PlanetCatfish.com

I decided to start a new thread from the Liobagrus one. What is the rule? I have many, many old books and papers on hand and it would be great to get some of those drawings on the site. I do not want to see Jools get in any trouble, so how can this be done correctly?
-Shane

I have no idea, another thing to throw into the mix is (accordingly to Clare) that you can reproduce < 5% of any publication as long as it's cited. However, in the modern world, how do we measure an image Vs text in terms of %age content?

Jools

I think this one is worth researching as it could add much valuable content to the site.
-Shane

I was wondering about the possibility of hosting pdfs of descriptions of catfish in the cat-elog. Linking off-site would be less reliable I would think.

Many journals are not in the public domain, but some publications such as zootaxa are.

There are also all the old ones (plus some new ones) which are listed on the ASCI website.


There are also many on one of Armbruster's Websites.

I think if permission was granted, it would be a great addition to the site, but I don't know how much extra resource it would require to host them.

racoll wrote:I was wondering about the possibility of hosting pdfs of descriptions of catfish in the cat-elog. Linking off-site would be less reliable I would think.

Many journals are not in the public domain, but some publications such as zootaxa are.

There are also all the old ones (plus some new ones) which are listed on the ASCI website.


There are also many on one of Armbruster's Websites.

I think if permission was granted, it would be a great addition to the site, but I don't know how much extra resource it would require to host them.

Hosting them isn't an issue.

Technically, I'd like to link them to the catelog references field and that would require several hours work from me but no great problem.

What worries me is that we all invest hours of our time (note the use of "our" here, I currently intend to make it possible for data team members to add papers) when someone turns around and says, no, you can't!

Where does publishing a paper stop and publishing a book start?

Jools

racoll wrote:Many journals are not in the public domain, but some publications such as zootaxa are.

Racoll,

This sounds great, but it isn't actually true. Authors have to pay to have their work freely available on zootaxa. If they don't then it is is only freely available to subscribers.

Or do you know something I don't? I'd love to be wrong on this, actually!

Jools

This sounds great, but it isn't actually true. Authors have to pay to have their work freely available on zootaxa. If they don't then it is is only freely available to subscribers.

Or do you know something I don't? I'd love to be wrong on this, actually!

You're right Jools, but after having a quick glance through the fish papers, luckily almost all the catfish papers seem to be available on "open access".

Here is their brief policy on "open access".....

Open access. Zootaxa endorses the open access of taxonomic information. Authors who have funds to publish are strongly encouraged to pay a fee of 20 US$ per printed page to give free online access of their papers to all readers at this site or their own site. Open access papers are read by more people and are expected to have higher citation rates.


Is it worth sending them an email?

Shane wrote:What is the rule?

In my research (and I'm probably up to about 4 hours on this now) mainly on wikipedia but also Clare gave me a copy of the writer's and artists yearbook which has about the best (and rather lengthly) discussion of the subject.

In terms of international copyright, there's no international standard but there are two major conventions. Basically one part of the law (s.107) talks about "fair use" which allows for the reproduction of excerpts for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and research providing the purpose of such use is non-commercial, not a large percentage of the total volume of the work and so. It's apparently a very controversial point and you can see why with so many relative terms used.

In all of the above, the Internet angle isn't really firmly acknowledged or discussed in terms of test cases or digital consideration (for example, we all know image files are larger than text files, so how do images compare to text in terms of the percentage of the content of paper?). Is it file size, foot print, what?

So, in this case, I'm going to open the flood gates and say we should use scanned images provided.

a) The source document is checked for copyright statement and that statement is reproduced on the photo credit.

b) The source document title is essentially the contributor name and is fully quoted.

c) No photographs unless they are more than 70 years old (this is me being cautious and staying within UK copyright law).

If anyone objects, I will of course remove images and hopefully enter into discussion with that party.

How does that sound?

Jools

If anyone objects, I will of course remove images and hopefully enter into discussion with that party.

I think that is a key from a legal sense. You really can not get in much trouble unless someone asks you to stop and you refuse.

-Shane

Shane wrote:

If anyone objects, I will of course remove images and hopefully enter into discussion with that party.

I think that is a key from a legal sense. You really can not get in much trouble unless someone asks you to stop and you refuse.

-Shane

I think the key word in Shane's sentence is "much". You'll still be breaking the law, but if you remove the offending piece, it is very unlikely that the legal system will take the offending party to court for a "small offence", particuarly if there's no great (provable) "loss of income" or similar.

--
Mats