I Wish MY Ancestor's Trial Records Looked Like this One

Slate.com had an interesting blurb about a court stenographer tackling a criminal, subduing him, then diligently compiling his formal transcript, complete with the obscenities the stenographer had uttered during the struggle. Now why can't that kind of stuff be included in the historical court records I've seen?

Family History Woes

The Genealogue recently pointed me to this interesting story. Apparently, a family historian named Delia published to her blog a quotation from her grandmother's diary and is now being sued by other family members for copyright infringements and defamation.

The story raises interesting questions, particularly for those of us who have published letters and documents to the web or in other formats. However, I think that there is still hope for us.

To begin with, you can almost always publish a portion of a work under the "fair use" clause to the copyright law. Otherwise, critics, teachers and others would never be able to use quotations from works they cite. The exact amount that can be used has never been precisely defined, but based on the fact that Delia apparently only used a paragraph, she's probably okay.

I haven't just published a portion of these works, however. In general, I've published the entirety of the letters, diaries and so forth. Which brings me to my next thought, one that applies to what I've published, but not to what Delia published.

In general, genealogists are discouraged from publishing any information about the living, particularly online. For privacy reasons, it seems apparent why birth dates, maiden names, etc. shouldn't be easy to find online.

However, it seems to me that we should also be extremely careful about what we publish that involves the living: anything written by someone living obviously and anything written ABOUT someone living. This is particularly true if what was written might be controversial. What Delia published was a quotation from her grandmother that applied to a living individual, and which was not terribly favorable to that individual. You can see how that would rankle (whether or not there is a legal case).

In general, I have made it my practice to leave out anything on my site that was written by someone living or that is about someone living. Sometimes this has been hard. Still, the closest I have gotten to knowingly publishing about the living is publishing The Letter from Mother which includes some not-very-flattering portraits of "recently" departed family members (recently in this case meaning that some people in my family still remember them).

In terms of other copyright laws, I hope that I haven't broken them. I always volunteer to take down information if the copyright holder asks (no one ever has). Just contact me!

French Immigrants & Adultery

This from Slate.com:

The French government is facing a backlash for trying to DNA-test aspiring immigrants.Objections: 1) It's a double standard, since legal family relationships among French natives don't require a genetic bond. 2) Ditto for privacy: No native has to submit to such testing. 3) It's reminiscent of collaboration with the Nazis. 4) It's cheap anti-immigrant politics. 5) Genetics has no place in human rights. Rebuttals: 1) It's voluntary. 2) It's free. 3) It's needed only when you can't produce other good evidence of a family relationship. 4) Eleven other European countries do it, so what's the big deal? 5) We'll try it for 18 months and drop it if it's a problem. 6) We'll just test maternity, to spare you the pain of discovering that your dad isn't really your dad. (Related: previous update on the French proposal.) If you claim to be related to a French resident, the legislation would offer "voluntary" testing to prove it.

I really like the part where they aren't going to test paternity. Wouldn't that be a shocker for a bunch of folks? (See previous posts on rates of infidelity) There doesn't appear to be a genealogical loophole if you can prove you are related to some long-dead Frenchman, however. A shame, since that would likely mean that all of us could move to France!

The other issue that this bill has raised is the definition of "family" for many of the immigrants. In Africa, "family" may consist of uncles, cousins, and others that are related through marriage or more distant/non-existent DNA relationships.

But what about the inheritance?

Slate.com ran an interesting blurb today in their Human Nature column about a British woman who is receiving donated sperm from her father-in-law. It would mean that the baby would be a biological half-sibling to its "father", raising a number of questions. The health risks with older sperm are increased, but many people are also seriously concerned about the ethics of the case (it was reviewed by an ethics committee).

The father has no brother, which would be the usual family route. The article about this in the Guardian states:

It is not uncommon for families to use a sperm donor from within their family - often a brother - so that the child will have genetic ties with his or her "father", but this is thought to be the first case of a grandfather acting as a sperm donor. The family have not yet decided whether they will tell the child who his or her genetic father is, although the clinic is encouraging them to be open about that. "That's their personal decision," said Dr Ahuja.

Still, the questions about anonymous and known sperm donors that I've raised in other posts still apply. Also, I can't help wondering about the inheritance patterns from granddad to pop to kid... but presumably some lawyers are working on this problem!

What's interesting about this is that the DNA for genealogists will still match up in the future and so really no one will ever have to know (or accuse this woman of adultery!). I wonder how often this kind of thing happened in the past without the sterile medical procedures?

Pets, Wills

When Leona Helmsley died a couple of weeks ago, she reportedly left millions for her dog. We've all heard about the people who do this, and I have to assume that it is relatively uncommon to leave such a large sum for pets in your will. Other websites do recommend making sure that your will does make provision for the care of pets and give you tips on how to do this... there is even a whole BOOK on the subject!

In 1996, 7 states reportedly had laws allowing owners to set up trust funds for their pets after the owners' deaths (The Buffalo News, August 24, 1996: p.B10). By 2002, that number had jumped to 17 (Houston Chronicle, April 22, 2002: p.01). Since then, at least Ohio has passed a similar law, and possibly other states as well.

In general, leaving money to the cats directly is not particularly enforceable by the courts nor is leaving the cat to someone's care a surefire thing, which is why the trust fund idea has boomed. In the abovementioned book, the author apparently notes that "The law will regard the clause in your will where you bequeath money or property to your pets after death as the equivalent of leaving your car to your washing machine." A whole company, PetGuardian has grown up just for the creation of such trust plans. There is also a report of a custody battle over a dog after the owner's death.

Still, all of this must be a recent phenomenon, right? Aaah, no.

In a quick search on Ancestry.com, I found a few mentions of this practice in historical newspapers, but all from the 20th century. The earliest I found was this one from 1903:

Sandusky, Ohio Sandusky Evening Star
16 Jan 1903
"Tiffin O Jan 16 - What purports to be the last will of Mrs. Charlotte M. Hoyt the New York multimillionaire was filed here dated Sept 9, 1902. It postdates the other two wills. Judge J.H. Dunn of Tiffin who was in charge of her interests since her removal to Tiffin two years ago is bequeathed the residue of her estate valued at several hundred thousand. Her father Casper Guss of Tiffin gets $100 a month during his life and the New York Humane society $50 per month for the care of her pets."

Here is another, where the relatives contested the will:

Lincoln, Nebraska Evening State Journal
13 Oct 1938
"Left Money to Pets
Dogs and cats frequently at odds were united in a common cause when relatives of Mrs. May Gavin asked the orphans court to nullify her will setting aside $3000 for the lifetime care of her pets."

Then I found this book on Google Books, which has a whole chapter entitled "Wills in Favour of Dumb Animals". Although the most interesting parts (the actual text of most of the wills) are hidden from view because of copyrights, it clearly demonstrates that people have been leaving money to pets since the seventeenth century.

A compilation of some other funny will clauses can be found here (no guarantees regarding accuracy).