Privacy and online family history

 

I may use AI, specifically Google Gemini, to assist me in research, composition, and editing of my blog post; however, the ideas and content of this blog are my own. 

One of the first things you should know about genealogy is that dead people do not have any rights to privacy. One legal example is the case of Mrs. Alline E. Cordell, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Detective Publications, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969). That case held the following:

The courts are virtually unanimous in ruling that incidental mention of a plaintiff in a suit brought for the invasion of a relative's privacy is not an actionable tort. Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal. 2d 315, 323-324, 239 P.2d 876 (1952); Metter v. Los Angeles Examiner, 35 Cal. App. 2d 304, 310-311, 95 P.2d 491 (1939); James v. Screen Gems, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653, 344 P.2d 799 (1959); Bradley v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 26 Ill.App. 2d 331, 333, 336, 168 N.E.2d 64 (1960); Carlson v. Dell Pub. Co., 65 Ill.App.2d 209, 213 N.E.2d 39 (1965); Kelley v. Post Pub. Co., 327 Mass. 275, 278, 98 N.E.2d 286 (1951); see Milner v. Red River Valley Pub. Co., 249 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). Cf. Annerino v. Dell Pub. Co., 17 Ill.App.2d 205, 210, 149 N.E.2d 761 (1958) (case not dismissed because defendant published a photograph of the plaintiff, wife of the decedent against whom the complaint focused its attack).

The Court also states:

As the District Court found, this is a case of an alleged unauthorized public disclosure of private matters. Certain limitations have almost universally been imposed on this kind of tort. Prosser, Torts, § 112, at 843 (3d ed. 1964). The cause of action is regarded as purely personal, and only the person about whom facts have unauthorizedly been published may recover.  Consequently, the right lapses with the death of the person who enjoyed it,  and one cannot recover for this kind of invasion of the privacy of a relative, no matter how close the relationship.

Over the years, certain exceptions to the no privacy after death rulings have been made for commercial, medical, and digital estates. Here are three examples of statutory exceptions carving out parts of the general rule:

Codification of Post-Mortem Rights of Publicity (Property vs. Privacy)

At the time of Cordell, appropriation was still viewed primarily as a personal privacy tort that expired at death. Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s:

• The right to control the commercial use of one's name, likeness, image, and voice was decoupled from personal privacy and reclassified as a transferable property right.
• Over 25 states enacted dedicated post-mortem right-of-publicity statutes (such as California's Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act and Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act) that allow heirs and estates to enforce commercial likeness protections for decades after death.

Statutory Medical Privacy (HIPAA Omnibus Rule)

Prior to federal health privacy rules, hospital records of the deceased were governed haphazardly by state law.

• Under the 2013 HIPAA Omnibus Rule (45 C.F.R. § 164.502(f)), a decedent’s protected health information (PHI) remains subject to federal privacy protections for 50 years following their death.

Digital Estate Laws (RUFADAA)

Because the common law in 1969 did not envision digital identities, cloud data, or online accounts, the Uniform Law Commission introduced the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) in 2015.

• Adopted in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, RUFADAA prevents estates and fiduciaries from automatically accessing private digital communications (emails, direct messages) unless the decedent explicitly granted consent in an estate planning instrument or via an online legacy setting.

What this means for genealogists is that an unhealthy attitude toward privacy risks work being permanently lost upon their death. Even more importantly, excessive privacy restrictions often mean researchers spend years duplicating work that others have already completed. We share our genealogy for the simple reason that we share a common ancestry with all our cousins. 

Understanding FamilySearch.org's User-Owned Trees

 

https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/genealogies/

This blog post is basically a transcription of my online class for Sunday, 30 August 2026 from the BYU Library Family History Center. The narrative audio transcription has been edited by Google Gemini. The video recording of the class will be available on the BYU Library Family History Center YouTube Channel.

A major structural shift is taking place at FamilySearch.org and while it has been quietly in development for several years, its full implementation fundamentally changes how individual researchers and genealogical societies can manage their lineage data. For years, the centerpiece of the platform has been the shared FamilySearch Family Tree; single, massive, collaborative universal tree. The collaborative model has clear strengths, but every seasoned researcher knows the immense frustration of returning to a painstakingly documented ancestral line only to find that an inexperienced user has merged individuals incorrectly, altered vital conclusions, or stripped away hard-earned documentation. While safeguards continue to improve on the shared tree, FamilySearch has now rolled out a long-awaited alternative: User-Owned Trees.

The Evolution from CET to User Trees

During its testing and beta phases over the past four to five years, this initiative was developed under the working title of "Controlled Edit Trees," or CET. If you search online discussions or older forums, you will still see the CET acronym used frequently. However, the official designation adopted by FamilySearch is simply User Trees. The defining principle behind a User Tree is ownership and control. Unlike the open, shared Family Tree where any registered user can modify deceased individuals, a User Tree belongs entirely to the creator or designated managing entity. You decide who has permission to view, edit, or contribute. In practical terms, it functions much like hosting an individual pedigree database on desktop software such as RootsMagic, or maintaining an individual tree on platforms like Ancestry or MyHeritage. This is not only a welcome development for individual genealogists seeking to safeguard complex research; it also provides genealogical societies, lineage organizations, and family associations a stable environment to publish and preserve curated lineages without the risk of arbitrary public alterations.

Beyond the Static Files of the Past

Having multiple trees hosted on FamilySearch is not a new concept. Long before the universal Family Tree, the platform hosted millions of records across static compilations accessible under the FamilySearch Genealogies Collections such as the Ancestral File and the Pedigree Resource File (PRF) served as digital repositories for decades. The Ancestral File represented early static lineage submissions to the Genealogical Society of Utah, while the Pedigree Resource File allowed researchers to upload GEDCOM files. The major limitation of these legacy collections was their immobility: once submitted, they were frozen snapshots in time. Correcting an error required compiling and uploading an entirely new GEDCOM, leaving old, outdated submissions perpetually preserved in search results alongside corrected ones. User Trees modernize this infrastructure into a dynamic, manageable system. Rather than uploading static dead-end snapshots, you can now curate, correct, and update your lineage in place while retaining complete administrative authority.

Integration with Full-Text Search and Modern Discovery

This shift coincides with a much broader transformation of FamilySearch's underlying search engine. With the expansion of AI-driven Full-Text Search and features tested through FamilySearch Labs, the way documents and trees are indexed is moving away from rigid, pre-extracted summary indexes toward deep textual search across entire record repositories. Under new aggregated search tools, records and lineages uploaded across user trees and genealogical databases are indexed so that researchers across the globe can still discover connections to deceased individuals without compromising the integrity of your master tree. Deceased ancestral profiles remain discoverable, yet the authority to modify the underlying data rests strictly in your hands.

Accessing and Managing Your User Tree

Because FamilySearch has designed this feature to coexist alongside the shared tree rather than replace it, you will not find a prominent banner on the main landing page. Accessing the interface requires navigating through the search hierarchy:

1. Log in to FamilySearch.og and select the Search menu from the top navigation bar.

2. Click on Genealogies.

3. On the Genealogies landing page, scroll past the search fields down into the lower section of the page, where you will find the prompt to manage and upload your individual family tree.

From there, you can import a standard GEDCOM file exported from your primary genealogy software or build your line directly within the interface.

A Note on Virtual Classes and Moving Forward

This discussion formed the focus of my final live Sunday class presentation for the BYU Library Family History Center. The library is refocusing its instructional resources toward in-person student services, meaning live webinar broadcasts and virtual Sunday classes are concluding. Past class recordings, handouts, and webinars remain fully archived and accessible through the BYU Library Family History Center learning portal and the library’s YouTube channel. I will continue sharing regular research strategies, evidentiary analyses, and technological updates directly here on Genealogy's Star and across our ongoing educational channels.

If you have held off on integrating your work with FamilySearch out of concern over unauthorized merges or overwritten evidence, take a serious look at User Trees. They offer the archival reach of FamilySearch while keeping evidentiary control firmly where it belongs: with the researcher.

Should You Use AI to Repair or Enhance Old Photos

 One of the strange quirks of fate is that I have inherited thousands of old photos. The majority are unidentified. I guess my relatives decided they couldn't identify the people either, and I was a willing recipient of the whole pile. About 4,500 of the original photos came from my great-grandmother, Margaret Godfrey Jarvis Overson. She was a professional photographer, as was her father. Her collection went to the University of Arizona Special Collections Library in Tucson, Arizona (see Overson Family Photograph Collection). There are also about 1,000 of these photos online on FamilySearch.org. (see Margaret Godfrey Jarvis Memories).

The old photos are all in the public domain. 

I am also a professional photographer, though not as active as I have been in the past. See my Walking Arizona blog, where I have just over 5,000 photos online.

Now what about using AI to repair or enhance some of these old photos? You can see that the photo above has several problems. The photo is torn and has a significant crack or line. Parts of the photo are obscured, and the boy's faces are washed out with little detail. The first issue is AI itself. AI does not repair or enhance the photos. It takes the original photo and regenerates or generates a similar copy, only with the additional information that it's missing from the original photograph. Here is a simple example of Google Gemini's Nano Banana's enhancement effort for this photo with a simple prompt to repair and enhance. 

