Thursday, April 26, 2012 didn't mean to exclude professional genealogists

Apparently the Terms and Conditions statement at was part of last night's APG (Association of Professional Genealogists) webinar featuring The Legal Genealogist blog author Judy G. Russell. Ol' Myrt here first became aware of the concerns expressed last evening through Marian Pierre-Louis' Restricts Access to Website blog post where she describes the policy restriction limiting the use of's site for "personal research". This would seem to have excluded professional genealogists who would use the site on behalf of clients seeking to know more of their heritage.

Looks like Thomas MacEntee of High-Definition Genealogy and and Marian Pierre-Louis' requests for clarification were met swiftly by (Bravo to all involved!) Here is the official word, including a link to the revised statement.

Date: Thu, April 26, 2012 2:17 pm
From: Matthew Deighton Public Relations
Good morning,
In a recent update, the Terms and Conditions excluded “or professional” as part of the terms of service. This change was in no way intended to exclude professional genealogists from using in a business or professional setting. Our legal team has reviewed the statement and has reinstated the original text to include “or professional” into’s Terms and Conditions. We apologize for any misunderstanding. The statement is now updated and reads as follows:

“You may access the Website, use the graphics, information, data, editorial and other Content only for personal or professional family history research, and download Content only as search results relevant to that research.”     

Happy family tree climbing!
Myrt     :)
Your friend in genealogy.

Twitter: @DearMYRTLE
G+: +Pat Richley-Erickson
Second Life: Clarise Beaumont 


  1. So if we charge somebody it's OK but if we do it as a favor it's not? Still confused.

  2. I think "thanks" is enough payment in that case, Randy. :>

  3. Thank you for helping to spread this important clarification. I was on the webinar last night and this portion of the discussion really caught my attention. Especially in light of Ancestry acquiring Archive and possibly further narrowing our professional repositories.

  4. Thanks for getting this clarification out to us so quickly. I was really wondering what the heck ancestry was thinking--glad is was apparently nothing at all.