Showing posts with label kile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kile. Show all posts

21 December 2012

Why No Index and Why You Can "Well Afford to Read the Book"

Orville Merton Kile said in 1958 what many genealogists would love to say today when he explained why his book lacked an index:

"Those who use the book as a part of the research for ancestors can well afford the relatively few hours necessary to read the entire book and gain a general picture of the family history and thus perhaps discover where they fit in. That would scarcely seem to be too much to ask as against the research of the writer extending over a ten year period..."

That quote and the image that follows come from page 171 of his "A Partial History of the Kyle, Kile, Coyle Family In America: With Some Scotch, Irish, And English Background."
Kile, Orville Merton, 1886-. A Partial History of the Kyle, Kile, Coyle Family In America: With Some Scotch, Irish, And English Background. Baltimore: Print. by Waverly Press, 1958.


For a discussion of how I can "get by" using this image and quote, see our earlier blog post, "Can I Use the 1958 Kile Genealogy and Unbecoming Genealogical Conduct."

Can I Use the 1958 Kile Genealogy and Unbecoming Genealogical Conduct


I love old genealogies--warts and all. 

While any compilation can contain errors, material written fifty or even one hundred years in the past can contain information not available elsewhere. The authors of these materials may have had access to individuals who are now deceased, original records that are no longer extant, and tombstones that have weathered beyond readability. A search of Hathitrust.org located a 1958 book on a family that I am researching.

In the case of this book, there were some images I wanted to use myself and perhaps publish them on my blog or in more traditional print media. However, I simply cannot just use material from a previously published book. One problem with these print materials is "how much and what can I use?" fairly. Another question is "is the material under copyright?" These questions are tied--with copyright dictating.

What Can I Use?

I'm pretty judicious in using someone else's material whether it is still under copyright or not.  I use one sentence and at most two--even if the copyright has expired. And I cite and give credit to the author--copyrighted material or not. All the time. No matter what. One or two sentences are small enough that "fair use" is likely to apply to those items that are still under copyright. If the item is not under copyright, I could use larger portions of it--still using citations because that's simply the aboveboard way to do things. If I wanted to quote a longer passage of material still in copyright, I would ask first

Because I usually like to put my own spin on things, I rarely need more than two sentences of someone else's work. It's the way I operate with my writing, is more ethical, and keeps me generating my own content. It also reduces the chance I get called on the carpet for using someone's material.

Is It Copyrighted?

I wanted to use some images from the 1958 genealogy and a really neat page from the back of the book--more than I have ever used from a book before. I would need permission from the author if the material was still under copyright. I used the copyright chart that appeared in a post on  Judy G. Russell's The Legal Genealogist ("Copyright and the Old Family Photo") as a guide to determining if the book I discovered was subject to copyright or not.  The book indicated it was privately published in 1958. Privately published is still published.  There was no copyright notice included in the book. Using the chart, I determined that the book in the public domain based upon the lack of a copyright notice and the year of publication.

Judy G. Russell of The Legal Genealogist and I had a brief email discussion about a book I had located in digital form. It never hurts to ask, but the chart and the book itself seemed to indicate my use would be ok.

Judy's response to my email on 20 December 2012, read in part:

"It has a very easy answer: anything published between 1923 and 1977 had to have a copyright notice. If it didn't include a copyright notice, then it didn't meet the formalities required for copyright protection and it would have gone into the public domain immediately on publication and would still be in the public domain today."

The fact that this book was immediately in the public domain had not dawned on me until I read Judy's email. 

Hathitrust also indicated that the book was in the public domain. It was good that they agreed with me, but just because they agreed with me does not mean that both of us have to be right. 

The Book?

Kile, Orville Merton, 1886-. A Partial History of the Kyle, Kile, Coyle Family In America: With Some Scotch, Irish, And English Background. Baltimore: Print. by Waverly Press, 1958.


That citation was the one generated by Hathitrust.org. The generation of citations is nice feature of the site even if the citations are not necessarily in Evidence Explained format. It contains all necessary details and, when necessary, I can tweak the citation.

The Title Page
The year of publication is given and there is no copyright notice. So, as noted earlier, I am in the clear to use material from this publication.

We'll be seeing an item or two from this book in future blog posts. I'll always cite anything taken from this book. To use, even out-of-copyright material without citation, is conduct unbecoming a genealogist.

And using copyrighted material without permission is even worse. 

28 November 2012

A Stray in 1810

An 1810 notice about a stray horse provides a few details about a relative.

Date: Saturday, March 3, 1810  


Paper: Supporter (Chillicothe, OH)--


obtained on 

     Genealogybank.com
"Taken up by James Kile, a sorrel colt with a star on his forehead and a snip on his nose, no brand perceivable, supposed to be two years old next spring, about twelve and a half hands high--appraised to 15 dollars, by John Kile and Joseph, Fleming, appraisers.

"I certify the above to be a true copy from my estray book.

Billingslea Bull, J.P."

Notice of the stray doesn't tell me too much,  but it does indicate that James Kile was living in Truro Township, Franklin County, Ohio, in January of 1810. A John Kile, who is his likely brother, was most reasonably living nearby. This could help me to establish a time from their migration and also tell me that both  men were apparent neighbors in 1810.

This is not proof that the men are brothers--actually one record is not proof of anything. It's not evidence that they are brothers either. It is evidence that James in living in Truro Township in 1810 and that  John is in the vicinity as well. Any proof of the relationship between the two men will come from analyzing all the evidence that there is revolving around the two men.

All that from a found horse.


14 July 2008

Headstones for Veterans Database at Ancestry.com


Juliana Smith at Ancestry.com's blog posted a "Tip from the Pros" from me that focused on databases (or books) that have titles that are not completely accurate. This card for a War of 1812 veteran appears in a Civil War database.
It pays to look around and browse, sometimes even if you think you are in the wrong place.
Those interested in the tip can view it on the Ancestry.com blog.
In this case, I think the stone is actually gone now. Fortunately the Greenmound cemetery in Keithsburg is far removed from the Mississippi River.

16 June 2008

1830 Census Handwriting

Does it look like Jas. Kyle to you?


Sometimes it is clear to see how names get misread. This 1830 Census entry for Monroe Township, Licking County, Ohio, was located by searching manually. There are still times when a manual search is necessary. Not every name is easily readable.

Ancestry.com indexed this as "Gs Hyles" and it is easy to see how that might have happened--particularly with the last name. However, I think this is actually meant to be Jas. Kyle. James is known to have lived in the township for several decades

31 October 2007

Leaving out the details on a death certificate


You have to love a death certificate like this one from Mercer County, Illinois. The place of birth for Sarah Smith is listed as "Franklin County." No state is given. One might think it is Franklin County, Illinois, but it is not. The actual county is in Ohio.
Sarah was actually the daughter of Archibald and Lucinda (Wickiser) Kile who migrated to Mercer County, Illinois in the late 1840s.

19 February 2007

Poor Farm, Girl Friends, Sisters, and who knows?

One of the most confusing families I have had to sort out has been the family of Philip and Sarah Kile Smith of Mercer County, Illinois. This couple lived in Keithsburg, Mercer County, Illinois from the 1870s until the early 1900s. The problem was that Philip also had a long-standing relationship with his wife Sarah's sister. Philip also had children with this sister-in-law, Nancy Kile.

Part of locating information on this family hinged on local poor farm records from when the family was institutionalized in the 1870s. An article explaining more about our search for this family and the importance of not jumping to conclusions and not immediately performing data entry has been posted on our site.

Every genealogy should have at least one Smith line. It makes things interesting.