protected if not protected at home.

 

21 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Would you not agree that Newspaper Publishers own all that is published in their newspapers? Therefore, permission would need to be granted by these Newspaper Publishers for individuals to reproduce anything found in the newspapers.

 

There is a difference between copying and publishing part of an article, obituary, etc. and reproducing exact published material.

You will find much in the newspaper that is not owned by the newspaper. If I write a piece of text and send to a newspaper, I still own the text. By sending it, I permit them to print it. If I want, I can send it to another paper. If they (hypothetically, ...) want to print it once more, or in another medium, they have to get a new permission. If they make some particular "artistic" setup of my text; they own the setup - but I still own the text.

Alternatively, I could have sold (or given) the text to them - transferred the "opphavsrett". This would require a specific agreement.

 

A piece of work that is below the limit of "åndsverk", it is not protected. Then, it is not relevant who owns it. You and I can reproduce it

without violating any legal rights.  If the death notice is not protected, as I think, the ownership does not matter.

 

Endret November 3, 2023 av Ivar S. Ertesvåg

[Richard Olsen]

I neglected to provide significant details.

 

Jackie, you referred to public records, which are not the same as obituaries (for example). What is referred to as Public Records (at least in Canada) are Government Records. Obituaries are not Government Records, therefore, you zig-zag off topic.

 

Why make a blanket statement, such as "Things published in 1923 are free of copyright anyway". Oh wait, are you referring to USA laws?

 

Please stay on topic, should names of living people be published?

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S, you have made valid points. However, it involves Norway. I appreciate that, and the learning opportunity. My focus is on my country of origins, and it appears that all who are posting here are focusing on their country of origins. That appears to be causing conflict. As usual, on internet forums, the main topic gets lost.

 

Nevertheless, my original question has been addressed. I am unsure if anything was accomplished.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

1 time siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

One important issue that was not mentioned is the fact that the published Dødsannonser, dødsfall are copyright protected.

 

sorry ... it was too tempting to point out who introduced the copyright matters into the discussion.

 

19 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Please stay on topic, should names of living people be published?

 

You have got the answer: it varies. Some will not like it. There is no general answer to it.

If you ask about more detailed distribution of degrees of like/dislike, the survey has not been made.

 

What people think will depend on the detail of information (e.g. first name, no dates/age/residence  vs. full records). Hence, this is

relevant for your discussion.

 

Related issues have been discussed in this and similar fora previously.

About 25 years ago, I wrote this text: https://folk.ntnu.no/ivarse/slekt/personvern.html

(It has been printed two times in the member magazine of The Genealogy Society of Norway ("Slekt og Data",

Norway’s largest organization for family history), and used as reading material at Volda University College;

so there might be something useful in it.).  Try google translate or similar, if you do not read Norwegian.

Endret November 3, 2023 av Ivar S. Ertesvåg

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

I used the words Dødsannonser, dødsfall to assist Norwegians in understanding what I was referring to. You have pointed out that they are not under copyright protection in Norway. That does not excuse the posting of potential copyright infringement on this and other forums. Regardless of copyright protection or not, people's privacy is being violated by posting their names, their children's names.......

 

Again, personal details are not relevant to the discussion since the discussion was on living people's names being published.

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

I feel that I should clear something.

 

I stated that Newspapers Publishers own what they publish in their newspapers. You stated that the people who wrote the text, or other, own the copyright. We are both correct.

 

Whomever creates something is the owner of it, the copyright holder. However, Newspaper Editors, or other staff, design that creation, not disturbing the original, to fit their desires for publication. They then become the owner of that new creation in the newspaper.

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

4 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Whomever creates something is the owner of it, the copyright holder. However, Newspaper Editors, or other staff, design that creation, not disturbing the original, to fit their desires for publication. They then become the owner of that new creation in the newspaper.

 

No, usually not.   The "creation" made by the newspaper is usually not sufficiently original/creative to qualify as a protected "åndsverk".

Putting up a text with a standard font, in columns, with horizontal or vertical lines, non-original ornaments, etc. , and

arranging together with other material, do not qualify for protection.

Ok, you can say "owner" of the "new creation", but this ownership has no rights to violate. 

There are exceptions, but these are just that. For instance, when the ornaments and arrangement becomes non-standard and

original, it might approach the limit.

 

(Reservations: First, we talk about Norwegian law. (This forum is made for Norwegian matters or matter related to Norway),

and second, we look apart from text produced by employees of the newspaper or on contract for the newspaper.)

 

 

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

Well, many Newspaper Publishers in Canada would argue with you.

 

Here is a new question:

 

If an obituary from another country is published on a Norwegian website, does not constitute copyright violation?

 

I will be back online later

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

3 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Here is a new question:

If an obituary from another country is published on a Norwegian website, does not constitute copyright violation?

 

I answered this above:

1 time siden, Ivar S. Ertesvåg skrev:

When crossing borders, the Bern conventions implies that is a workpiece is protected in the country of origin (USA for the note above), 

it is also protected in the country of reproduction (Norway, this forum where Jackie reproduced the note) - and vice versa: not

protected if not protected at home.

 

If an obituary produced in Canada is protected there, it is protected in Norway.

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

If I understand you correctly, people who post foreign obituaries on this forum are in copyright violation (providing there is a copyright to the obituaries in the country or countries of origins)

 

It is either a legal issue or moral issues, or both.

Endret November 3, 2023 av Richard Olsen

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

1 time siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

If I understand you correctly, people who post foreign obituaries on this forum are in copyright violation (providing there is a copyright to the obituaries in the country or countries of origins)

I am not a jurist, but yes, this is my understanding of the Bern convention https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html 

 

"Copyright" is a legal issue.   To keep the law can be a moral issue.

 

Edit: I have to make the reservation that I do not know the situation if something was produced before that country entered the Bern Convention (for USA, this is 1989).

 

Endret November 3, 2023 av Ivar S. Ertesvåg