PGM Remove parents of Thomas Griggs (1585 - 1646)

+5 votes

PGM team and other interested parties - should we remove the parents of Thomas Griggs (1585 - 1646)? I found this profile unsourced today and decided to add a biography. Really nothing is know about his affiliations origins or age. Minot Pittman did a masterful job on his Griggs article in NEHGR and no one has ever been able to find anything conclusive since this was written:

Minot Pitman, “Early Griggs Families of Massachusetts,” in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, July 1969) Vol 123 p 169-73

“It is suggested by J. W. Linzee, Jr., in his Ancestors and Descendants of Peter Parker and Sarah Ruggles, 1913, p. 475, that Thomas was a son of John and Martha Griggs of Boxted, Co. Suffolk, England born in 1585 whose ancestral chart is reproduced on page 475 from Joseph James Muskett’s Suffolk Manorial Families (1900), 1:265. However, there seems to be no proof whatever of the identity of the two Thomases. It might equally well be claimed that George son of John and Martha Griggs of Boxted, given in the same chart as born in 1595, was the George, subject of the first part of this article. The age very nearly corresponds. The latter George, however is given in the shipping list as of Landon, Bucks. A search of the wills or estates of John and Martha Griggs of Boxted might reveal the validity or falseness of either or both of these assumptions. “Clarence Bowen in his History of Woodstock, vol. 6, states that this Thomas Griggs was born in 1603 (which might well be) and that he came to New England in 1635. He claims also that Thomas’ first wife was Grace Wells (not Mary _____). This writer has been unable to determine the source of such statements, but, because much of Bowen’s account of the Griggs families is erroneous, not much reliance can be placed on any of the statements about the Griggs families.” Pitman, “Early Griggs Families,”

I think what he wrote is so well stated that I can't top it so I thought it would be fair use to quote this one section with a footnote and attribution. 

The profile is here:


Thanks for your opinions! 



WikiTree profile: Thomas Griggs
in Genealogy Help by Living Baker G2G6 Mach 3 (39.8k points)
Looks good Roland.
Looks like the parents have been disconnected. I recommend you link to them in the disputed origins section and also place a note on their profiles that there is no proof they are parents of this man (and link to him). Great work!
That's a good idea - I liked the old profiles in the disputed parents section.
Roland, sorry I didnt see it, but do now.

I see you moved the Disputed Origins down again. The reason PGM likes it at the top of the profile is because of the likelihood of duplicates being created. We want people to see that right away.

But then, I'm no longer leader of PGM, so perhaps you should get the opinion of the current leaders. ;-)
Thanks for the tip! I did not know that disputed origins should be on top. So I just moved it to the top above == Biography ==

2 Answers

+2 votes
We are griggs in tasmania australia and are unaware of any american relatives (not that we've been looking that way- till now) ours emigrated to the huon in tas during the convict times and either son but more likely grandson marries daisy lila oates who was charles oates snrs grandaughterher Her father was henry and they were from the grove tas There is a partially completed tree on heritage aust and geni if you can access it ? I have no idea I'm not very good at this stuff or if this will even go where i want it to
by Penny Griggs G2G Rookie (260 points)
Interesting! I have no idea if they have any relationship to the Griggs families in New England. We can't even figure out if or how the various New England Griggs are related.
0 votes
I'm not a lawyer or a rep for NEHGS, but, as a suggestion to protect wikitree, you may want to make contact with NEHGS regarding permission to use copyrighted material, due to the amount (2 full paragraphs) of copyrighted text that appears in the profile.
by Bruce Veazie G2G6 Mach 5 (57.8k points)
Really? I consider myself one of the most paranoid about copyright violations and I consider this fair use under copyright law. We're using less than a page putting it in quotes and citing the source and giving a link to the source.

Does anyone else think this is a violation? If so we can re-write it easily enough. We do need to respect copyrights but copyright holders also have to respect fair use.
I see one paragraph; it's quoted and cited. I think that's okay.

Roland, can you add the parents back in under "Disputed Origins"? Thanks. (PGM uses "Disputed Origins" not "Disputed Parents"... just wanting us to be consistent.)
I changed "Parents" to "Origins." I'll try to remember to do that next time.

The parents are already linked in the first sentence of the quoted text. Is that too subtle? Should I bullet point the links separately instead So they stand out?

Though this example of the use of copyrighted material doesn't appear to be extensive, certainly compared to other instances here on wikitree, I would urge people to avoid making statements implying that quotation and citation are major factors in fair use. Others may read that and believe it.

If one googles for "fair use of copyrighted material," many of the results don't even mention citation. Some mention citation as "other" consideration, e.g., as a defense against plagiarism, not in defense of fair use. A lot of the information puts "intended" use (or similar), in context of commercial vs non-profit use, at the top of the list. Few people mention that aspect. And Wikitree is NOT a non-profit organization.

Just wanted to provide an alternate view of "fair use."

Those are points well taken Bruce!

The best way to understand copyright is to

1)  Read about it on for example:

More information on Fair Use:

2) Review the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts here:

Trying to define a set of rigid rules about how much you can copy and paste and if the use is commercial or not is fairly useless in my opinion. What is important is to determine what the goal of fair use is under the law as defined by the latest court rulings. Even if you are a for profit entity fair use applies. Is the new work “transformative?” creative expression? Does it affect the market of the original author? Etc. Are you taking the “heart of the work” thus rendering the original work less meaningful or profitable?

The “less than one page” rule of thumb came from Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, in which it was found that 400 words i.e. one page was enough to qualify as copyright infringement because the one page contained “the heart of the work.” That’s where that started. The courts have never found copyright infringement for less than a page. But the key isn’t the amount so much as are you stealing the author’s thunder? Some quotes longer than a page are OK if they are not the heart of the work. But I never post anything longer than one sentence to two paragraphs max and never the “heart of the work.

The second thing is are we creating something new? Yes, we are. For example I can post a very long section of a journal and if I criticize the author I have created something new and expressed myself freely. That is a proper use – even for a commercial entity. Or alternately am I creating a new work that encompasses a much bigger subject and the quote is just one data point within that new creation? Is it for education use? Those things are important even for “for profit” websites. Does our work advance knowledge through the addition of something new? Or are our works just a substitute for the original work? That’s really key.

The last point about the citation rule comes from the idea of rendering the original work less meaningful or profitable. If you post a snippet and point to the author’s work it may actually be helpful to the market of that work. So that is important to fair use. Judge Leval said that giving the name of the author, etc. can help. You want to promote the author’s market. But what you said above is correct. This is not the key to the whole thing but it is one *small* piece that should always be done so you can pass the hurdle of showing that you are not taking their market away.

What we want to avoid is taking an article and basically posting it as the profile biography in so many words even if paraphrased and not quoted exactly! The quotes need to be part of a new and much larger argument that’s of educational value with the quote being one piece of supporting evidence.

That's my opinion not legal advice - I am not a lawyer :)

But I think your point is on target. Citing the source doesn't make it fair use by itself.

Related questions

+5 votes
2 answers
0 votes
2 answers
0 votes
1 answer
67 views asked Apr 5, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Helen Griggs G2G Crew (530 points)
+4 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
4 answers
174 views asked Oct 16, 2017 in Genealogy Help by anonymous G2G Crew (370 points)
+1 vote
2 answers
175 views asked Apr 21, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Stacy Griggs G2G Rookie (190 points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright