I have an account on Findagrave.com, a free site that documents cemeteries and whose buried in them. It's an addictive site, for me at least, reading about the history of people, seeing cool photos of headstones. The members take the photos and supply the content. It's been around a long time, and it's very popular. So popular that it now has findagrave groupies, volunteers, and rule Nazis. Generally, your average family history hobbyist or cemetery aficionado will create a memorial, and then maybe upload a photo of a headstone. And then generally, that person will say something to the affect of, "enjoy the photo, feel free to use it as you please." These are generous people. But the obsessive compulsive rule Nazis have a different view. Their precious photos are copyrighted. Now I could go into all the definitions of copyright, what it is and what it isn't, I could even go through the rules and regulations of all the websites on the internet regarding photography. I could even explain how making copies of dvd's and selling them is a federal offence. And in my business, just plain stealing. Sure, I could do this. That's someones art, let's protect it, by all means necessary. But let's be completely honest here Mr. and Mrs. Rule Nazi. It's a fucking picture of a rock with some writing on it. You took it to document a life. A cemetery. To help others, possibly the descendants of this person, discover valuable information. You were not creating art here. You were documenting existing information. On a website created to document as many cemeteries as possible. Stamping your name on a photo with some words about copyright makes you look like a fool. A self important fool. It's tantamount to suing your friend because they shared the story of your morning dream with Maggie over at the Tasty Freeze. And really, if you are seriously going to copyright that photo of Col. Clink's footstone, at least use modern day equipment, composition, and lighting. When I can see twenty-five headstones in the background, all in focus, but I can't read the death date of poor aunt Harriet who died of loneliness... what's the point of taking the photo.
Francis West marries Margery Reeves in early 1639 in Duxbury. She is said to be from England, the Isle of Wright specifically. But there's no proof. Early writings about her say she may have come over as a servant of some family, as an unattached woman in the Colony would be unheard of. Additionally, in one writing, Carlton Prince West goes on to say, "no Reeves family, including the possible variants of Reaves and Rives, has been found in the area of southeastern Massachusetts." So she cannot be placed. But I'm confused. It's clear there is another Reaves family (different spelling) living very close by to our Francis and Margery. Not only that, but this other Reaves family has a daughter named Mary Margaret Reaves that marries James Skiffe in 1637 in Sandwich, Plymouth Colony. Though I guess this is suspect too, as Sandwich doesn't appear to be settled until 1639. But what's a few years in early American history? So this James ...
Comments
Post a Comment