I love the serious pintucks on the dress, and the watch or locket pinned to it.
How do I know it’s Jeanette? Because it says so on the back!Don’t you LOVE when the info is on the back of the image?! It says: Jeanette Bosman / Grand Rapids / 1906.
Jeanette was born 30 June 1888 in Kalamazoo. That would make her 18 in this portrait. Wow, she sure looks older to me. But then her skin does not, and maybe it is the type of looks that she has.
On Ancestry, I found a photo of Jeanette as an older woman in Chicago. I hesitate to post it here because I am not sure if we are allowed to take images off Ancestry and share elsewhere. But she looks like the same person, with the same hairstyle decades later.
When I first found the Bosman children (children of Dirk Bosman and my 1st cousin 4xremoved Johanna/Adriana Remine) I posted in two posts. Part II listed the children and Part I was focused on John, Jeanette’s older brother. Jennie was listed as second to youngest. Jeanette is Jennie.
When she was three her mother passed away in Kalamazoo. Then I don’t have any information until she got married in 1908 to George M. Harter in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I don’t know if she had a stepmother, for instance, or if the family moved to Grand Rapids right after the mother’s death.
Jeanette had three children, all born in Chicago, so the family must have lived in Chicago after Grand Rapids.
Jeanette and George had three children, all born in Chicago, so the family must have lived in Chicago after Grand Rapids.
George, Jeanette’s husband, passed away in 1940, when she was 51 years old. She didn’t die until 1978 in Rochester, New York. I can’t help but wonder what her life was like for the last 38 years of her life and how she ended up in New York State.
Her son Wilmar died in Montana, and her middle child Georgia died in Cook County, Illinois, years after the death of their mother. So did Jeanette follow her daughter Eileen (Ellen) to Rochester? I don’t know because I can’t find what happened to Eileen after the 1930 census. She was 12 years old.
So what about Jeanette’s siblings? We know John survived until 1943, but most of the other children died in childhood. And apparently Cornelius, the youngest (and only one younger than Jeanette), survived. At age 63, he married Evelyn MacLeod in Cleveland.
Oh, by the way, I found a cute pic on Ancestry of Jeanette and Cornelius when they were 12 and 9 (so the year 1900), but again am afraid to share it. Their older brother John would have been 24, so was probably already out of the house and therefore not in this photo. He married Nellie Robb in 1903 at age 27.
Anybody know the rules for Ancestry.com photos?
I suspect there will be a Part IV eventually.
The Family Kalamazoo 
born 1888 not 1988
Oh man, why do I make this mistake so often? Thanks, Joel!
I think it’s nice to simply ask whoever first posted the image on Ancestry if it’s okay that you post the image elsewhere. I normally indicate how I’m related to said person also, just to be safe. This works well for me, haven’t been told no as yet!
Beautiful image of Jeanette 😀
Thank you re the photo! So do you ask to put the photo on your Ancestry family tree or just to use it elsewhere?
Once it’s up on ancestry, people can copy it to their own trees without permission. If someone doesn’t want their photos used, that’s when they should be making their tree private! But if you’d like to use the photo elsewhere, definitely ask whoever submitted it originally, saves you a lot of potential drama 😊
I think you’re right as this seems to be the consensus, and it also makes logical sense. I’ve heard some of the Ancestry drama stories online haha. I am not a fan of “drama”!!!
People just did look older back then. When I had Ava Cohn do photo analysis for me, I was so surprised that someone I’d have thought was at least 30 was in fact still a teenager. I think it was the clothes, their hairstyles, the lack of makeup, and the serious expressions. Plus people had harder lives than teenagers often do today.
As for using the photographs, I am not sure what Ancestry’s TOS states, but the copyright in the photographs doesn’t disappear simply because someone puts it on Ancestry. You can, however, always ask permission of the person who posted it, as I always do—but sometimes they are not the copyright owner. (That’s a matter that requires more discussion than is called for here.)
As for the 1900 photo, that is in the public domain, and thus it is no longer protected by copyright. However, as a matter of courtesy, I’d still ask permission of the person who posted it on Ancestry. I know I was very upset when I found my great-grandparents appearing in other places without anyone asking to use them. It felt like an invasion of their (my great-grandparents) privacy somehow. So I no longer post photographs on Ancestry—but I do on my blog. Go figure….
I think you are right about people looking older in those days. Although look at some of these middle school girls today with their makeup, the way they go to nail salons and hair salons and get waxing and tanning and who knows what else. That is sure going to skew how somebody “ages” them in a photo decades from now haha.
About the use of the photos, when you say 1900, is that the cutoff date for public domain?
No, 1923. But you said the photo was taken in 1900, right? That’s why I used that date.
And yes, the early sexualization of young girls is, to me, very sad. Childhood is way too short these days, and adolescence (which seems to extend to age 40) way too long!
