[Taxacom] copyright, scientific names compilations of scientific names

Fri Feb 7 13:01:15 CST 2014

Its probably less a matter of "no one cares" than it is "no one who is in a
position to do anything about it cares". An example that might be given is
that museums are casting off research positions not because no one cares,
but because there is no one in a position to change that situation who does
care.

John Grehan

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net> wrote:

> Richard:
>
> Yes, copyright and intellectual property rights are different.
>
> Copyright, depending where one resides, may different, but is basically a
> legal process where one asserts their rights for creating something, etc.
> And given that they do that properly, they have a copyright and are legally
> protected.
>
> Intellectual property rights are close, that is, one creates something, but
> differ in the sense that there is no formal procedure to asserting one's
> rights***. Yes, intellectual property rights are supposedly protected under
> the ethical standards of Science.
>
> That is, if there is something that some one "published / created" that
> another copied WITHOUT attribution, that is simply plagiarism, a violation
> of scientific ethical standards.
>
> Unfortunately, plagiarism is common and widespread, and on the whole the
> community does nothing about it.
>
> In the USA, scientific ethical standards are set minimally by the National
> Science Foundation, but while they provide a standard, there is no
> enforcement. That is, if one plagiarizes, then one should not be eligible
> for USA government funding, etc. Unfortunately, NSF and other organizations
> simply want to hid the ugly truth, so virtually all plagiarism goes
> "officially unnoticed."
>
> On compilations: These take lots of effort, meaning time and money, to
> make.
> BUT yes, the USA declared that a telephone directory did not represent any
> form of creativity and therefore could not be protected under our (USA)
> copyright laws. BUT that is simply copyright law. To copy some one else's
> compilation is plagiarism. AND as the creator and maintainer of the Systema
> Dipterorum (see www.diptera.org) I will tell you a good compilation is
> more
> than merely copying and does include some intellectually creativity. BUT in
> anycase, simply downloading Systema Dipterorum or Species2000 or EoL, etc.,
> without attribution is plagiarism. And what is worst, then claiming unique
> attributes so one can get funding ($$$) is fraud in my opinion.
>
> Plagiarism is the corruption of Academia. It is common, widespread, etc.,
> but no one wants to deal with it.
>
> ***An example. For years, I was an US Government employee, hence, my work
> was under the Constitution, etc., without copyright as it belongs to the
> people, etc. As a researcher, I provided to individual, groups, etc., the
> results of my research on flower flies. I have a system where when I
> recognize what I think is an unrecognized species, I assign it a code
> designation. This code designation is used in diagnostic keys, etc., which
> have been publically distributed. However, some individuals use my keys,
> accept my species concepts, but then publish the new species without any
> attribution. And in many cases, they studied and designated the same
> specimens that I had studied and labeled (that is because I am curator at
> the Smithsonian and our collections are publically available). But that is
> simply plagiarism but no one cares.
>
> Oh, well ...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris
>
> from home
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Zander
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 AM
> To: Donat Agosti ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] copyright, scientific names compilations of
> scientific names
>
> Donat:
> This is a little confusing. The copyright and intellectual rights do
> overlap, yet surely there is a clear difference. One may lack copyright but
> possess intellectual rights. Where is that addressed?
>
> Richard
>
> ____________________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Evol. Syst.: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/EvSy/Intro.htm
> UPS and FedExpr -  Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis MO
> 63110 USA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Donat Agosti
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:06 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] copyright, scientific names compilations of scientific
> names
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> Here is the link to our latest contribution to the ongoing discussion on
> copyright in the realm of taxonomy:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/7/79/abstract
>
> Abstract
> Background
> As biological disciplines extend into the 'big data' world, they will need
> a
> names-based infrastructure to index and interconnect distributed data. The
> infrastructure must have access to all names of all organisms if it is to
> manage all information. Those who compile lists of species hold different
> views as to the intellectual property rights that apply to the lists. This
> creates uncertainty that impedes the development of a much-needed
> infrastructure for sharing biological data in the digital world.
> Findings: The laws in the United States of America and European Union are
> consistent with the position that scientific names of organisms and their
> compilation in checklists, classifications or taxonomic revisions are not
> subject to copyright. Compilations of names, such as classifications or
> checklists, are not creative in the sense of copyright law. Many content
> providers desire credit for their efforts.
> Conclusions
> A 'blue list' identifies elements of checklists, classifications and
> monographs to which intellectual property rights do not apply. To promote
> sharing, authors of taxonomic content, compilers, intermediaries, and
> aggregators should receive citable recognition for their contributions,
> with
> the greatest recognition being given to the originating authors. Mechanisms
> for achieving this are discussed.
> Best regards
>
> Donat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>