| |||||||||||||
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)Posted Aug 29, 2012 8:59 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) by dcoutts Parent article: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)
> I read the article they link to "Why ND Is Neither Necessary Nor
> Sufficient To Prevent Misrepresentation" but for academic works it's not > misrepresentation that people would worry about. It'd be taking a paper, > making some changes, adding a third author (so keeping attribution to the > existing authors) and then republishing. It would be unclear who had done > what. By contract with the normal academic approach of quoting and citing > it's always very clear.
Yeah, it is somewhat of a dilemma. If you can freely remix a research paper, you can definitely create situations where it is not clear who did what. You could even introduce falsehoods that might seem like they were the work of the original author. So maybe CC-BY-ND is the right thing to do here.
The confusing thing about all of this to me is that research papers are all _supposed_ to be derivative works of each other, at least in theory. Standing on the shoulder of giants, and all that. However, I imagine that the courts choose to interpret one research paper citing another (even a lengthy cite) as not creating a derived work-- otherwise academia would grind to a halt amidst copyright disputes. I imagine this is covered under fair use.
(Log in to post comments)
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Aug 29, 2012 19:21 UTC (Wed) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
> The confusing thing about all of this to me is that research papers are all _supposed_ to be derivative works of each other, at least in theory. Standing on the shoulder of giants, and all that. However, I imagine that the courts choose to interpret one research paper citing another (even a lengthy cite) as not creating a derived work-- otherwise academia would grind to a halt amidst copyright disputes. I imagine this is covered under fair use.
As Wol pointed out, litigation would be career suicide, but the bigger reason that this never happens is that academics have very little respect for copyright law anyway. This is party due to the "standing on the shoulders of giants" attitude scientists tend to have have, but exacerbated by the borderline theft perpetrated by the textbook publishers, the anti-science policies of the likes of Elseveir, and the innate sense of injustice one gets watching the MAFIAA literally destroying lives.
The amount of flagrant copyright violation that goes on in private between academics is staggering (photocopying entire chapters of textbooks, emailing PDF's of copyrighted books). This behaviour is encouraged by many, not just for convenience's sake, but as a form of protest.
One professor I knew, who seemed to have more respect for the law than most, had a textbook publisher release a new version of an introductory statistics textbook, which had no real changes, other than to jack the price up to over $200. His response was to turn his course notes into his own textbook, which is CC-licensed and sold by the university bookstore for roughly the cost of printing.
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Sep 3, 2012 11:05 UTC (Mon) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] Well research works are supposed to bring something new to the table: data, algorithms, analysis etc. Although you may be building on he shoulders of giants, you are not simply cutting and pasting the material.... It also depends what you mean by "cite". In my experience this means providing a reference which the reader can then see what the original paper was. Although the meaning of words varies considerably across different academic disciplines this is what the Bibtex \cite command does.... In my field it is rare that lengthy quotations or even figures from other works are included for no other reason that this reduces the space you have to discuss your own work.
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Sep 5, 2012 3:17 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
"Bringing something new to the table" doesn't make something not a derived work.
> In my field it is rare that lengthy quotations or even figures
That makes sense, I suppose.
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Sep 5, 2012 5:44 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
all of science is "derived work" adding to the existing knowledge and theories.
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Sep 5, 2012 6:16 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>It also depends what you mean by "cite". In my experience this means providing a reference which the reader can then see what the original paper was. Although the meaning of words varies considerably across different academic disciplines this is what the Bibtex \cite command does....
For example, overlaying your data set over a graph from another paper is pretty common. It can be done for a lot of legitimate reasons: to illustrate improvements of new methods, to highlight errors in previous works, etc.
|
|||||||||||||