When you are simply copying a number, you are however, not copying a database or compilation. In this sense you don't even rise to the level of unfair-use as in the case you cited of Rural Telephone. There, they stated not that they had the right to *each* name, but rather that the amount of copying (the entire list) constituted unfair use.
If the case had merely been about copying a name, it never would have made it past the lowest court.
As regards this particular case, there is precedent that purely mechanically-created numbers can not be copyright. As in the case where Thomas West erroneously claims a copyright to the page numbers of their edition. Patently silly on its face, page numbering shows no creativity.
The bar set by the Supreme Court is that the copyright claim must stand on some level of creativity. Regardless of that, copying simply segments of text falls under fair-use. The CAS would have to create the ridiculous position that the number itself and each number individually, constitute an entire work and that that work is original and creative advancing some art, therefore copying it would be unfair as you'd be copying the entire work.
I doubt we have anything to worry about in using their numbers in our work.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:29 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When you are simply copying a number, you are however, not copying a database or compilation. In this sense you don't even rise to the level of unfair-use as in the case you cited of Rural Telephone. There, they stated not that they had the right to *each* name, but rather that the amount of copying (the entire list) constituted unfair use.
This is one argument, but it's not the one they would make. One can also argue the opposite case; that collection of facts are copyrightable, that Wikipedia, a project whose goal is to give every person "free access to the sum of all human knowledge," is putting CAS numbers on all chemicals and compounds in the encyclopedia, and that this collection constitutes a significant sub-collection of their intellectual property. Does the relevant law make it perfectly clear what constitutes a collection? If you remove 1 item from a collection, is it still copyrighted? 10,000 things, 50% of things, 90% of things? If you want to create a relevant argument, this is the point you will have to focus on.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
Well, their subject line was "discourages" and in this case, it is "objecting to encourage". So, basically, they are just stating that they do not like it, which we should note and continue to do what's best for Wikipedia. One might also spend a few hours to talk to them, telling that it should be in their own interest that a) the CAS numbers are mentioned in the articles and b) the numbers should be correct.
I agree that the decision should be what's best for Wikipedia. I disagree that including information in the encyclopedia against the explicit will of the creator is that decision.
Brian wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:29 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When you are simply copying a number, you are however, not copying a database or compilation. In this sense you don't even rise to the level of unfair-use as in the case you cited of Rural Telephone. There, they stated not that they had the right to *each* name, but rather that the amount of copying (the entire list) constituted unfair use.
This is one argument, but it's not the one they would make. One can also argue the opposite case; that collection of facts are copyrightable, that Wikipedia, a project whose goal is to give every person "free access to the sum of all human knowledge," is putting CAS numbers on all chemicals and compounds in the encyclopedia, and that this collection constitutes a significant sub-collection of their intellectual property. Does the relevant law make it perfectly clear what constitutes a collection? If you remove 1 item from a collection, is it still copyrighted? 10,000 things, 50% of things, 90% of things? If you want to create a relevant argument, this is the point you will have to focus on.
It all depends on how our collection is built. If we were to start from their database and remove elements you could be right. If we build our collection on as needed basis as when we describe the chemical first than add the number we should be perfectly within our rights.
Ec
In my experience as a science librarian over several decades Chemical Abstracts Service has been the most difficult to deal with of all non profit science publishers--and I'd even say of all major publishers of any sort.
But notice the exact wording of their notice. Even they they did not explicitly say not to use the registry numbers. And they referred only to Scifinder, and STN, the electronic services, and in terms of the licensing, not the copyright. CAS registry numbers are available from other sources--including their printed Chemcial Abstracts. Most libraries in the US no longer get it in print, but some of the large public libraries still do--including the New York Public Library, and many libraries in other countries also. The numbers can also be found for many compounds through a variety of other sources.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:29 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When you are simply copying a number, you are however, not copying a database or compilation. In this sense you don't even rise to the level of unfair-use as in the case you cited of Rural Telephone. There, they stated not that they had the right to *each* name, but rather that the amount of copying (the entire list) constituted unfair use.
This is one argument, but it's not the one they would make. One can also argue the opposite case; that collection of facts are copyrightable, that Wikipedia, a project whose goal is to give every person "free access to the sum of all human knowledge," is putting CAS numbers on all chemicals and compounds in the encyclopedia, and that this collection constitutes a significant sub-collection of their intellectual property. Does the relevant law make it perfectly clear what constitutes a collection? If you remove 1 item from a collection, is it still copyrighted? 10,000 things, 50% of things, 90% of things? If you want to create a relevant argument, this is the point you will have to focus on.
It all depends on how our collection is built. If we were to start from their database and remove elements you could be right. If we build our collection on as needed basis as when we describe the chemical first than add the number we should be perfectly within our rights.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l