copyright on description
Arthur Chapman> <with opt1 DIGEST
taxacom1 at ACHAPMAN.ORG
Thu Jun 2 15:18:06 CDT 2005
If you continue to have any doubts after you have read Richard's comments, then the simplest thing to do is to contact the author and seek permission - explaining whjat you want to do.
Arthur D. Chapman
Australian Biodiversity Information Services
>From Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG on 2 Jun 2005:
> Here's my take on copyright in a scientific context.
> Aside from any ethical questions, the main thing to think of is "will I
> taken to court?" or get fired, or similarly punished.
> Law is based, so I understand, on what's reasonable. If it is reasonable
> that you will not be taken to court (or get fired, or incur the
> of your peers) for copyright infringement, then it is probably okay. You
> be sued in court if (a) the original author loses money when you
> the copyright, and (b) a tame lawyer tries to prove his worth to a
> by making a fuss.
> Generally, you (should) get a warning first like "Kindly take such and
> off your Web site," or "stop selling so and so." That's reasonable. You
> then decide on your response.
> Given that you generally get a warning, and assuming that you are not
> committing huge amounts of money during your possible infringement and
> probably undo something an author would complain about, you should be
> to plan to make use of another's work in what most people would consider
> fair and reasonable manner. On that preserves the original author's
> intellectual investment and/or profit. Guidelines for extracting
> portions of
> a work are published, doubtless, on the Web.
> Not being able to use a species name is unreasonable, especially because
> was published to be used by others, and the intent of the original
> would be a factor in any court action. You have my permission to punish
> whoever told you that.
> Information cannot be copyrighted. Any special way the information is
> presented can, unless you add so much more information and modify the
> of presentation that it is essentially a new work: as value added.
> (Note: I am not an attorney, and depending on anything I say above is
> Richard H. Zander
> Bryology Group, Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
> Voice: 314-577-5180; Fax: 314-577-9595
> Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
> Res Botanica:
> Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> 4344 Shaw Blvd.
> St. Louis, MO 63110 USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vr.R.E.M.J..-B. BEJSAK-COLLOREDO-MANSFELD
> [mailto:ricardo at ANS.COM.AU]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:24 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] copyright on description
> Few days ago I have been told that even name of insect is intellectual
> property and therefore cannot be used without author AND publisher
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken & Nette
> To: Vr.R.E.M.J..-B. BEJSAK-COLLOREDO-MANSFELD
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: copyright on description
> Dear Richard,
> Copyrights are applied for, and if the item appears in a document that
> copyright protected, it probably is. However, how many ways can a person
> scientifically describe a species. I would guess only one or two are
> generally accepted and therefor difficult to enforce. As in other
> protections, the individual holding a copyright would be responsible for
> enforcing it. So, the best way to be sure is to ask the author.
> IMHO, you are probably safe if it isn't narrative. If it is, simply
> Regards, Ken Sayers
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Vr.R.E.M.J..-B. BEJSAK-COLLOREDO-MANSFELD
> Dear colleagues
> I like to know if copyright apply also on description on genera or
=== message truncated ===
More information about the Taxacom