[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 9 15:31:15 CST 2015


Thank you Laurent for finding those examples! It reinforces my suspicion that the content of Art. 8.5 has been changed recently, but the examples haven't been rendered consistent with the new version! Hmmm ...

Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/1/15, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Saturday, 10 January, 2015, 2:16 AM
 
 On 01/09/2015 02:21 AM,
 Richard Pyle wrote:
 > However, if an
 electronic work fails to
 > fulfill the
 requirements of the Code, then it is not
 "published" in the
 > sense of
 the code.  An electronic work cannot be "published
 without
 > registration"
 ("published" in the sense of the Code), therefore
 there is no
 > need to go back in time.
 
 Agreed on principle, but the
 Code examples are problematic on this 
 point. Eg.:
 
 "An author, in preparing a manuscript for
 publication, states that days 
 date for the
 registration date, intending to register it later that day
 
 but forgetting to do so. The author
 discovers the omission after the 
 work is
 published and immediately registers it; because registration
 
 occurred after publication, the work is not
 available."
 
 Thus, in
 the Amendment itself, "published" is used in a
 sense that is 
 not that of the Code, and
 there is an explicit reference to a work 
 "published without registration"...
 (Not to mention the fact that 
 availability
 popping up in the Code at this point is puzzling, to say 
 the least.) Should this have read "The
 author discovers the omission 
 after the
 work is *issued* and immediately registers it; because 
 registration occurred after *issuance*, the
 work is not *published*"?
 
 
  > From the perspective of the Code, it is
 only
 > published when all criteria are
 met.  It may have been obtainable in
 >
 pre-published form (again, "published" in the
 sense of the Code) without
 > included
 evidence of registration.  But it is only considered
 "published"
 > (in the sense of
 the Code) if the criteria are met.
 
 Note, in your own text: "it is only
 published WHEN all criteria are 
 met",
 vs. "it is only considered "published" [...]
 IF the criteria are 
 met." These are
 two different things.
 
 If I
 base myself on the Glossary definition of "date of
 publication", 
 "when" a work
 was published would appear to be fixed *only* by the time
 
 when copies "became available by
 purchase or free distribution". This 
 would then imply that dealing with the last
 ZooBank requirements only 
 fulfills the
 "if" condition. IOW, this makes the work published
 on the 
 day it was offered for distribution,
 retroactively.
 
 (And in
 fact, to me, this makes sense. You just can't ask a
 publisher to 
 be able to add to a file, in
 advance, a "date of publication" that would 
 be the date on which the author will complete a
 ZooBank registration. 
 The only "date
 of publication" that you can reasonably expect to find
 in 
 the work, is the date when it is made
 available for download.)
 
 
 I may be the only one, but I
 keep having a problem with this Amendment 
 having updated only the English text. If the
 French text was not 
 modified, it arguably
 still forbids e-publication entirely, and it is 
 equal in force to the English text. Or did I
 mis something?
 
 Cheers,
 Laurent -
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list