[Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism

Mon Mar 11 17:44:08 CDT 2013

Hi Tony,

>And is such a licence even enforceable?<
You would have to seek legal advice, but I suspect that they are gambling on you not doing that, and overstating their legal entitlements as a deterrent (so, I suspect it is not enforceable, though it might depend, especially in USA, which side can afford the better lawyers) ...

The whole issue can, and should, I suggest, be simplified greatly. If you are worried about reuse of your work, then just don't do it, do something else. If, on the other hand, you got paid to compile the data/create the resource, then that's all you get, you don't also get control over reuse. 

An interesting example in the entertainment industry is the 1973 Led Zeppelin album "Houses of the Holy". It sold 11 million copies in USA alone, but Led Zep didn't get a cent of the royalties, because they created it as a work for hire (see http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/whats-up-with-led-zeppelin.6288/). This was a creative work (though they did tend to rip off earlier blues compositions!), and not just a secondary compilation of data. Given the vigorous debate about this case, what hope for biodiversity data compilations???

Cheers,

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; releech at telus.net; markcost at gmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism

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.