Copyright

[Gomez Luis Diego]

The new name of a new species can not be copyright in as much as that
name is a potential subject for changes like transfer to another genus,
synonimy, etc. To extended the concept of copyright to names would be to
nullify the dispositions of the ICBN.
Copyright of the species itself, in the sense of species as a biological
organism (to which a name is attached for our convenience) is not possible
in as much as what you mean by copyright in this case is to saveguard the
intellectual property of that name and organism. Once you publish a new name
your authorship is protected in a way and only by faulty taxonomy could
someone duplicate the name under her/his authority (outside those
provision in the Code that allow for such things and are indicated as
apud, in, etc.).
One can in certain cases obtain a patent for the organism. In
horticulture, for example, cultivars can be patented through Switzerland.
In Costa Rica, on the other hand, all organisms have been declared the
patrimony of the State. One can describe species as usual but the subject
of that description is not ones property.
The subject of intellectual property and intellectual freedom is one of
great interest that should be the concern of the subscribers of Taxacom list,
as well as other scientists.

On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, GB:'X0B$4fAB92GB5 wrote:

> Dear netters,
>
> After I have reed "Cyberspace Copyright" in PC Magazine (vol.14/no.19) I am
> start to be wonder if :
> a. new name of new specie can be copyright,.
> b. the description of new specie can be copyright.
> c. description of new specie if another author put his description - never
> published aside break of copyright .- Do you know that unpublish material can be
> copyright ( case J.D. Sallinger in USA)?
>
> Regards
>
> Vratislav Richard Bejsak
> Coleoptera - Australia, Tenebrionidae of World
> Konevova 1658/110
> 130 00 Prague 3 Zizkov
> CZECH Rep.
> voice: (42+2) 270 849
> fax  : (41+2) 311 6545
> email: 76711.1261 at compuserve.com
>