Proposed Changes to New Zealand BDMs

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:59 pm

Changes to New Zealand BDMs

On 25 January 2009, the NZ Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Act came into force. One of the results of this is that it is no longer possible to purchase NZ BDM indexes. Instead, they intend to make the indexes available online with additional information that was not available on the microfiche indexes. The online indexes will cover births that occurred at least 100 years ago, marriages at least 80 years ago and deaths that occurred at least 50 years ago or for people who were born more than 80 years ago. A date for providing online access has not yet been advised nor is there any information available as to whether this will be a free or fee based service.

Another item from the Act that will affect genealogists is that from 25 January it has become an offence for anyone to publish index information unless it falls into the 'historical' categories mentioned above, is about themselves or they have permission of the person for it to be published. This includes publishing index information on 'member only' websites or internal 'intranet' sites. Any such information must be removed from the internet by 7 February and breaches carry a fine of up to $50K!

I saw it here http://www.sag.org.au/newsletters/jan09.htm

I should mention that New Zealand law applies only in New Zealand.

I hope it’s a free site however I seem to remember reading somewhere a few years ago that there were plans for something like SP (NZP?) although that may have been just a rumour.

Alan

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:55 pm

Good to hear that one country, New Zealand, is catching up on Scotland !, except that since the original launch of the predecessor site of ScotlandsPeople (I've gone blank, - it's old age - added later, ScotsOrigins) the images have also been on-line up to the closure dates; and, as of a year ago, the 'modern' Scottish B&D indexes have come on line at TS, i.e. indexes up to the present day, albeit with some search limitations, e.g. in the modern death indexes, unless the exact mother's maiden name is entered, the search engine won't give a matching return.

The less than good news in Scotland is that it will be some months yet before the 'modern' M indexes come on line at SP. I'd quote the date provided recently by GROS, but substantial previous experience of GROS failures to meet 'promised' dates, sometimes on a repeated basis involving the same dataset, means that I've long since stopped passing on the info on such GROS predictions/promises .......

Am I being thick?, or can someone explain to me please the meaning of "deaths that occurred at least 50 years ago or for people who were born more than 80 years ago.", please !

mb

theKiwi · Post by **theKiwi** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:49 am

Montrose Budie wrote:Am I being thick?, or can someone explain to me please the meaning of "deaths that occurred at least 50 years ago or for people who were born more than 80 years ago.", please !

Person born 1925 - died 2000 aged 75. Since they died less than 50 years ago, their information wouldn't show EXCEPT they were born more than 80 years ago, so their death information would show - (but apparently not their birth information since that wasn't 100 years ago).

Person born 1950, died 1955 - their death is more than 50 years ago, so would show online

Person born 1950 died 2000. Their death wouldn't show online since the death was less than 50 years ago, and they weren't born more than 80 years ago.

Now I'm not saying this is what the law says, but it's what I read the quote to mean. Also note that the quote is not from the New Zealand Government website, but I can't get the site to load for me at the moment (1047PM EST 0347 GMT)

Roger

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:23 am

I agree with Roger’s assessment.

If someone turned 80 yesterday and died today their death goes online straight away. But if the person was only 79 their death won’t go online for another year. If they were only 60 their death will go online in 20 years. If they were only 31 when they died their death will go online in 49 years.

Meaning that if the indexes go online this year the deaths will be there for the full range of years right up to today but not for those people who died after 1959 who were born after 1929.

This looks like one of the drafts of the legislation and you’ll have to read past the crossings out but it is possibly the final. See 78EA, 78F, 78G. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/gov ... 48803.html

I’m not entirely clear on what index information was formerly available on CD or Fiche that will no longer be available but I think it a bit unrealistic for the N.Z. Government to be threatening with legislation anyone publishing any formerly freely available public information and ordering its removal when you’re talking about a world wide internet over which they have no control. The enforced removal, which realistically can only apply to a few N.Z. residents, looks very much like a book burning exercise.

They seem to be saying that all index information currently on websites must be removed except for Historical information etc but from February not even Historical index information or any index references at all may be newly inserted into websites even your own private website not accessible to anyone but yourself. Is that what it says?

Alan

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:35 am

Thanks both.

As regards republication it all comes down to copyright, I'd assume.

In other words, information can't be copyrighted, but what can is the format in which it is published. So, if, by information they mean that I extract info from their site and then add it in my format to my website then their **** (that's bahookie!) is oot ra windae, but if I copy and paste the info so that if it's the exact format of the index from their website that then appears on mine, then I'm furra BarL (think of a weel kent large prison in Glasgow) aka the Riddrie Hilton.

Especially in this case, given the small amount of data, it's a fine, even very fine distinction if we're talking, say, a single birth, not least since my format is quite likely to be very similar to their, e.g. <given name> <surname> <place> <date> <reference>..........

I'd imagine what they're after avoiding is bulk copying and pasting and republication, i.e. by the pageful, of data from their site.

mb

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:17 am

Hello David,

Hopefully you’re right about the bulk copying thing although the legislation appears to be of the one size fits all variety. But I can see the headlines now:

“New Zealand Police Returning Lost Cat Make Major Internet Bust. Discover 17 Index Entries On Owners Website”

Just so long as we don’t start gathering up all our N.Z. CD’s and Fiche to see if the Mafia will make us an offer we can’t refuse.

All the best,
Alan

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:25 pm

It was only later that a couple of thoughts occurred (it's amazing what can happen during the sermon!).

Firstly, the best way of demonstrating the fact that it's only the expression of the info that can be patented is to refer to the many FHS produced census index fiches and CDs in Scotland. Anyone who has these will readily recognize that the info is exactly the same as that on offer at SP, but it's presented in a different way, - the 'expression' as the term goes in copyright terms. The copyright for these CDs vests in the FHSs.

And wasn't it the fact that the LDS Australian Vital Records CD wasn't allowed to be sold in Australia? In other words, OK anywhere else in the world; presumably this involved an agreement between the various Oz state authorities and LDS and was the condition on which LDs were given access to the records.

I assume that I dare not enter Oz again for fear of being prosecuted for the number of such CDs that I bought on behalf of down under mates. I always have a problem with Oz immigration anyway as I'm always on the verge of answering the "Do you have any criminal convictions?" question in same manner as Tony Hancock did one time, - "Why?, - is it still required?! " !

I suppose that we can anticipate a number of prosecutions now against non-residents of NZ, which is going to be a bit of a problem, or are the NZ authorities going to waste time and money by taking action against the host ISPs of the websites concerned?

mb

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:31 pm

The SAG newsletter from which the above quote is taken links to the NZ guvmint page at ............ http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/w ... enDocument

.........which gives detailed info.

mb

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:29 am

Thanks David,

It’ll be interesting to see how it all develops.

Alan