Still working on an Shelley at Retrospectacle ran into a corporate tangle of moronicity
to cut a long story short, she used a figure from a paper in discussing the article, which seems to be clear "fair use", and got a lawyer letter from the publishers (Wiley).
Here is the original - with figure recreated from the data rather than cut'n'pasted (duh!)
A lot has been said alredy, this is really just to link in sympathy and point people at the flap.
My take on it is that Wiley are being morons. Shelley's article was clearly fair use, and recreating the plot from the data is trivial anyway.
There is probably some lawyerly rationale for why Wiley felt compelled to do this, but that just proves they need to get better lawyers.
Comments
No, she didn't. I don't mean to pick on you, but there's a point here that's been missed by every ScienceBlog I've seen that's commented on this (although I may well have missed a couple).
The correspondence was from:
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't claim extensive knowledge in the area, but I have been involved in similar situations in the corporate world. In my experience, companies don't threaten legal action over the signature of an administrative assistant (let alone via e-mail from an admin assistant). That sort of thing sounds like little more than a ploy to see if someone will back off quietly. If the party at the other ends reacts aggressively, there's always the out of, "Oh ... misunderstanding. Our counsel really hadn't approved that communication. Never mind ...".
Mind you, I don't blame Shelley in the slightest for reacting the way she did; she's a grad student with many better ways to spend her time. However, I would have been tempted to reply firmly but politely in the following manner:
* Document for the record exactly what I'd done;
* State that to the best of my knowledge and belief, these actions fell within "fair use";
* Request specific guidance from Wiley counsel as to exactly where my actions went beyond fair use;
* If I have gone beyond fair use, I will of course remove the material and apologize.
Would have been inteesting to see if they were prepared to go farther ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 26, 2007 12:49 PM
Aha ... I see that Shelly has just posted a responce which includes ...
Right ... the old "junior member of staff" ploy! Who knows? That could even be truthful ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 26, 2007 12:53 PM
IANAL [I am not a lawyer] (merely now and then a paralegal for 15+ years specializing in Appellate and Supreme Courtt briefs and writs, and Intellectual Property) but I think about the "Doctrine of Respondeat Superior" -- that is, the alleged junior member of staff (Lisa Richards, Editorial Assistant, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture) WAS, if authorized to write to Shelley at Retrospectacle, WAS de facto and de jure speaking for the corporation (Wiley) and therefore Wiley IS liable for damages, i.e. for defamation of Shelley, and might be found liable for additional damages for failing to determine the truth of the matter("reckless disregard for the truth"), and could end up paying for Shelley's legal expenses and sanctions above and beyond that. Of course, Shelley's said that she's too impovershed to buy Justice, and the EFF hasn't stepped in.
Conclusion:
There are two kinds of Justice in the United States of America.
(1) Justice for the Rich;
(2) Justice for the Very Rich.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 26, 2007 2:19 PM
Interesting acronym. No, no, better not go there ... :-)
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 26, 2007 3:27 PM