On 26/09/06, James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz wrote:
Uploading the original PDFs to a publicly accessable website would most likely be a copyright violation, so we wouldn't want to do that anyway.
In the UK, not in the US.
Another question is what to do about about diagrams (assuming that there are some), I would imagine that if the the RS claims copyright of the scans we can't just extract them and use them. Simple ones I imagine we can (and probably should) convert to SVG, but for more detailed ones, that could be tricky.
So no-one in the UK should do this, but someone in the US may say "you claim you own a scan of a diagram from 1720 and no-one else can touch it? O rly. Sue and be damned." This is something we would need to be *quite* clear that we were or were not going to say ahead of time, of course.
(Though put like that, it looks very like the National Portrait Gallery issue. Have they ceased the vague attempts at legal intimidation after Jimbo indicated Wikimedia's attitude would in fact be "sue and be damned"?)
cc: to foundation-l on this issue.
- d.
2006/9/26, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 26/09/06, James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz wrote:
Uploading the original PDFs to a publicly accessable website would most likely be a copyright violation, so we wouldn't want to do that anyway.
In the UK, not in the US.
Another question is what to do about about diagrams (assuming that there are some), I would imagine that if the the RS claims copyright of the scans we can't just extract them and use them. Simple ones I imagine we can (and probably should) convert to SVG, but for more detailed ones, that could be tricky.
So no-one in the UK should do this, but someone in the US may say "you claim you own a scan of a diagram from 1720 and no-one else can touch it? O rly. Sue and be damned." This is something we would need to be *quite* clear that we were or were not going to say ahead of time, of course.
(Though put like that, it looks very like the National Portrait Gallery issue. Have they ceased the vague attempts at legal intimidation after Jimbo indicated Wikimedia's attitude would in fact be "sue and be damned"?)
cc: to foundation-l on this issue.
According to my experience as a scientist writing sometimes a review articles you have to '''always''' ask for permission to use graphs which are copyrighted or included in a copyrighted publications or databases. However, the source scientific data which was used for preparing graph is not a subject of the copyright law, so you can simply draw a new graph using the data from the original one and put the citations of a source.
On 26/09/06, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2006/9/26, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
So no-one in the UK should do this, but someone in the US may say "you claim you own a scan of a diagram from 1720 and no-one else can touch it? O rly. Sue and be damned." This is something we would need to be *quite* clear that we were or were not going to say ahead of time, of course.
According to my experience as a scientist writing sometimes a review articles you have to '''always''' ask for permission to use graphs which are copyrighted or included in a copyrighted publications or databases.
US copyright law. Scanning does not create a new copyright, and the notion is in any case odious.
- d.
Someone left a note on Wikisource about these going offline in December. I know at least one editor has begun downloading these. If anyone would like to help, I am sure we could use it. Of course don't get yourself in trouble if you fall under UK legal jurisitiction.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal_Society_Journals_...
Birgitte SB
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/06, James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz wrote:
Uploading the original PDFs to a publicly
accessable website would most
likely be a copyright violation, so we wouldn't
want to do that anyway.
In the UK, not in the US.
Another question is what to do about about
diagrams (assuming that there are
some), I would imagine that if the the RS claims
copyright of the scans we
can't just extract them and use them. Simple ones
I imagine we can (and
probably should) convert to SVG, but for more
detailed ones, that could be
tricky.
So no-one in the UK should do this, but someone in the US may say "you claim you own a scan of a diagram from 1720 and no-one else can touch it? O rly. Sue and be damned." This is something we would need to be *quite* clear that we were or were not going to say ahead of time, of course.
(Though put like that, it looks very like the National Portrait Gallery issue. Have they ceased the vague attempts at legal intimidation after Jimbo indicated Wikimedia's attitude would in fact be "sue and be damned"?)
cc: to foundation-l on this issue.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 26/09/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone left a note on Wikisource about these going offline in December. I know at least one editor has begun downloading these. If anyone would like to help, I am sure we could use it. Of course don't get yourself in trouble if you fall under UK legal jurisitiction. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal_Society_Journals_...
I should stress I have no intention of downloading these to save to Wikisource or Commons myself.
- d.
At 06:37 -0700 26/9/06, Birgitte SB wrote:
Someone left a note on Wikisource about these going offline in December. I know at least one editor has begun downloading these. If anyone would like to help, I am sure we could use it. Of course don't get yourself in trouble if you fall under UK legal jurisitiction.
I have downloaded one paper and started to read it.
"A memoir of the Theory of Mathemtical Form" by A. B. Kempe, M. A., F. R. S.
Received May 18, Read June 18 1885.
It runs to 70 pages, and has diagrams and formulae, and italics.
This was done for personal research, and hence is 100% legal.
Gordon Joly London UK
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org