Scifinder is one of their two interfaces--in the variant Scifinder Scholar, its the one almost universally used for academic purposes. The actual database being search is usually the various files of Chemical Abstracts--in this particular case, File Registry, which has the chemical information. There are also files of bibliographic information. In the print version, file Registry corresponds to the chemical Structure Index. CAS is noted for its aggressive claims of intellectual property. They try to win by bullying. There is no reason to assume that everything they claim is valid,any more than for anyone else who purports to own intellectual property. For a good full discussion of this , see [http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acs_pubchem.html] from the University of California. But there is no doubt that a/they do have the intellectual property for File Registry, and b/that the contract limitation for their electronic interfaces are valid licensing restriction. As I mentioned, there is no licensing restriction on the print, just the copyright. The question comes down to fair use. But it is unfortunately thoroughly accepted in US copyright law that a contract can supersede the statutory fair use permissions. This is not necessarily the case in all countries. On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

d. wrote: Presumably someone using SciFinder to edit Wikipedia is not an uninvolved third party.

On 09/03/2008, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: The obvious comparison is photos from museums. Museums claim all manner of rights over photos taken inside them, and Wikimedia's response has always been "go away and come back when you have a claim that isn't outrageously offensive." - d.