Yes, 1900, but I wondered in general. 1923. So, other than watermarking older photos, we don’t have any other control over the ones we own? I’m curious because there was a discussion awhile back about how people needed to get copyright rights even from long defunct photographers in the 19th century. I take it that that’s unnecessary then!
Re your second comment here. Horrible and true! Shana tova, Amy!!!
Right—there is no US copyright on anything published before 1923. Unpublished works are treated differently; if the work was never published before 1-1-78, it lasts for the life of the author plus 75 years (with some exceptions). So, for example, a family photograph taken in 1900 that was never published would have federal copyright for 75 years after the photographer died. Let’s say that photographer died in 1940—copyright would have lasted until 2015. There are lots of wrinkles, but that’s the essence. Generally speaking, any work that old is likely not protected by US copyright law today. But that’s the general rule. For a photographer whose work was made in 1880 and died in 1920, let’s say, there’s no copyright protection under US law any more.
That doesn’t mean that an archive can’t place contractual limitations on those who want to access their collections. That’s a whole other ballgame. But it’s not then about copyright.
Ancestry T&Cs here: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/legal/TermsAndConditions
Under 3. User Provided Content, it says, essentially, that you may only submit images for which you own the copyright or for which the copyright holder has granted permission. So, to republish you should obtain permission and credit the provider. I have found people are happy to help.
I have always assumed that I own the copyright of prints that I have “inherited”.
Keep up the good work
Andrew
Thanks, Andrew. That is very interesting. You know how Ancestry is set up to let you copy an image to your own tree without asking permission? Do you think that is a bad idea even though Ancestry seems to be encouraging it? Or is that ok because it’s still linked to that original tree? As for you assuming you own the copyright of prints you have inherited, it makes sense to me because who else could own it?
From my reading, “borrowing” a picture from another tree to your own is fair game. As I understand it, if you do so the tree owner is alerted that someone has saved their content, even if it is (say) a census page, so they can object if they want to. Republishing outside Ancestry would, I suggest, be different.
On Bosman, Belgium was created from bits of France and the Netherlands, so could be either French or Flemmish. Jean-Marc suggests the French, or Walloon / Wallonie part.
That makes a lot of sense about the photos on Ancestry. With Jean-Marc Bosman’s name, I have seen a lot of French people with French first names and Germanic-type last names. Some of that could also come from Alsace. A tangent: It’s funny, but the big DNA companies have not yet figured out any difference between the French and the Germans for DNA purposes, and there isn’t even a category for the Dutch, Belgians, etc.
Are your Bosman kin related to the former Belgian football (soccer) player Jean-Marc Bosman? He obtained a ruling that players whose contracts had ended were free to move to other clubs without the need for transfer fees. Quite historic.
Andrew
Oh, i have no idea. That’s pretty cool. Bosman is probably a name that can be Dutch or it can be Belgian. I wish I could remember where I looked up the ranking of Dutch surnames by popularity . . . .
Lovely photo. Amy makes some really good points; both about people’s ages in old photos and the whole copyright thing. In relation to family photos, it’s not something I’ve thought all that much about but guess I should. I’m not actually sure who owns the copyright in family photos?
Thanks, Su! Amy does make some really good points (as she usually does :)!). If you think about the whole who owns the copyright thing about photos, wow, look at more contemporary photos. People share all over the place without permission. People TAKE pix without permission. And yet there was that legal case recently about who owns the selfie taken by a monkey, which shows that there is a lot of money in some photos. I guess like a lot of things today–everything we ever “knew” is in a state of change!
That’s so true. It’s a minefield that the monkey photo really highlighted. I suggested to my son recently that if he wanted to get rich he should be a copyright lawyer rather than a photographer. 🙂
I put loads of photos up on Ancestry. I inherited some mystery photos from my father. It was great when I was able to not only positively identify a lot of them but I was able to pass on pictures of somebody’s father, when they had actually had none themselves.
That’s wonderful! The only negative experience I’ve had with Ancestry photos so far is that i discovered some of my photos incorrectly attached to the wrong people. That was kind of distressing and makes me wonder if Ancestry might be a little too “free and easy,” but your experience is a very positive one!
What a lovely photo Luanne! I especially love the watch or locket also. Have you considered sending a message on Ancestry to the original photo poster and asking for permission to share the other images? They might not mind. 🙂
Great detective work, Luanne! I love that she had the same hairstyle so many years later! I know people that find one style and never change….amazing, isn’t it?? That little detail is so telling. I love it.
My mother-in-law wore her hair with the pompador style of the 40s IN the 40s and then continued a modified version for the rest of her life. But how am I any different with the same bob I’ve had for decades haha.
I think I’ve had about 5 styles or so, but I keep going back to the one(s) I like the most. 🙂
Five is quite a few, so you are more of a risk-taker than I am!
Oh you make me laugh, Luanne!!
😉