[Taxacom] Re; Botanical Plagiarism

[Stephen Thorpe]

None of this makes any sense, really, does it??
 
By far the most sensible solution is to just forget about copyright altogether with this stuff. Otherwise it gets too complicated, with wildly and widely differing opinions about claims to copyright. Many institutions would probably try it on by claiming that copyright of specimen data was automatically transferred to them upon accession of the specimen. Of course, if the collector was also an employee, then it is even easier for the institution to claim copyright, even if it is a publicly funded collection! I expect that at least some collections would actually refuse to maccept specimens from you, Bob, if you tried to retain copyright on the data. It is all *very* messy!
 
"Owner of data: The legal entity possessing the right resulting from the act of creating a digital record. The record may be a product derived from another, possibly non-digital product, which may affect the right."
 
Drivel! Creating a digital record is irrelevant, surely?
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Robert Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Re; Botanical Plagiarism

Rich Pyle wrote:

"- (Potentially) specimen data owned by an institution (although I think we
should foster a culture where such data are not considered copyrighted)"

Stephen Thorpe wrote:

"Specimen data owned by institutions is another "can of worms" (that's worms, not
WoRMS!). If it from a publicly funded collection, then there ought to be no
copyright. Otherwise, institutions could charge revisers for not only access to material, but also
for publication rights to the specimen data!"

Whoa... How did this one sneak in? Where did the institution get the specimen data for its collection? The institution didn't make up the data, so unless it did some substantial re-working of the data from the collector or the donor or both, how can it claim copyright? Or is assigning a registration number to a specimen lot a copyrightable act of creative endeavour? Should I explicitly claim copyright on the data on my specimen labels before I deposit specimens in a collection?

Here's what GBIF says (http://data.gbif.org/tutorial/datasharingagreement):

"Owner of data: The legal entity possessing the right resulting from the act of creating a digital record. The record may be a product derived from another, possibly non-digital product, which may affect the right."
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195

_______________________________________________
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.