There are a few differences between this "enhanced" photo including parts of the photo that were missing have been restored, and the photo has been cropped slightly, apparently across the bottom. Most people would agree that it is an improvement over the original photo.

However, for historical purposes, it is not the original photo. What happens if I use a very developed, specific prompt giving instructions to Gemini about the actions it should take with regards to this old photo? 

Here is the prompt that I am going to use: 

Act as a master photographic conservator and senior digital restoration specialist specializing in archival preservation and Adobe Photoshop. Your objective is to analyze a historical photograph and generate an actionable, surgical digital restoration plan that prioritizes ethical conservation over cosmetic recreation.

### Core Guiding Principle

Adhere strictly to the Principle of Minimal Intervention: repair only what is compromised to stabilize the image, leaving 100% of authentic original detail, paper texture, and natural film grain intact. Never recommend global blurs, aggressive noise reduction, automated AI over-smoothing, or destructive layer merges.

---

### Step-by-Step Assessment & Repair Workflow

1. Medium & Baseline Analysis

   - Identify or estimate the photographic process (e.g., Daguerreotype, Tintype, Albumen, Gelatin Silver, Cyanotype) and approximate era.

   - Catalog critical intact elements (e.g., facial feature micro-details, authentic paper grain, midtone density) that must be strictly protected from alteration.

2. Damage Inventory & Categorization

   Map the damage across three distinct categories:

   - Structural Defects: Cracks, tears, missing emulsion/substrate, fold creases, punctures.

   - Chemical & Surface Deterioration: Silver mirroring, foxing/mold, water stains, fading, chemical discoloration.

   - Optical / Scanning Artifacts: Dust, scratch lines, scanner glare, sensor noise.

3. Non-Destructive Photoshop Layer Architecture

   Provide an explicit, bottom-to-top Photoshop workflow organized into dedicated layer groups:

   - Group 1: Base & Registration (Locked original capture layer, working duplicate, reference guides).

   - Group 2: Structural Repairs (Sample All Layers healing/cloning, custom texture patching, brush modes).

   - Group 3: Texture & Surface Cleanup (Frequency Separation: High/Low parameters, localized Clone Stamp / Healing Brush settings, blend modes).

   - Group 4: Density & Contrast Correction (Targeted Curves adjustment layers, localized Black & White/Channel Mixer adjustments, Luminosity masks).

4. Surgical Tool Specification Table

   Present a structured table mapping each damaged area to its precise repair method:

   | Location / Feature | Damage Type | Photoshop Tool / Technique | Layer Settings & Blending Mode | Preservation Constraint |

   |---|---|---|---|---|

   | [e.g., Subject's cheek] | [Scratch] | [Spot Healing (Proximity Match)] | [Dedicated Blank Layer, Sample All Layers] | [Avoid adjacent pore texture loss] |

5. Quality Control & Verification Protocol

   - Specify a "Difference Mode" or toggle-check inspection routine to verify that zero alterations have spilled into undamaged zones.

 The advantage of using the prompt is that more of the original photo is preserved, and there are no apparent additions other than the original photo's missing areas  

But I suspect that those people who are using AI to enhance photos would be expecting something completely different from of this photo "restoration."  My long, specific prompt would not do the changes. It explained in great detail the reason why the changes could not be made for historical reasons.  if I go back to ignoring the specialized prompt, and simply give some additional details to the photo, outlining the changes needed to the first copy of the photo you might get something like this:

 My prompt consisted of the phrase, "Take out the large crack, take out the dark spots all over the photo, and enhance the background." I think that most people would agree that this was a better enhancement of the photo, but any connection to the historical, original photo has been almost completely severed.  the background has been completely changed. Details have been added, especially to the floor and the faces.  my guess is that as long as this technology is available, it will be used by most people, including most genealogists, to enhance their photos, especially very damaged photos like the one I use here as an example. 

The most important issue is ensuring that the original photograph is preserved—both as a physical artifact and as an unedited digital representation. Whenever an enhanced version is shared online, it should be clearly marked as AI-enhanced, with the original copy provided alongside it.

As a quick note, none of the photos I put up on FamilySearch have been enhanced or changed in any way by AI.

Why I Use Google Gemini to Help with Writing my Blog Posts

 

What I have learned over the past years is that I have a tendency to skip words and misspell a lot of words. Even when I proofread my documents, for some built-in reason I cannot see the errors. For many years, I have been relying on spell checkers and grammar checkers to correct what I say. However, with Google Gemini, I can take this assistance to a much higher level. Because my typing ability is degenerating over time, I also have moved to dictating with voice transcription almost everything I write. However, this causes a problem because the way I speak is more colloquial and not as polished as my writing should be. Here is an example. I dictated the above sentence using Wispr Flow. Now I am going to ask my Gemini assistant to review my paragraph for spelling and grammar and accuracy. Here is the product of my prompt. 

Over the decades I have spent researching, writing, and teaching, the physical mechanics of how we get our thoughts onto the page have changed dramatically. We have moved from typewriters and carbon paper to word processors, and now to advanced digital workspaces. Along the way, our physical limitations and habits inevitably catch up with us. Over the years, I have noticed a persistent tendency in my own work to skip words or misspell terms, and even during a careful self-proofreading pass, the mind often sees what it intended to write rather than what is actually on the screen. For a long time, standard spell checkers and basic grammar tools offered a helpful safety net, but they were limited to rigid dictionary lookups and simplistic syntax rules that frequently missed the real context of a thought.

As typing becomes more physically demanding over time, adapting our workflow is essential rather than optional. Moving toward voice dictation tools like Wispr Flow has transformed how quickly and easily I can capture ideas, but speaking naturally introduces a distinct set of challenges. Spoken language is inherently colloquial, full of conversational shortcuts, loose phrasing, and informal cadence that does not always translate cleanly into the polished, structured prose required for published research, case studies, or instructional articles. Dictation solves the mechanical problem of typing, but it leaves the editing and refinement stage wide open.

This is precisely where modern artificial intelligence tools like Google Gemini provide practical value. Rather than functioning merely as an aggressive red pen, an AI assistant can be used as a sophisticated editorial partner that bridges the gap between raw, dictated speech and coherent written analysis. When you feed a spoken draft into a language model and ask for an evaluation of spelling, grammar, clarity, and structural flow, it evaluates the passage in full context. It identifies dropped words, straightens out winding colloquial sentences, and flags ambiguous phrasing without stripping away the writer’s original meaning.

However, utilizing an AI assistant in your writing workflow requires the same discipline we apply to documentary evidence: trust, but verify. These tools are assistants, not substitutes for critical thinking. When reviewing the output generated from a prompt, you must read the suggestions critically, ensuring that the tool has preserved your authentic perspective and has not introduced unintended distortions or hallucinations. Use voice transcription to get your thoughts down freely without physical strain, leverage AI to refine and polish the mechanics, and always give the final piece a rigorous manual review before sharing your work.

Yes, this is what was written from what I dictated in my first paragraph. Here is a copy of the prompt that I used. 

# Role & Persona

You are an expert genealogy educator, researcher, and tech columnist writing in the authentic, authoritative, and practical first-person narrative voice of James Tanner from *Genealogy’s Star* (https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/).

# Core Philosophy & Tone

* **Voice:** Practical, direct, experienced, tech-forward, and encouraging yet realistic. Avoid hype, fluff, marketing jargon, and sensationalism.

* **The Core Bridge:** Emphasize sound evidentiary methodology (original source records, careful citation, critical evaluation) while embracing modern digital and AI tools as aids—never substitutes—for sound research.

* **Format & Style:** 

  * Write in an essay/narrative style with smooth paragraph transitions.

  * Avoid fragmented listicles, excessive bold topic headers, or artificial corporate section titles.

  * Write with the perspective of someone who has spent decades in libraries, archives, and digital repositories, understanding both the pitfalls beginners face and the nuances advanced researchers care about.

# Task

Write a comprehensive, engaging blog post based on the source link(s) or summary provided below.

# Article Architecture

1. **Contextual Lead:** Open with a thoughtful reflection on how the technological or methodological landscape in genealogy is evolving.

2. **The Core Topic/Tool:** Introduce the specific tool, dataset, platform update, or methodology found in the source material.

3. **Practical Application & Analysis:** Discuss how researchers should practically use it, highlighting both its strengths and where it requires caution (e.g., verifying against original documents, avoiding common assumptions).

4. **Conclusion/Takeaway:** Conclude with practical advice on what the reader should do next in their own research.

# Input Data 

[PASTE YOUR LINKS, NOTES, OR SOURCE TEXT HERE] 

This is a third-generation prompt, meaning that I had an initial draft. I had Gemini critique it and rewrite it, and then critique it and rewrite it again.   you might notice, but it does right in my style.  reviewing the rewrite from Gemini, I find very little to criticize or change.  this is, of course, the time necessary to review it, read it carefully, and make any changes I think are necessary.

in any event, I use the following as a notice that what I have written has been reviewed or altered by Gemini. 

The content of this blog post has been reviewed  for accuracy and content by Google Gemini.

Legacy Family Tree Webinars introduces Learning Paths

Read the full announcement on the Legacy Family Tree Blog

Over the years, I have given a number of presentations for Legacy Family Tree Webinars. They have a family tree webinars section with an extensive number of high-quality presentations. It has increased its global influence by becoming part of MyHeritage.com. 

With a library now exceeding 2,700 genealogy webinars, finding a specific entry point or structured educational sequence on Legacy Family Tree Webinars has presented a logistical challenge for many researchers. To address the sheer volume of available content, the platform has introduced a new organizational tool called Learning Paths.

Designed to function as short, focused courses, Learning Paths consolidate three to six related webinars into a logically sequenced curriculum. The initial rollout includes over 100 pre-created paths organized by subject matter. The curated sequences guide researchers from foundational concepts—such as beginning family history and understanding DNA estimates—to advanced applications like resolving conflicting evidence or incorporating artificial intelligence into a research workflow.

To streamline navigation, the paths are categorized by experience level, methodology, historical record types, and specific geographic regions, including various U.S. states, Canadian provinces, and European countries.

Beyond the pre-constructed options, the platform also offers a custom building tool. The "Build Your Own Learning Path" feature allows users to select any webinars from the broader catalog and organize them into personalized study plans. A highly practical function of this tool is its shareability. Genealogists can distribute their custom-curated lists to local genealogical societies, special interest groups, or family members, facilitating collaborative learning or guiding relatives through introductory topics.

The new feature includes an integrated progress tracker to help users manage their viewing history and resume their studies efficiently. Upon completing a path, the system generates a printable certificate of completion.

Enrolling in the paths, utilizing the custom builder, tracking progress, and generating certificates are available at no cost to all users. However, access to the video content itself continues to follow the site's existing model: webinars designated as free remain accessible to the public, while viewing any members-only videos within a path requires an active Webinar Membership.

See this presentation also: Introducing Learning Paths at Legacy Family Tree Webinars

This post was created, in part, with assistance from Google Gemini.

Introduction to the FamilySearch Help Center

 

https://youtu.be/StO6PCVtEpw?si=mL1IINrl1MlqDKr6

Navigating a platform as expansive as FamilySearch can feel daunting, but the built-in Help Center is designed to guide researchers through every stage of their family history journey. In this instructional presentation from the BYU Library Family History Center, I provide a clear, comprehensive walkthrough of the Help Center’s vast features and resources. Viewers will discover how to access self-paced learning modules, search thousands of instructional articles, and utilize tailored research pathways designed for both beginners and seasoned genealogists.  

Beyond basic search tools, this video explores deeper support layers, including the Learning Center’s country-specific research guides, technical skill lessons, and the interactive FamilySearch Community. Tanner also outlines key support avenues—such as specialized helper tools for consultants and direct contact options with FamilySearch specialists—giving you the skills and confidence to solve tricky genealogical problems and make continuous progress on your family tree. 

The BYU Library Family History Center classes will be discontinued after August 30, 2026. The videos here on YouTube and on youtube.com will remain active for an unspecified period of time. For more rare information, see the link below. 

https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/online-learning-update

You can view my own YouTube channel using the link on Genealogy's Star Blog, this blog.

As noted on the video itself, some of the images in this video were AI-generated. Additionally, I use AI for drafting, spell-checking, and conciseness for some parts of my blog. 

BYU Library Family History Center Sunday Classes and Webinars Discontinued

 

https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/online-learning-update

Yes, this says exactly what it means. The Sunday classes and webinars during the week are now canceled. I suggest you click on the above link and read the entire statement. The statement contains links to the following: 

• Kathryn Grant: Goldenrod Genealogy (https://www.goldenrodgenealogy.com)
• James Tanner: Genealogy's Star (https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com)

When you read this blog, you should now see a link to my YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/@jamestanner45

If you need to talk to me directly, I suggest we use the BYU Library Family History Center Virtual Help Desk. This gives us unlimited time to speak in a breakout room and also for me to talk to a number of people at the same time. You can make an appointment by contacting the library or contacting me directly at genealogyarizona@gmail.com This address has been genealogyarizona@gmail.com for many years, and I have passed out thousands of cards with the email address. 

Please click on the library's explanation link above and check out my YouTube Channel.

Thanks for you patience in this change.