[Foundation-l] [Wikimediauk-l] [Fwd: Royal Society Digital Journal Archive]
gordon.joly at pobox.com
Tue Oct 3 08:37:33 UTC 2006
Quote below first posted to <wikimediauk-l.Wikimedia.org>
Below are two extracts from an article from the THES (Times Higher
Education Supplement) Friday 22nd September 2006.
If this is a research, then fine. But I am told that Wikipedia is not
in the business of original research.
Also, Wikipedia is non commercial, but derivatives, such as
Answers.com are not, thanks to the GFDL.
"This is not what Wikipedia is about."
Ambiguous copyright law catches out scholars
Publishers and galleries are charging unnecessarily. Jessica Shepherd
Academics are being incorrectly told to hand over thousands of pounds
to use works of art, literature and music in their research, a report
has revealed. The study by the British Academy criticises those
copyright holders who wrongly charge scholars in the name of the law.
Many publishers and art galleries have failed to grasp that copyright
law does not apply when material is to be used for private study,
criticism, review or non-commercial research, the report points
out. It argues that the demands of copyright owners hinder scholarship
in the humanities and social sciences. The British Academy hopes to
lobby the Government to make copyright law clearer for publishers and
academics with the publication of its study Copyright and Research in
the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Stephen Navin, chief executive of the Music Publishers' Association,
said: "Our members are not trying to mislead academics. Copyright law
gordon.joly at pobox.com///
More information about the foundation-l