[Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Hi all,

Rod Page's post on release of the Plant List in 2010 (1m+ plant names, the first "comprehensive" global treatment) is still pertinent:

http://iphylo.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/why-won-plant-list-won-let-me-do-this.html

Why do such compilers want to do the work (presumably so that others do not have to do it themselves) but then assert that no-one else can re-use/alter/build upon it? And is such a licence even enforceable?

Regards - Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 8:59 AM
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'Robin Leech'; 'Mark J. Costello'; 'TAXACOM'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> 
> I don't think anyone believes that taxon *names* can be copyrighted, or
> even
> lists or indexes of taxon names.  Much less obvious, however, is the
> "copyright-ability" of much larger/broader datasets that add value to
> those
> lists of names.  WoRMS and CoL and EoL and many others add a LOT of
> information to that list of names -- and therein lies the real value
> and
> service of such data systems.  Much of that information is *NOT* fact;
> but
> rather is the creative contribution of people who assert an opinion
> (e.g.,
> that species X should be regarded as a heterotypic junior synonym of
> species
> Y).
> 
> In my mind, there are certain things that should be regarded as Facts,
> and
> cannot be copyrighted (even when complied as a list), such as:
> 
> - Taxon Names (with authorities)
> - Bibliographic citations
> - Linkages between these two
> - Statements of fact concerning taxonomic treatments (e.g., the fact
> that
> Smith 1950 treated Xus cus Jones as a heterotypic junior synonym of Aus
> bus
> L.)
> 
> There are also things that are clearly within the realm of copyright-
> able
> material:
> 
> - Images and other multimedia files relating to biodiversity
> - (Potentially) specimen data owned by an institution (although I think
> we
> should foster a culture where such data are not considered copyrighted)
> - Binary files (e.g., PDFs) representing complete copyrighted documents
> (as
> much as it rubs me the wrong way that this exists, I also acknowledge
> that
> it's a reality)
> - Robust and clever data services that can usefully assemble creative
> meaning from the raw facts
> 
> [The last one is the one I think we should be focused on, much more-so
> than
> the databases of facts themselves.]
> 
> The trouble is, there is a lot of territory between those two realms,
> where
> the moral/ethical/legal ground is much more ambiguous.
> 
> For example, suppose an expert working for WoRMS spends months
> researching a
> particular species, and compiles a list of names he/she thinks
> represent
> junior heterotypic synonyms, and does extensive research to figure out
> the
> global distribution (beyond points on a map), and does any number of
> value-added things that are not obviously just fact-indexing.  In my
> mind,
> that effort is very much within the realm of a creative work, and
> intellectual property rights for the expert should be honored.
> Whatever
> agreement the expert has with WoRMS to expose that information via the
> WoRMS
> website is between the expert and WoRMS.
> 
> Now....suppose WoRMS exposes that information publicly.  In my mind, it
> becomes a fact that the indicated expert on the WoRMS page asserted
> that
> Taxon X is a junior heterotypic synonym of Taxon Y, and I can't see how
> that
> fact would be copyrightable.  Merely by stating that the expert is the
> one
> who asserted the synonymy, credit is being given where credit is due
> (again,
> whether that should be represented as "sensu Expert", "sensu WoRMS", or
> perhaps "sensu Expert fide WoRMS", is something that should be
> determined by
> the expert and WoRMS).
> 
> On the other hand, the collection of information represented on that
> web
> page -- at least the part that required intellectual creativity to
> assemble,
> should be respected as copyright-able; and there should be protections
> against some fly-by-night organization screen-scraping the entire
> content of
> that page and representing it as its own original work without proper
> attribution to WoRMS and/or the expert.
> 
> There is a lot of murky stuff in this realm -- and ultimately I think
> it's
> our community's responsibility to figure out where the line should be
> drawn.
> 
> Not an easy topic.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:13 AM
> > To: Robin Leech; 'Mark J. Costello'; 'TAXACOM'
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> >
> > Yes, of course! But subsequent use of the *name* is not subject to
> > copyright! In fact, there is no legal requirement to attribute a name
> to
> the
> > correct authority, just an ICZN requirement! The issue here is
> whether
> > secondary compilations of species names are subject to copyright, to
> which
> I
> > answer "certainly not!" Sites like WoRMS just have to take it on the
> chin,
> if
> > someone rips off their "hard work" ...
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
> > To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 'Mark J. Costello'
> > <markcost at gmail.com>; 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 10:00 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> >
> > Does not the description of a new species constitute an individual
> fact -
> > which is copyrighted?
> > You cannot pull my name off and substitute it with yours.  I believe
> the
> > original description of a new species is automatically copyrighted.
> > Robin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen
> > Thorpe
> > Sent: March-11-13 1:59 PM
> > To: Mark J. Costello; 'TAXACOM'
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> >
> > Mark Costello wrote:
> >
> > >I understand that while individual facts cannot be copyrighted,
> > >original compilations can (e.g. a species list within some
> context).<
> >
> > I'm not so sure! Certainly not in a global context, nor in a regional
> (country or
> > provincial) context. Maybe for some particular private reserve or
> something?
> > Going back to the global or country context, you cannot copyright the
> fauna
> > or flora (in the sense of a species list thereof)!
> > Suppose the country of "Costelloland" only has one species, Markus
> > biodiversitatis ... a described species. Suppose I make a website on
> the
> biota
> > of Costelloland. Can I copyright that? I think not! The issue isn't
> just
> that
> > there is only a single species. It is rather that I can get the
> information straight
> > from primary sources (in this case the original description of the
> species).
> > Nobody can tell if I got the name from the original description or
> from
> the
> > secondary website ...
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > From: Mark J. Costello <markcost at gmail.com>
> > To: 'TAXACOM' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013 10:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> >
> > I understand that while individual facts cannot be copyrighted,
> original
> > compilations can (e.g. a species list within some context). However,
> images
> > are not really facts and each one can be copyrighted (as they usually
> are).
> >
> > Attribution is good practice but only required if the CC or other
> 'permission'
> > required it. I think this is why it is important to ascertain and
> keep
> copyright
> > so the holder can then formally complain about a breach of the
> licence of
> > use.
> >
> > We had a World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) database downloaded
> > and published as a book, for sale on Amazon. As owner of the IP and
> > copyright of the WoRMS content, our society formally complained to
> the
> > publisher who removed it from their publication list in 2 weeks
> without
> > further comment.
> > One of our colleagues wrote a book review on Amazon pointing out the
> > source of the book and that its content, now updated, was available
> for
> free
> > online. I am not sure if we would have had such good grounds to
> complain
> if
> > the author had actually attributed the source of the content because
> > arguably the re-organisation of the facts would have been a new
> creation.
> >
> > The only thing WoRMS asks users to do is cite the source (e.g. web
> page,
> > database as a whole) and the citation is at the foot of every page.
> Still
> many
> > scientists do not do so :)
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Mark
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Arthur
> > Chapman
> > Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013 9:43 a.m.
> > To: TAXACOM
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism
> >
> > The following blog by Mark Watson about some botanical books that
> have
> > been appearing recently - all derived from internet sources without
> > attribution.may be of interest
> >
> > http://stories.rbge.org.uk/archives/1321
> >
> > Arthur D. Chapman
> > Ballan, Australia
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified
> > as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > your search terms here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified
> > as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > your search terms here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.