Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use In Scientific Blogging
GrumpySimon writes "Recently, the well-read science blog Retrospectacle posted an article on a scientific paper that concluded that alcohol augments the antioxidant properties of fruit. The blog post reproduced a chart and a table from the original article and everything was fully attributed. When the publisher John Wiley & Sons found out, they threatened legal action unless the chart and table were removed. Understandably, this whole mess has stirred up quite a storm of protest. Many people see Retrospectacle's action as plainly falling under fair use. There is a call for a boycott of Wiley and Wiley's journals."
From Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act.
It doesn't get more simple than this. They've been hanging out with the RIAA too much...
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
I only read the article after information regarding the original sender of the email was taken out of the email. Is this a case where a person affiliated with/employed by the parent company saw the copyrighted material and started the ball rolling? It sounds like this was a threatening letter from a company drone that would've (hopefully) been brought to a standstill had real lawyers been called in.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Come to think of it, industry researchers present slides with figures like that all the time, and it's not like there's a shortage of lawyers vetting them, and a lot deeper pockets for an angry journal to go after than some blogger has...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Actually I am looking for blogs of leading pharmaceutical or drug discovery researchers or at least people around that field. None of them seem to blog.
What are some folks' favorite scientists' blogs?
I like how this article is juxtaposed with the MPAA story 'MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM' below. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this legal action have been threatened under the auspices of the DMCA? A bill which was bought and paid-for by the MPAA?
Fair use, my arse.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Darwin said it best when he said, "I love fools' experiments. I am always making them."
And it would seem that producing valid data in the form of a chart, publishing it and then going after someone for publicizing your findings is fool hearty at best, but sadly also very mean spirited and it works against the mission of the scientists in the long run.
I will not seek to help profit those who would still falsely believe in a captive audience, so therefore this publisher is coming off my reading list.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
What's the point in publishing a paper that you want no one to cite!?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I'm someone who works in the publishing field, so I'm coming at this from both sides. As far as the blog's reproduction of the figures/tables is concerned, I would absolutely consider that as falling under the realm of fair use. However, I also have to deal with permissions to reproduce figures and tables. As far as I'm concerned, permission/payment should only be necessary when you intend to reproduce the material and include it in something that is sold (eg, another journal, magazine, pay website, etc). The problem is that many copyright lawyers don't see things that way...
A boycott of Wiley journals sounds like a good idea, but it is easier for an individual to select non-Wiley texts for his/her class than to get a library to cancel a journal.
Wiley & Sons are notorious in my book for being a bunch of crooks. They threatened to sue me over including a copy of the answers with a text book I was selling on a popular auction website. The sent me an extortion letter claiming if I paid $100 per copy sold and refrained from selling it in the future everything would be forgiven, or else they would sue me in court. It took several phone calls and a letter from my lawyer to get out of the mess. I wasn't even charging for the cd key!
The first poster in response to her blog is actually on Wiley editorial board. And he agrees with her -- not the company. This is the problem with lawyers running everything. It's very hard to get them to understand the world beyond dollar signs -- most of them just don't have the background.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I'd say that, if the reproduced charts are one of the major points of the article, and depending on the data reported they may well have been, then the blogger would have a responsibility not to reproduce them. Fair use ought to be a means of commenting or reporting on another work, not replacing it. If I can get all the information I need from the secondary source, that exceeds fair use.
Maybe it was an assistant that is ordered to read/search for blogs and news articles that don't correctly attribute works. She reads a price sheet that says 'No pictures!' and sends a threat.
I just think its funny. I think if they just asked Shelley, there wouldn't of been such a problem. Instead this nice little threat is posted for the world to see.
I had a question about one of the Wiley journals we receive hard copy. We were supposed to be able to access the online version as well. I called Wiley to ask about it. Left a message. No reply. Repeat ten times over a couple of months. Never did get the information. Screw them.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I would love to see this thing go to trial and watch the judge bitch-slap Wiley and their attorneys around for bringing what would be a frivilous lawsuit. They should, although I'm not completely certain, get slapped with attorney's fees as well as punative damages. What assholes.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
I think the usage in question certainly falls under 'fair use.' It certainly fits into the norms in the scientific community. Even though the journals are part owners (or sometimes full owners) of the copyright of papers, it's very normal for scientists to email each other PDFs, post copies on their websites, reproduce graphs in presentations, and so on. This is not only considered "fair" but very much considered "necessary" to maintaining healthy progress in science.
Yet despite the fact that these allegations have little merit (ethical or even legal), they create a very real chilling effect that slows science and decreases the distribution of information. Add to that the fact that most of this published research is funded by tax-dollars through government grants, and it becomes positively infuriating that the very scientists who do all the work are not allowed to freely disseminate the results of that work to the people, who pay for it.
This is why we all need to support the push towards Open Access in scientific publishing. If you are a librarian, student, postdoc, academic or industrial scientist, you should be putting pressure on journals to open their content to the people who do the work and foot the bill. For instance, consider publishing in an open access journal (see list here), or at least sign the petitions (US or Europe). Also see a discussion here which lists a bunch of things (small and large) that you can do to promote open access.
