Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA test results, Creative Common License and Privacy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Svein Davidsen
    replied
    Thanks Igmayka,

    Another invaluable input - more obscure law to study! So if the FTDNA database is located in USA, and the FB page I posted the data on is in the US, the post should be covered by US law, even if I am located in Europe? Right? If it only was that simple!!

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    American vs. European copyright law

    Originally posted by Jim Barrett View Post
    Did the owners of the kits give you permission to use their data? If not, I don't think you should be using their data.
    The United States Supreme Court does not recognize a copyright (or any other kind of ownership) for facts--i.e., already-published data, whether individual or compiled into a database. The European Union does.

    Of course, academic standards require citation of sources--not simply to give credit, but more importantly to provide verifiability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Petra
    replied
    Originally posted by Svein Davidsen View Post
    I understand your concern Petra, but do you understand that all this information is already available to anyone, member or not, who open the result page on any of FTDNA's Projects? Even "worse" if you have joined a Surname project they will also have a very good idea of your name!
    Hallo Svein,

    ja, I know that the IDs of the kits, which are in public project are visible. But there is the possibility with the privacy settings just to show mail adresses and contact data to project members. There is a difference between public and "member projects". The ID itself is no problem with me. But in case, sb knows my ID, writes about it in combination WITH my private data. This is usually not possible - besides me myself was the stupid to publish my ID in combination with name, Mail adress a.s.o.
    And ja: I am concient about the situation, that one should not easily give ID numbers to helpful people in postings in forums and so on, as these forums are also open visible to everybody. Too late I recognized this fact, when I asked sth in a forum about the kit of my grandma.
    Sb. who is clever can always combine ID, mailadress, ancestor, when researching the internet. That´s our Zeitgeist and it won´t become better. This is no reason for me at all not test with any DNA company, but to be careful about privacy settings and my own correspondence in forums (DNA and Genealogy). Private exchange of kit IDs, I only would do via PN or private Email. And even this could not be safe.
    But I won´t get a data neurosis as a lot of people have. My DNA/genealogy hobby needs exchange so I will do so :-)

    LG Petra

    P.S.: Thanks for the hint with surname project. I should have thought about that... As I am female there is no problem with me; I am no member of surname projects - but I will immediatly change the name of my uncle and delete the Vorname bevor his results come in :-)
    Last edited by Petra; 8 March 2016, 01:04 PM. Reason: missing word

    Leave a comment:


  • Svein Davidsen
    replied
    Thank you "The Contemplator" for pointing out my error - I certainly meant to write " did NOT, and I was too late to edit the page by the time I read your post.

    Regarding the point that I should have obtained the permission of every one of the ca. 100 persons shown on the tree before uploading it, is, of course, a non-starter, because I don't actually have their email addresses. As for asking the Project Administrators to forward a request to the various participants - forget it. I tried some months ago to get the Administrator in question to forward my email address to one person in the Project, but I did not even get an acknowledgement of the request.

    I think, in the future, I'll just put my own serial number for each of the participant in the tree, because that seems to be the sensitive part. Then ask anyone who can identify themselves with the Oldest Known Ancestor, OKA, to contact me for a copy of the tree with their FTDNA ID included. Will that work? Or will someone else object to the OKA name?

    Leave a comment:


  • Svein Davidsen
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    I am not a lawyer...

    What about Facebook Terms of Service https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms ?

    5.7 there ?

    Mr W

    P.S.
    Yes, you cannot please everyone

    Some people publish their genealogical trees (or sometimes even not theirs!), hoping to catch some attention. At the same time, other researchers will only publish x.x. for all living and those who died in 1900 or after...
    Thank you Mr W, this is a new angle - need to think about what it actually implies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svein Davidsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Petra View Post
    If data of my family would be in your tree, I would not like that you also posted the FTDNA ID. With this ID it is possible with some clever research to find the owner in the internet with mail adress a.s.o.(in case he posted the ID on some forums to get help on gedmatch or familytrees...)
    I understand your concern Petra, but do you understand that all this information is already available to anyone, member or not, who open the result page on any of FTDNA's Projects? Even "worse" if you have joined a Surname project they will also have a very good idea of your name!

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Contemplator
    replied
    Ok so I asked the person in charge of the WorldFamilies site. He said the following:

    We use the data they supply us, which is the same as shows on the FTDNA Public pages.

    Anyone taking info from a FTDN or WorldFamilies site should fully attribute the source at a Minimum. Ideally, permission requested
    He didn't specify if there was agreement with FTDNA or not, but at least it sounds like they just use public data.

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Contemplator
    replied
    Originally posted by Svein Davidsen View Post
    I was beginning to think this was a subject people was regarding with complete indifference.
    It will be a wide spectrum about how people feel about it. Some will be indifferent. Others will care only if they notice others care, because they think others will see something they don't. Not everyone that is involved in projects will check these forums that often, so you may get replies down the road.

    Originally posted by Svein Davidsen View Post
    ...and I did publish any privat information.
    I think you meant "did not".

    Originally posted by Svein Davidsen View Post
    Does this mean that if I also had uploaded my tree to a FB site and quoted the same CC license that I would be "in the clear"?
    I'm not sure that the data can be given a CC license by the admin or if FTDNA does it somewhere (I don't see it). But if it does have such a license then it would mean that you need to give credit to the original material and I guess add something similar to this image. So you would be in the clear when it comes to the CC license issue.

    There could still be some clause somewhere in FTDNA policy that we aren't noticing that states what you did is wrong. I wonder how WorldFamilies does it. I'm going to email the admin of that site. It pulls Y-DNA results from FTDNA projects, but they claim to have a relationship with FTDNA.

