[Taxacom] [iczn-list] ICZN position on Darwinius

[Richard Pyle]

That makes a lot of sense, and a former Commissioner suggested the exact
same thing to me in an off-list email.

In that context, Art. 9.7 does make sense (especially the bit about
“previously deposited in a library or other archive”); but I think it would
be inappropriate to apply it to the Darwinius example. I cannot envision a
legitimate case that PLoS printing numerous paper copies of its own volition
two days after the release of a PDF copy of the same article, would
constitute an example of “Print on Demand” as intended by Art. 9.7.
Now....if they run out of the copies they produced and made simultaneously
obtainable on May 21st, then printed more copies in response to further
requests, those would be regarded as “print on demand” or reprints or
something else, but obviously would not represent copies of the available
(under the Code) published work.

Aloha,
Rich


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry Roth
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:20 PM
> To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] ICZN position on Darwinius
> 
> I used to think (without other evidence) that the framers of 
Article 9.7 had in mind University Microfilms or other similar > operations
that would run off copies of a dissertation 
> ("unpublished work") upon demand.  That article kept the 
> editions so produced from being nomenclaturally available.
>  
> Barry Roth
> 
> --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> > Why, exactly, does Article 9.7 *NOT* now apply to the 
> copies that PLoS 
> > printed today and is making available?
> 
> That's a good question; and one I've been struggling a bit 
> with myself.
> 
> Here is Art. 9.7 in full:
> =============================
> Article 9. What does not constitute published work. 
> Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the 
> following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
> [...]
> 9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 
> 8], even if previously deposited in a library or other 
> archive; =============================
> 
> We could probably spend days dissecting the meaning of 
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8", but I'm not 
> going to go there.  I do tend to see a bit of a paradox here, 
> but my best interpretation is that it's meant for works that 
> fail to meet the criteria of "simultaneously obtainable" (Art.
> 8.1.3).  In other words, if a publication exists only in 
> non-durable form, or only as a single copy on durable media 
> (although, to be literal about it, even a single electronic 
> copy exists on durable media -- they don't call it a "Hard" 
> drive for nothing...so I can't even imagine any document that 
> doesn't exist as at least one copy on "durable" media -- 
> except, perhaps, for the spoken voice -- which isn't really a 
> document.....but I digress).
> Starting again: if a publication only exists as a single 
> copy, then "print on demand" seems to imply a failure to 
> comply with 8.1.3.  But....one wonders, then, why we need 
> Art. 9.7, if this situation is already dealt with via Art. 8.1.3?
> 
> Perhaps Commissioners who were involved with the drafting of 
> the 4th Edition could comment on why Art. 9.7 was inserted, 
> and if there was a specific scenario they had in mind that 
> either was not covered by Art. 8.1, or needed further 
> amplification and/or clarification.
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with 
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here