Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> The gist of the argument appears to be that you need explicit permission in > each > case. Since you claim to have such permission, perhaps you could include a > link > with each uploaded paper pointing to the explicit permission you received > for > that paper, or where you have received blanket permission, a link to that > instead. A "link" meaning what? A copy of an e-mail message? That can easily be faked. Actually, in many cases I do not have written permission per se, but the authors sent me the papers and said go ahead and upload them. I could not have gotten many of the papers otherwise, except by scanning them, which is very tedious. You might say the paper itself constitutues permission. I have blanket permission for several of the ICCF conferences, from the conference organizers. For ICCF-14 (the most recent) the organizers told me it is okay with them but I should ask each author individually. That is easy, because I am the editor and all papers are coming to me anyway, so I know the author's latest e-mail address. Anyway, the argument is kind of ridiculous because the Internet has millions of documents, photos and videos that may or may not violate copyright, depending on who you ask. I consulted with one of the top copyright law firms in Georgia (pro bono I am glad to say!), and they told me that since: I am not selling these papers; the papers appear to have little or no financial value; and I am clearly using them for academic purposes, therefore I am not in violation of copyright. Note that I have thousands of other papers, including 1,200 scanned ones, that I cannot get permission to upload, and I have not uploaded them. They are listed in the LENR-CANR database. Most are unimportant but there 50 or so that I would love to upload. I told that to Petri Krohn. - Jed