As an amateur blogger, sometimes on scientific topics... I usually like to give a web reference when I quote from some article or post. Unfortunately, if you are quoting from a scientific journal or article where the material is not available without a subscription, this is not going to do anyone any good. So I usually quote the stuff and put in the caveat that the post is done in the belief that it is allowed by the doctrine of fair use. I've cautiously put in some graphics in an attempt to test the waters. So far, no one has called me on it. I don't know what I'd do if they did. (Probably cave..) But as others have commented there always seems to be some jerk out there who thinks that they can make a lot of money out of some fairly trivial and shortlived post on a blog. Makes you wonder. OC
So yeah. Fair use in blogs is just the tip of the iceberg - the most egregious issue is that *we* are the ones who write, check, and prepare the documents, and then we have to pay again just to read them (and even if we don't pay directly you can be damned sure the libraries pass the costs down to us in the form of tuition and such).
The problem seems to have already been resolved. http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/04/vic tory_a_happy_resolution.php
Way to go blog-o-sphere, for making your voice heard. Though, interestingly, they didn't state that it fell under fair use, but rather they "gave her permission" to use the figure and data. So, maybe only a half-win.
What right does some corporation have to exploit for financial gain the materials that they are publishing? This is scientific research, probably paid for by tax dollars and therefore belongs to everyone. Just because some journal publishes it doesn't mean the actually have any rights to the material and can keep it away from others, does it?
Just like someone recording music - once it is in digital form it can be shared freely because they owner gave up their rights. You have to give up your rights to put it in digital form, right?
And certainly copying part of something is fair use, even when it is the important part. After all, it is purely subjective what the important part might be so any part should be fair use, even when it is a big part. Right?
Sure. Keep smoking that stuff and believing.
The standard procedure in the scientific community is that it's fine to describe someone else's results, critique their study, and even make your own graphs and figures that demonstrate their results. The problem is scanning / copying pixel for pixel a copyrighted, published figure or table and then re-publishing it in your own outlet. A picture's worth a thousand words... reproducing a thousand words from someone else's work = plagiarism... Making your own picture to summarize their results isn't. Another way to put it is that the ideas from the tax-funded research are public property (with citation, of course), but the artwork isn't.
Re-using someone else's figures can be done (and frequently is), but you have to get permission from the publisher. Of course, whether a blog counts as re-publishing is another debate entirely... this usually applies to reproducing a figure in a different journal or a book. It's not just this publisher, though, for those who are calling for a boycott; they almost all have equivalent rules on figure and table re-publication.
The blog didn't reproduce, it directly (I assume screenshot, it has been subsequently removed) copied the source from the images. Since then she reconstructed the data from the source using her own graphs-- which (should) be perfectly fine. Most journals (not open access) require written permission (several weeks/months of waiting) to copy a figure from their paper. There are exceptions in some cases (e.g., if you are an author of the original work), but basically, you give up a lot of your rights to the material when you publish in a non open-access journal.
A brief read of the PLoS copyright compared to the present article's copyright Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture copyright really shows the difference between Open-access journals and others.
More importantly, does this mean I can keep drinking screwdrivers?
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Thanks! That looks like a good one :)
Censorship is prior restraint. It's worse than taking legal action after the fact, because we don't get to judge the material for ourselves and support the author or its continued distribution if needed.
It's a good thing none of us ever do anything wrong or overreact or have a bad day and snap at someone.
Seriously... in this case, it seems like it was one person, doesn't it? The company apparently retracted it and resolved it. But sometimes it seems people are so anti-corporation by default that if one solitary fallible human being makes a mistake or gets mad and takes it out on someone, the entire company is at fault and either we should boycott them or burn their publishing house down or something.
Because, afterall, every mistake that happens by anyone in any corporation is premeditated from the CEO down.
Not saying there aren't bad corporations out there (after all, they are run by people!), but perhaps we should be fair at times and not immediately assume the corporation is trying to ruin the entire world of scientific research. Hrm.
This is not about fair use or commentary/research - The blog is commercial, filled with ads and other goodies. Her blog post generates revenue, and is not just shown to a classroom for educational purposes. This isn't about scientific blogging.
My Starcraft 2 Blog
I browsed the list of their biological journals and have found nothing of value.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Quite honestly, the publisher's actions seem pretty normal. If I want to use one of my own figures/tables that I have previously published in a subsequent publication, I need to get the premission from the appropriate publisher. I've never been denied, but I also don't make any money off of my publications...usually, at least in the biological sciences, you have to pay some pretty steep page charges.
Vanity is a tricky business. You want people to cite you. You don't want them to copy so much of your stuff, that the people who cited you get the future citations for your work.
If you are about to publish a scientific paper, please read this call to action by the ever wonderful John Baez first and make your choice accordingly.
I think we're all missing the main point here, which is that the blogger is a babe.
Use open access.
t =firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi= spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=open+access+scienc e+journals+&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&clien
http://www.badscience.net/?p=360
The matter between Wiley and the blogger was resolved by the publisher ignominiously blaming the "junior member of staff" they had tasked with their dirty work. They admitted no fault and continue to push against fair use by demanding permission up front, not from the author but from themselves. The matter between Wiley and the wider world, therefore, remains open.
I would not recommend anything rude, but the publisher should hear that we are not slaves and do not want to live in a permission society. They will listen because they need us more than we need them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I would like to see more "correct use" before I start caring about "fair use" in scientific blogging :P.
The Banff Protocol:
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
One side aspect of this story is that if you want the blogging world to pick up something about an article you are writing, it is best to publish it in an Open Access journal, preferably one using the Creative Commons license or something like that. I have found that papers I have published in PLoS Biology or other OA journals have a much stronger and longer life in the blogosphere than those in non OA journals. Note - I try to only publish in OA journals but sometimes am thwarted by coauthors.
Yes, boycott Wiley and Wiley's journals. They will join US, or they will die!