[Taxacom] ZooBank reality check: scanning and copyright

[Richard Pyle]

Consider this:

It is my creative opinion that Centropyge flavicauda is a junior synonym of
C. fisheri.

In 2003, I publish this in a copyrighted work.

Is it not then considered "fact" that Pyle (2003) treated C. flavicauda as a
junior synonym of C. fisheri?

If so, then the same could be said for any creative interpretation of
taxonomic data that appeared in my copyrighted publication.

If not, then any computerized database that indexed the treatment by Pyle
(2003) of C. flavicauda as a junior synonym of C. fisheri, would be in
violation of copyright.

The latter seems utterly absurd to me.

Back to the context of this thread:

If Jones (2005) published the statement, "The clypeus [or labroclypeus? - or
is it the frons and the clypeus is reduced?] of the beetle is green" in a
copyrighted work, then perhaps one could argue that reproduction that quote
by itself in a database or another publication might violate copyright.  

But if Smith (2006) included in his published article the text: 
"Jones (2005) noted, 'The clypeus [or labroclypeus? - or is it the frons and
the clypeus is reduced?] of the beetle is green', which I find to be
complete rubbish."

...then it seems to me to fall within the realm of fair use.  If so, then
recording in an online database the fact that Jones (2005) noted "The
clypeus [or labroclypeus? - or is it the frons and the clypeus is reduced?]
of the beetle is green" -- seems to me again to be fair use, because it it
attributed.

If I understand Donat's position, he's talking about indexing the original
description data within the context of the publication that described it --
and as such, seems not in violation of copyright.

Not being an expert in such legal matters, I'm certain that I'm being
entirely naïve about all of this.  But I just wanted to parse out the "fact"
from the copyrightable intellectual property.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html




> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Krell
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:10 PM
> To: Stephen C. Carlson; Barry Roth; TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ZooBank reality check: scanning and copyright
> 
> I am quite sure that most taxonomic description contain more 
> creativity than a telephone directory.
> My comments might be somewhat counterproductive since I am 
> interested myself in getting descriptions out of the 
> copyright (for ZooBank - the real registry, not the present 
> pre-version). However, there is no doubt that taxonomy is 
> more than data (although the data aspect gets increasingly 
> stressed all the time). Us taxonomists do science, and every 
> description is full of hypotheses of homology and other 
> theory, the combination of which is a creative and 
> intellectually demanding process. It is not just a 
> compilation of facts. "The upper thing on the front of the 
> beetle is green" might be factual knowledge. "The clypeus [or 
> labroclypeus? - or is it the frons and the clypeus is 
> reduced?] of the beetle is green" is certainly more than 
> factual knowledge. What a pity, but I can't be political here.
> 
> Frank
> 
> Dr Frank-T. Krell
> Head, Coleoptera Division
> Editor, Systematic Entomology
> Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological 
> Nomenclature Department of Entomology The Natural History 
> Museum Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD, U.K.
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7942 5886
> Fax +44 (0) 20 7942 5229
> f.krell at nhm.ac.uk
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk//research-curation/staff-directory/entomo
> logy/cv-3566.html
> http://myprofile.cos.com/ftkrell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Stephen 
> C. Carlson
> Sent:	Thu 07/09/2006 23:32
> To:	Barry Roth; 'TAXACOM'
> Cc:	
> Subject:	Re: [Taxacom] ZooBank reality check: scanning 
> and copyright
> 
> At 03:15 PM 9/7/2006 -0700, Barry Roth wrote:
> >The example is sometimes given that the fact of someone's 
> phone number 
> >being ###-###-#### is not copyrightable, but the telephone 
> directory is.
> 
> This example had been valid in some jurisdictions before 
> 1991, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled that a telephone 
> directory lacked a sufficient amount of creativity to be 
> copyrightable in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone 
> Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
> 
> Stephen Carlson, J.D. 
> -- 
> Stephen C. Carlson                             
> mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
> Weblog:                                   
> http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
> Author of: The Gospel Hoax, 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom