[Fwd: Royal Society Digital Journal Archive]

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Fwd: Fw: Tokion + Wikipedia

any "notable UK wikipedians" want...

Jimmy Wales

26 Sep 2006 26 Sep '06

1:50 p.m.

Attachments:

RoyalSocietyDigitalJournalArchive.eml (message/rfc822 — 6.3 KB)

Show replies by date

David Gerard

26 Sep 26 Sep

1:55 p.m.

To what extent is this true under US law? The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me. - d. On 26/09/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hurst, Phil" <Phil.Hurst(a)royalsoc.ac.uk> To: <jwales(a)wikia.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:34:56 +0100 Subject: Royal Society Digital Journal Archive Dear Jimmy It has come to our attention that there is some confusion regarding the copyright status of the Royal Society's digital journal archive. The entire digital archive is covered by copyright. This mean that systematic downloading and hosting by third parties is prohibited. Thank you for your attention. Regards Phil Hurst Publisher tel +44 (0)20 7451 2630 fax +44 (0)20 7976 1837 web http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk The Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Registered Charity No 207043 The Royal Society - excellence in science ****************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Scott Keir

3:04 p.m.

New subject: Motivations for encouraging access to public domain scans etc

--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.

Leaving aside the current copyright scan issue, what are the arguments for encouraging access to scans of documents and putting them in the public domain? Preserving old documents, pictures, photos etc costs money - in storage, in preservation expertise, in cataloguing, etc etc. Scanning, indexing and cataloging stuff is tedious and costly in staff, time and equipment etc etc. So I can appreciate that an organisation (of whatever flavour) who has done that either wants to reclaim some of the costs (by restricting access to subscription), or wants to get credit/publicity benefits (by only wanting the scans to be available via their website), or whatever. So what are the counter-arguments? Are they all just about altruism and public good? That will work with some organisations, I imagine, but even charitable ones like public galleries have to get the money from somewhere to achieve that - and many sponsors still want their logo credited with the spend. I'm also thinking here about encouraging organisations who haven't yet digitised. Apologies if I am being naive. Scott ___________________________________________________________ All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

David Gerard

28 Sep 28 Sep

1:55 p.m.

New subject: Motivations for encouraging access to public domain scans etc

On 26/09/06, Scott Keir <scottkeir(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

...

That will work with some organisations, I imagine, but even charitable ones like public galleries have to get the money from somewhere to achieve that - and many sponsors still want their logo credited with the spend. I'm also thinking here about encouraging organisations who haven't yet digitised.

That last is important. OTOH, claiming ownership of something from the 1700s remains odious even in a good cause. But yes, it's a tricky one. - d.

Rob Church

26 Sep 26 Sep

6:09 p.m.

On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

To what extent is this true under US law? The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.

Nope, I can smell it too. Although there is a bloke on the other side of the lab who pongs a bit, so perhaps it's that. Still, sounds dubious; if the scan itself is from 1665, then they don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, Brad's the one with a law degree and yonks of experience, so... Rob Church

geni

6:14 p.m.

On 9/26/06, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

To what extent is this true under US law? The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.

The scan is from some time post 2000 the material scanned is probably from some time before that. They will probably cite the Graves' Case (1869) LR 4 QB 715 and the issue that is is really rather a grey area of uk law but I'm not a lawyer. -- geni

Rob Church

6:24 p.m.

On 26/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Ah, I see. Wrong end of the stick totally. Rob Church

Chris Keating

6:45 p.m.

...

if the scan itself is from 1665, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

That would be remarkable ;-) The question is not whether the RS has copyright in the 17th-c journals. Nor is it whether they have copyright in reproductions of those journals in general. They couldn't argue for either of those! However, they might be able to claim that the work involved in making a particular set of reproductions (e.g. those PDFs) is 'original' and therefore creates copyright. I suspect they could but I'm not a lawyer either. Chris

geni

7 p.m.

On 9/26/06, Chris Keating <fightingforfairness(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

I suspect they could but I'm not a lawyer either. Chris

I suggest you and everyone who hasn't reads this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm -- geni

Stephen Streater

9:53 p.m.

On 26 Sep 2006, at 18:00, geni wrote:

...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

Interesting that they applied "United Kingdom" law. In England we have English Law :-) My understanding is that copyright law is there to make creativity worthwhile. Without intellectual property law, we would have much fewer books and inventions would be kept secret. Who knows now how to make a strad? The deal is that, in return for a temporary monopoly, IPR must be published and eventually made free. So the question is whether the Royal Society should be encouraged to undertake the laborious task of scanning their precious books by giving them a temporary monopoly on the results of their work. The legal question is whether the scans have any creative input. In the earlier case of maps, where different pages must be aligned and scales brought up to date, the answer is clearly "yes". In the case of a simple photocopy, I'd say the answer was "no". If the Royal Society has cleaned up the images, I'd say they do have copyright. I'd suggest the best course of action is to appeal their their ideals as: Registered Charity No 207043 The Royal Society - excellence in science and find out: (a) how much they spent on the scanning (b) whether they could change their policy to release them as free.

Andrew Gray

10 p.m.

On 26/09/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:

...

On 26 Sep 2006, at 18:00, geni wrote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

Interesting that they applied "United Kingdom" law. In England we have English Law :-)

UK law is pretty consistent on some issues, and I believe IP law is generally among them - remember that copyright law, in its first modern incarnation, dates from *after* the Acts of Union. So talking of UK law here is pretty reasonable.

...

The legal question is whether the scans have any creative input. In the earlier case of maps, where different pages must be aligned and scales brought up to date, the answer is clearly "yes". In the case of a simple photocopy, I'd say the answer was "no". If the Royal Society has cleaned up the images, I'd say they do have copyright.

There's an open question as to whether skill and effort in the scanning *process* comes into it - scanning a printed volume from the 17th century is a very different beast from photocopying a current journal, and making comparisons to photographic skill is not entirely unwarranted. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

geni

10:08 p.m.

On 9/26/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:

...

On 26 Sep 2006, at 18:00, geni wrote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

Interesting that they applied "United Kingdom" law. In England we have English Law :-)

I doubt that scotish law differes much on the point of copyright. certianly I haven't run across anything that suggests it does,

...

(a) how much they spent on the scanning (b) whether they could change their policy to release them as free.

We have recived two comunications asserting copyright over the scans (the one at the start of the converstion and the one I recived when I contacted them). I think it is safe to assume they will not release them as free. -- geni

geni

2:23 p.m.

...

Dear Jimmy It has come to our attention that there is some confusion regarding the copyright status of the Royal Society's digital journal archive. The entire digital archive is covered by copyright. This mean that systematic downloading and hosting by third parties is prohibited. Thank you for your attention. Regards Phil Hurst Publisher

You know it's when I see things like this that I become tempted to try and trigger that test case I've been wanting to see. But I think for now it is best that we let our friends across the pond deal with this under their mildy more sane if more confusing copyright system. -- geni

6419

days inactive

6421

days old

wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

Andrew Gray
Chris Keating
David Gerard
geni
Jimmy Wales
Rob Church
Scott Keir
Stephen Streater