    Originally posted by Svein Davidsen View Post
    An interesting point is that on the FB where i uploaded the tree, the only two comments, apart from the warnings not to do it again, was from two members who questioned why they were NOT on the tree!

    You cannot please them all!!
    It is that spectrum of how people view the topic.

    Some people won't like their kit numbers out there. If they openly stated the kit number at some point it is possible to figure out who owns the kit as Petra suggests. If however, users don't ever publicly identify their kit number, they won't be found that way. I guess the problem is that sometimes users don't know that they don't have to state their kit number publicly.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    I am not a lawyer...

    What about Facebook Terms of Service https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms ?

    5.7 there ?

    Mr W

    P.S.
    Yes, you cannot please everyone

    Some people publish their genealogical trees (or sometimes even not theirs!), hoping to catch some attention. At the same time, other researchers will only publish x.x. for all living and those who died in 1900 or after...

    Leave a comment:


  • Petra
    replied
    Svein D: "The only information I published on the phylogenetic tree was the FTDNA ID, Haplogroup, and name and country of the oldest known ancestor."

    If data of my family would be in your tree, I would not like that you also posted the FTDNA ID. With this ID it is possible with some clever research to find the owner in the internet with mail adress a.s.o.(in case he posted the ID on some forums to get help on gedmatch or familytrees...)
    So I guess if you leave the ID number out, your posting could be ok for me. I can´t speak for other persons. Also the most distant ancestor as a defining categogy is not too dangerous for privacy reasons, as some people could have them... Just in case they are too recent, it is way to private. I would rework the tree/excel sheet and leave it as anonym as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svein Davidsen
    replied
    Thank you to the three of you for responding - I was beginning to think this was a subject people was regarding with complete indifference.

    To clarify: While I am a member of some of Projects I used to gather the information I did not sign in to my FTDNA account to access them, but logged on as an outsider, so I had only access to the minimum data set by the owner of the information.

    The only information I published on the phylogenetic tree was the FTDNA ID, Haplogroup, and name and country of the oldest known ancestor.
    I have re-read the FTDNA's Project Administrators Guidlines again, and as "The Contemplator" said, I did not break any of them, and I did publish any privat information.

    The FTDNA Project I referred to is quoting the "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". Looking up the Share Alike option, I quote: "Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical ("not more restrictive") to the license that governs the original work. Without share-alike derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)".

    Does this mean that if I also had uploaded my tree to a FB site and quoted the same CC license that I would be "in the clear"?

    An interesting point is that on the FB where i uploaded the tree, the only two comments, apart from the warnings not to do it again, was from two members who questioned why they were NOT on the tree!

    You cannot please them all!!

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Contemplator
    replied
    Well personally, I wouldn't have a problem if someone used my data just to make a phylogenetic tree. Others might take issue because they are more worried about the future what if's that they don't have the answers to yet. So it is natural to have some that would prefer to side with caution and not want a single bit of their data used this way.

    As for possible rules or guidelines, I can't seem to find one that you could have broken. The group administrator guidelines are meant for project admins. Even if these were to apply to your case, you didn't share any contact or personal information.

    The one thing I could think of that may be somewhat in the gray territory is the use of possibly guarded results. You said these results are public, but are you a member of these projects? Some projects and even individual members keep their results hidden to non-members through settings. If you are not a member of these projects and these results are still accessible then none of them were guarded results.

    As for Cole v. Gene by Gene, it isn't the same. What little I know is that Cole joined an FTDNA project not knowing his data would become available to others to see. It eventually ended up on RootsWeb. Which specific data? I don't know. Maybe it was his contact information or maybe it was just his kit number and STR values. Cole sued FTDNA, not the person who published his information on RootsWeb or even RootsWeb itself. The admin you are talking to might simply be afraid of possible consequences if a member sees that tree outside of the project. It could discourage people from joining future projects.

    I can't find anything that says what kind of license the FTDNA data is under. If it is under a CC license, which type is it? Depending on the type, all you might need to do is add a note to attribute where you got the data from.

    But there could be something I missed. Not everything related to how FTDNA handles such matters is in one place.

    Leave a comment:


  • gilbertdh
    replied
    This is probably a violation of the Guidelines.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...tdna-projects/

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Did the owners of the kits give you permission to use their data? If not, I don't think you should be using their data.

    Leave a comment:


  • DNA test results, Creative Common License and Privacy.

    I'm currently involved in an interesting, and polite, discussion with a FTDNA Project Administrator regarding privacy and the use of projects' published test data, and I would like to know what the general opinion is on this subject.

    The start of the discuss was that I "mined" over 20 FTDNA public Projects and extracted all the Hg N STR test data I could find, over 3300 in fact. I took a small portion of these, about 100 results with a common terminal SNP value, and, using the free Phylip software, generated a phylogenetic tree. I annotated the tree with the FTDNA IDs, terminal SNP, Oldest known ancestor, country of OKA.

    I uploaded this tree to a non-FTDNA Facbook page where a few of us Hg N1c1 members discuss general genetics, the origin, age, relationship, etc of the haplogroup. Just after I had made the upload the FTDNA Project Admin posted a comment that I should/could not do this as the project was protected by the Creative Common License. The Admin also quoted the Cole vs Gene by Gene case in Alaska as evidence that I could be liable for prosecution if I persisted in publishing such data.

    As far as I can find this case is still open with no verdict reached, and the plaintiff's case is that FTDNA published his DNA test result data without his knowledge and permission. If that is correct this case is irrelevant as I have only used data, voluntarily submitted by the tester, to a public web page.
    I would however be interested in the views and opinions of the readers as to the use and validity of Creative Common License to FTDNA public projects.
Working...
X