Maybe a reader familiar with this SciFinder could explain what it is exactly and why it may or may not violate the CAS database. I think we're all pretty clear that we can cite individual numbers within individual articles.
It seems the issue is over something a bit else. I'm just not exactly sure now, what.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Will Johnson wrote:
Maybe a reader familiar with this SciFinder could explain what it is exactly and why it may or may not violate the CAS database.
See [[Chemical Abstracts Service#SciFinder]]. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/CAS validation]], which is where all this started.
I've never used it, but extrapolating from what I've read about it, it's a tool for accessing the CAS database of chemical compounds. You can access by name, by chemical formula, by CAS number, and (most useful for chemists) by graphical shape or structure of the chemical.
When you buy/license it, you are specifically asked to agree not to use it as an aid to creating another database -- which, it must be said, is what it sounds like some of the folks at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/CAS validation]] are doing.
That is, the intended uses all involve looking up the chemicals you're working with (or are thinking of working with) so that you can be sure you're looking in the right place (i.e. under an unambiguous name) for anyone else's work with the same chemicals.
What you're not supposed to do is use the tool to look up every chemical in the CAS database, extract the reference information there, and compile your own database with that data.
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@eskimo.com wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:
Maybe a reader familiar with this SciFinder could explain what it is exactly and why it may or may not violate the CAS database.
See [[Chemical Abstracts Service#SciFinder]]. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/CAS validation]], which is where all this started.
I've never used it, but extrapolating from what I've read about it, it's a tool for accessing the CAS database of chemical compounds. You can access by name, by chemical formula, by CAS number, and (most useful for chemists) by graphical shape or structure of the chemical.
When you buy/license it, you are specifically asked to agree not to use it as an aid to creating another database -- which, it must be said, is what it sounds like some of the folks at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/CAS validation]] are doing.
That is, the intended uses all involve looking up the chemicals you're working with (or are thinking of working with) so that you can be sure you're looking in the right place (i.e. under an unambiguous name) for anyone else's work with the same chemicals.
What you're not supposed to do is use the tool to look up every chemical in the CAS database, extract the reference information there, and compile your own database with that data.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
How does a contract remove the rights of an uninvolved third party?
- d.
d. wrote:
On 09/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
How does a contract remove the rights of an uninvolved third party?
Presumably someone using SciFinder to edit Wikipedia is not an uninvolved third party.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
How does a contract remove the rights of an uninvolved third party?
Presumably someone using SciFinder to edit Wikipedia is not an uninvolved third party.
Right, that someone might violate a private contract. Which still does not have anything to do with Wikipedia.
Mathias
On 09/03/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
How does a contract remove the rights of an uninvolved third party?
Presumably someone using SciFinder to edit Wikipedia is not an uninvolved third party.
Right, that someone might violate a private contract. Which still does not have anything to do with Wikipedia.
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.