Gary is right, we need to relax a bit on this and it helps to thinks of the
general context rather than particular cases where we feel that our own
rights have been violated. This discussion of copyright began with
distribution of research papers but became very heated when the issue of
photographs came up.
Part of the problem is that the web has blurred the distinction between
commercial photographs, which are for sale, and stock photos, which are
often made freely available, with an intermediate spectrum of photographs
which can be used for free under certain conditions and only with
permission. I think that most of us try to use photographs fairly, but there
can be an occasional slip-up.
For example, I often lecture on allometry and may want to liven up a graph
with a small picture of a mouse at one end and an elephant on the other.
Usually I just use clip art, but this is not the sort of application for
which someone is likely to use the kind of picture for which payment or
permission is needed. But if I used someone's SEM for a lecture on histology
I would not dream of doing so without permission. I think that in practice
there is an awareness that some photos are special and must be acknowledged,
permitted and in some cases paid for, while others are so generic and common
that we seldom think about using them. This will certainly rile some list
members, but I think that we all aim for a fair use policy that may not
always be the same and that may not strictly follow copyright law.
By the way, one point that has not come up which I think poses a bit of an
intellectual conundrum is this - if a publisher reissues an old book which
is out of copyright, is the revision copyrighted? If I want to use an old
drawing from Buffon in a lecture but scan it from a recent reproduction, is
that a violation?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Grossman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism
Dear Alexey,
As someone posted before, all that most folks want is to be asked before
their work is used. I suspect Jim Boone feels that way, but the original
post didn't mention permission or anything else, it just mentioned taking
something off someone else web site and using it in your talk without any
discussion of attribution. Conceptually this is basically the same as
plagiarizing someone (i.e. passing their work off as your own), a practice
that I hope you wouldn't condone. It also is unrealistic to suggest that
because your work is displayed then it is legitimate for someone to use it
without permission. Copyright law certainly says otherwise. It be nice
if
the discussion could be dialed down a bit in tone.
Sincerely, G2
