 |
 |
The authors of this paper and a similar paper (Donat Agosti & Willi Egloff, (2009) Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. /BMC Research Notes, 2/:53) are part of a "Swiss-based international non-profit association" (Wikipedia: Plazi) that is pushing hard for open access to all taxonomic literature. They also claim to adhere to copyright law but I question their interpretation of it. On the Plazi website, Willi Egloff is listed a partner in a law firm in Bern, Switzerland as well as a Director of Plazi in charge of legal issues. There is no indication of what type of law he specializes in but I would be surprised if it was copyright law. I agree with Emily that this article is disturbing. If GNSI responds, it should include input from someone who specialized in copyright law--minimally US copyright law. It would be great to get an international perspective on copyright and intellectual property as well. -- Julianne Snider Asst. Director Earth and Mineral Sciences Museum & Art Gallery 116 Deike Bldg. Penn State University University Park PA 16802 814-571-6317 [log in to unmask] On 3/11/2017 6:28 PM, Emily S. Damstra wrote: > Hi all, > Glendon Mellow just brought to my attention this journal article > about scientific images in scientific literature: > http://riojournal.com/articles.php?id=12502 > > A few pertinent quotes: > > "Standards in scientific imaging minimize creative variation to ensure > that the subject is represented in a consistent way and can be > integrated into the corpus of scientific literature. Because of the > need to comply with standards, we argue that such images lack > “sufficient individuality”, the central criterion used to determine if > an illustration qualifies as a “work” in the sense of copyright law." > > "Illustrations that follow predefined rules or conventions do not > qualify as copyrightable works. Illustrations of biological > information, especially in taxonomy, usually follow conventions that > facilitate comparisons with similar illustrations. When this is the > case, the images do not qualify as copyrightable works." > > "Considering this outline of intellectual property rights, we conclude > that principles of copyright do not normally apply to scientific > images because most images adhere to the conventions of the > discipline. Certainly, copyright is not applicable to images that are > intended to facilitate comparison among related taxa." > > I find it disturbing that this article was published in a peer > reviewed journal. It sounds to me like these authors are trying to > play at being Intellectual Property Judges. As far as I'm concerned, > they're entitled to their opinions but they have no right to make > blanket statements about what is or is not copyright infringement. I > presume they've never tried to make a living creating images. It's > disheartening to read this sort of thing. I wonder if GNSI should > publish a reply. (Then again, perhaps it is better to simply ignore it). > > I would be curious to know what everyone else thinks about this article. > --- > *Emily S. Damstra* > natural science illustration > Guelph, Ontario > (519) 616-3654 > *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>* > emilydamstra.com <http://emilydamstra.com> > @EmilyDamstra > > ________________________________________________ > > Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the > instructions at > http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv > Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv