Martin, by not copyrighted, I mean that I'm not a published author, but I do realise that I am a published author of sorts when I post something on the internet. However, as I don't derive any income from writing professionally, certainly not on wikitree, I don't have a problem with being plagiarised if all that happens is that my ancestors story is told accurately. I am more unhappy if someone else changes my words in a way that I don't like, as I only write biography's of people such as my grandparents as I have the best first hand knowledge of their lives. If I don't do a biography I'll use links. In Australia I think most litigation is centred around lose of income above other considerations, although I am not a lawyer nor have I sued anyone.
Having said what I have about wikitree, I have received royalties for music and lyrics I have written that have been copyrighted works. If someone were to breach my copyright and I could show loss of earnings as a result of this breach, then I could sue them. If someone performs or reproduces these works then I receive royalties from them. In Australia I also get royalties paid to me out of a royalties fund for performing my own music publicly, the venues have to pay into the fund on behalf of their punters hearing live copyrighted music even when it is being performed by the owner. The listener always pays even if they aren't aware of it.
So my points of view revolve around loss of income. It seems like the main gripe in this thread are to do with ethical issues. And that's fair enough for me if that's the way you feel.
The only big problem I have with ancestry type websites is that a photo of my great grandfather Richard Forrest has been lifted, it is a portrait photo of him wearing his Aussie WW1 issued slouch hat, a very iconic and proud thing to us Aussie's, well that image has been lifted from his Australian Army records. Obviously someone else has an ancestor with the same name and despite whether their relative went to WW1 or not, they think he did and have attached themselves to my great grandfathers record believing it's their Richard Forrest.
Eventually, I will join that particular site and my plan is to let them get emotionally attached to the image, and its a very iconic image of a very handsome family man who never came home, and then present their family with my grandfather's entry in a book called 'the 849' about the 849 men killed in WW1 that never returned to their home town of Fremantle where I still live. His entry is basically a professionally penned biography combining his war records and information and family photos supplied by me. The portrait photo was supplied by army with his records, it's sort of like his WW1 mug shot.
I use a link to this very same biography because the author has loaded a digital version of the book online.
I plan to post this link which includes said photo plus other family portraits combined with his biography which includes both his families story and his war records all in one undeniable package, post that on the other Richard Forrest's profile, and without prior written notice or warning they loose the image of their Richard Forrest and any emotional attachment is unceremonially torn from their hearts, as this link is undeniable evidence of who Richard Forrest and his family were, from his birth to his death.
Geez I sound like a psycho, it must be from that royal dna I ironically inherited from both Richard Forrest and his wife Lyla Leyshon, probably Lyla as her line runs through Scotland and the black Douglas James Douglas etc.
Maybe I should just invite them to a family dinner ..