In almost twenty years working as a genealogist, I don't think I have ever been as angry as I was yesterday when I read about Ancestry's latest endeavour.
In a quite frankly appalling development, Ancestry (www.ancestry.co.uk) is taking the National Records of Scotland (www.nrscotland.gov.uk) to court in a bid to try to gain access to many of the records available on ScotlandsPeople (www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk). The story is at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy50gn5353zo.
Ancestry is doing this because the NRS has refused to enter into a financial agreement with the records platform, stating that it would cost the archive £3.7 million a year in lost revenue, I imagine because the need for the ScotlandsPeople platform would collapse. The Information Commissioner's Office actually sided with the NRS, but Ancestry has challenged this with a body I have never heard of based in London, called the General Regulatory Chamber. It's reported that the Tribunal has ruled that the NRS should be able to make the records available, but has also noted that it hasn't got the legal authority to compel it to do so**. So there will now be a separate hearing.
In the past, Ancestry has entered into many agreements with the National Archives (TNA) in England to digitise and host records, often with exclusivity periods, for example with past census releases. But those were entered into as the result of a decision by that archive to seek commercial involvement (TNA also regularly partners with TheGenealogist and FindmyPast).
The NRS holds its records in trust for me and the people of Scotland. If I was to challenge the NRS that it was not providing access to Crown copyright records that I felt it should open up, there would perhaps be a moral case to support the challenge, with my being a Scottish based taxpayer. And indeed, there is a mechanism to attempt to do so, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which I know various colleagues have attempted to use from time to time.
But Ancestry, by contrast, is a multinational for-profit genealogy company. Its main interest is its shareholders, no matter how fluffy the language on its platform may be for hungry genealogists. The idea that it may feel that it has a right to demand access to records so that it can make them available on a for-profit basis is quite frankly shocking.
If Ancestry succeeds here, which archive and country is next for its lawyers?
I have many issues with the NRS, which in many ways I find to be opaque and antiquated when compared to other UK based national archives. I have often discussed them on this platform, and continue to stand by the various criticisms that I have levelled at the platform in the past. The lack of a subscription based model for access to its records is just one of these criticisms. On that basis alone, I can imagine many people around the world will be supporting Ancestry's demands.
But this is a slippery slope. And as things stand just now, it is my sincere belief that Ancestry should back off (not the words I specifically want to use at this juncture, I have a few more that would be more appropriate!). From the reaction to this story on my Facebook page yesterday, Ancestry will certainly win few friends in Scotland with this action.
I'm absolutely disgusted. Good luck to the NRS in the legal proceedings.
UPDATE: ** In fact, that's not quite the case. Having now read through the judgment itself, the judge has found NRS was within its rights to refuse access, but that its description of what Ancestry wishes to do with the records is wrong. It has, however, noted that Ancestry can pursue as a point of law whether the NRS should have the right to allow exemptions to access in the first place. You can read more about the legal proceedings in my follow-up post at https://scottishgenes.blogspot.com/2025/09/more-on-legal-proceedings-by-ancestry.html.
Chris
Order Researching Ancestral Crisis in Ireland in the UK at https://bit.ly/4jJWSEh. Also available -Tracing Your Belfast Ancestors, Tracing Your Irish Ancestors Through Land Records, Sharing Your Family History Online, Tracing Your Scottish Family History on the Internet, Tracing Your Irish Family History on the Internet (2nd ed), and Tracing Your Scottish Ancestry Through Church and State Records - to purchase, please visit https://bit.ly/ChrisPatonPSbooks. For purchase in tthe USA visit https://www.penandswordbooks.com. Further news published daily on The Scottish GENES Facebook page.
That is disgusting...no record office should be obliged to make an agreement with Ancestry. I hope Ancestry loses. While, like you, I don't always agree with NRS's way of dealing with its records, I do find the SP platform easy to use and appreciate being able to pay as I go when researching my husband's side of the family. I also love that anything I've bought is still available to be viewed when I sign into my account (though I also ALWAYS download the images and back them up). The free search results have also proved helpful during my one-on-one sessions with library patrons - giving them at least some information and guidance. I leave it to them to decide whether to pay to see the full record.
ReplyDeleteFully agree.
ReplyDeleteWe, as Scottish Nation are so privileged to have a platform such as Scotlandspeople. To have such a concise and easily accessible system is the envy of many and I would imagine the standard that others would hope to attain. I too find it unbearable to think that Ancestry can and even think about attempting to to do this. The attitude is “ if you won’t agree, we will take”. I sincerely hope not. It is a GEM and not for the taking.
ReplyDeleteAncestry will win few friends from around the World. I love Scotlands People.
ReplyDeleteSurely the answer is simple - the annual licence fee should be set at £3.7million? I do have a concern that might actually show a flaw in the NRS position. Should the NRS actually be carrying out the role of creating Scotland's records for today (eg the current registration system) as well as the function of publishing the Scottish archives online? Aren't the current and historical functions, two entirely different aspects? Because I got the distinct feeling from some of the statements that I read, that some of the ScotlandsPeople income was being used to cross subsidise the current registration system in Scotland, which, as an avid SP user, but non resident, I'm less than keen on. Cross subsidies, monopolies and paywalls even at the archives - maybe SP is on a sticky wicket?
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with your post yesterday and today. As an Aussie with significant Scottish ancestry, I have spent many hours and dollars on Scotlands People website over decades.
ReplyDeleteI have encouraged others to use it and believe it was the best site for ease of use and value for money.
Ancestry has no right to demand access to any organisations records and especially if you have also refused to enter into an agreement with Ancestry.
Ancestry will not make friends with this move!
Unfortunately, I think that Ancestry does have the right to demand access the NRS records - that's what the Freedom of Information Acts are about. I couldn't find the details for the Scottish Act but certainly the England and Wales Act permits businesses to apply. So far as I can see - this allows them to apply, it doesn't guarantee that the body holding the information should act. Remember that Reclaim the Records has used the equivalent laws in the USA to access BMD records over there. However, those records were not accessible in bulk so it's not the same story, because the Scots data is already available. So does FoI apply to data already accessible? Interesting...
DeleteTo Adrian B, my understanding is that FOI can be used when there is no publication scheme in place - but NRS has a publication scheme in place, hence ScotlandsPeople.
DeleteChris - that makes sense. The less rights that Ancestry have, the better.
DeletePersonally, ScotlandsPeople should keep the Post 1855 BMDs behind the paywall (basically as in England/Wales), but the census images should be released to other companies or alternatively made available via a subscription on ScotlandsPeople - current searches are too restrictive on SP and it is too expensive to view extensive pages of images. Pre 1855 registers are basically church registers so that should be down to the individual church as to where they are made available.
ReplyDeleteWe have just one si.ple thing to do, but we nees to do it all together. BOYCOT ANCESTRY.COM, they will earn much money by selling information about the dead people, they exoect that we give our information for free by using tbeir platform. Boycot it. Let ANCESTRY DIE.
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with Chris Paton. Paws off. Just remember the times when you could research the NA and get what you wanted from military,shipping records. Now Ancestry has a 2 stages access and you have to pay for detailed pension records. I just might terminate my account with Ancestry.Cathie
ReplyDeleteI'm perfectly happy to pay ScotlandsPeople for their documents, even though I am an Ancestry subscriber. Ancestry's actions are yet another reason to be a disgruntled and embarrassed American.
ReplyDeleteWhy do they have to have it all a big NO HANDS OFF THE NRS
ReplyDeleteFantastic article, Chris - thanks for writing this! Am in absolute agreement with you: I was appalled to hear this news and very much hope that the NRS succeeds in defending itself against the legal attacks from Ancestry. To see any other outcome sets a dangerous precedent for archives everywhere.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I would love (amongst other things!) a subs model to ScotlandsPeople - it would make a huge technical difference in fully exploring the context of record entries (e.g. reading through neighbouring census sheets) - but I want to see that as an expansion of NRS provision whose hard work and investment created the current system in the first place. Agree that provision at NRS would likely be hit a pathological blow by Ancestry forcing their way in. Let's hope NRS emerge victorious in the next round...
I preface the below by saying that this is appalling behaviour by Ancestry and I hope they lose big time.
ReplyDeleteThe Ancestry case is based on the Reuse of Public Sector Information regulation rather than Freedom of Information legislation. Different rules apply. It seems that the complaint was that NRS asserted that mass-provision of its data was not part of its public task - and that was what the GRC said was wrong. They made no ruling on whether NRS was right in exercising its discretion in saying No - that is a decision for the Scottish Information Commissioner (who has already said NRS was right).
That said,, the WDYTYA article lists the records Ancestry want, including
- Scottish parish baptism, marriage and burial records from 1538 to 1854
and
- Low Churches and Dissenters parish baptism (1746-1921), marriage (1746-1946) and burial (1746-1971) records.
These church records are explicitly excluded from the RoPSI regulations, under section 5.1b
"5.—(1) These Regulations do not apply to a document where ... (b)a third party owns relevant intellectual property rights in the document."
The records are owned by the churches, not the NRS, so the NRS has no legal right to hand over these documents even if they wanted to. This is also the reason why it took so long to get Kirk Session records online.
Then, even if NRS decides/is forced to deliver these records to Ancestry (and I'm far from convinced they will be), section 15 (7) and (8) are relevant:
"(7) In any case where paragraph (3)(c) applies, the total income of the public sector body from supplying and permitting re-use of documents over the appropriate accounting period must not exceed the aggregate of the amounts calculated in accordance with paragraph (8) for each document.
(8) For each document, the amount is the sum of—
(a)direct costs;
(b)a reasonable apportionment of indirect and overhead costs attributable to chargeable activity; and
(c)a reasonable return on investment."
Indirect costs can include loss of income (e.g. due to drop in Scotland's People revenues). So even if NRS is forced to supply the records, they can make it prohibitively expensive for Ancestry to obtain them.
TL;DR I really don't like what Ancestry are trying to do, and I'm not at all convinced they'll succeed in doing so.
Cheers Fergus
DeleteI am fully with NRS on this. No, they are not perfect, and yes, there are plenty of improvements they could make, but the notion that some huge foreign for-profit company thinks it has the right to cash in on the work done by the NRS over many years - even to the extent of causing its online platform, SP, to wither and die, is, frankly, disgusting.
ReplyDeleteHello from Canada. With 50% Scottish ancestry, I'm appalled at this. I only hope Ancestry loses this fight and i say that as a subscriber. Leave SP and the NRS alone, it works fine as it is.
ReplyDeleteAs a subscriber to both Ancestry and Scotland's People, I think it would be an absolute shame to see Ancestry win this situation. Scotland's People is an absolute gem for those of us doing Scottish research. It is great to be able to easily research many aspects -- births, marriages, deaths, census records, Old Parish Records -- for almost anyone. You can copy citation details, save searches, and save downloaded files onsite for future viewing and external use. Some of this information can be searched already through Ancestry, although the actual data cannot be downloaded. This is not really so necessary for those of us who also keep a copy of our family tree on a family tree program separate from Ancestry., and those of us who do use Scotland's People. SP needs to survive as an entity completely separate from the conglomerate Ancestry organization. People who do have their trees on Ancestry also use other programs to enhance their research. Keep Ancestry's hands off Scotland's People and the NRS.
ReplyDelete