Copyright

[David]

My understanding of copyright in respect of checklists is as Christian's,
that the factual content of a checklist is not copyrighted.  However, the
compilation of factual elements is unique and therefore can be covered by
copyright.   But, if a compilation is broken into its factual elements and
rebuilt in a different form - this should not cause alarm bells to ring
(but the matter has never been tested in court - but the closest that we
have seems to be the dispute between Feist Publications and the Rural
telephone Service
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm - but note that
in this case the original outcome was overturned on appeal).

The issue of attribution is important, but the landscape has changed with
the digital world.   Traditionally, taxonomic papers and revisions gave
recognition to innovation both through the 'authority' information attached
to new taxa and through reference to other papers.   Many electronic
compilations of names give no indication of where one or more names were
obtained from.   Such compilations create an attribution
dead-end.  Therefore in the electronic world  the attribution trail
currently ends with the person or persons who themselves provide no
attribution information, which is probably the worst place for such a trail
to end.

A supplementary issue is the protectionism that often is expressed over
compilations, and this impedes the sharing of factual content.

The best solution is therefore to make all factual content freely
available, and to try to promote a full attribution trail.

David Patterson



David J Patterson

The Josephine Bay Paul Center in Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution
Marine Biological Laboratory
7 MBL Street
Woods Hole
Massachusetts 02543

Ph:   1 508 289 7260
FAX: 1 508 457 4727

http://jbpc.mbl.edu/patterson
http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Protsvil/index.htm
http://microscope.mbl.edu