This isn't just about solidarity with one of my SciBlings, Shelley at Retrospectacle, although I am glad and proud to stand with her on this. It's about a matter of principle. I still have steam coming out of my ears. Here's the story.
A couple of days ago Shelley posted about antioxidants in fruit drinks. She knew about it because the publishers of the journal, the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, the execrable publicrats John Wiley & Sons, broadcast press releases that said adding alcohol to fruits makes them healthier by boosting natural antioxidant action. Not incidentally, it also increases shelf life. Shelley is a scientist and her readers are interested in science. Unlike the press release-based puff pieces in the traditional media, she actually wanted to include some science:
The method was simple. Include a piece of soaked blot paper (saturated with a natural volatile) within a closed container of berries and wait 7 and 14 days at 4 degrees C. Antioxidant levels were examined before and after, and decay was measured visually. Results of treatment conditions and decay are below.
Except the chart and graph she reproduced from the paper, a chart and graph containing data collected with taxpayer money, aren't there now. That's because the lawyers from John Wiley & Sons demanded she take it down:
Re: Antioxidants in Berries Increased by Ethanol (but Are Daiquiris Healthy?) by Shelly Bats[sic]
http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/04/antioxidants_in_berries_…
The above article contains copyrighted material in the form of a table and graphs taken from a recently published paper in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. If these figures are not removed immediately, lawyers from John Wiley & Sons will contact you with further action.
Regards,
[Update: We have removed the contact info from the staffer who sent the letter. It is distressing to hear she received some abusive email.]
W: www.soci.org
SCI - where science meets business
Register with Wiley Interscience to sign up for free contents alerts to SCI journals (Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, Pest Management Science and Polymer International) by email. Visit http://www.interscience.wiley .com/alerts
Read Shelley's reply and what happened next at the link. I would only add this. Let's leave the argument about expropriated taxpayer supported science aside (I think it's a serious issue, but I'll pass on it here). Let's also leave aside the question of whether what Shelley did was or was not "Fair Use" under the distorted copywrong laws of the US (also a very serious issue).
This is about providing scientific information on a science blog. Not by press release. By actually citing the data. As Shelley points out, there is no problem if she makes her own graph. It was just reproducing the graph in the paper. In other words, John Wiley & Sons was erecting a cumbersome obstacle for a blogger to show the data without really eliminating the possibility. If I were the authors I would be apoplectic with outrage. I imagine they are like most scientists. They want their work to be cited, used, noticed. If I published in a journal that made that more difficult, I wouldn't publish there any more. Why would I publish in a journal whose publisher made it tough for other people to publicize my work, not for credit or recognition -- because I want people to know about it. That's one of the main reasons I publish my results.
John Wiley & Sons. Anti-science publishers.
Update, 4/26/07, 1 pm, EDST: Wiley has capitulated in this case, citing a "misunderstanding." See Shelley's post here. On the other hand, the underlying cause is still there. We have only treated a symptom. This kind of behavior from an "academic" publisher is intolerable and is an abuse of the copyright privilege. Both the journal and the publisher are to blame. We need to make this kind of behavior the third rail for a scientific publisher or journal.
- Log in to post comments
Many of the papers I find in researching Leishmaniasis are only available if I want to pay for them. Almost all of these reports are done by persons on the NIH, Walter Reed payroll. The fees are not reasonable.
This information is vital to myself, my family, and to the public all of whom have paid for the research.
I wonder whether this represents some actual policy decision of Wiley, or just someone in the legal department who wanted to justify his salary by being seen to do something. ("Hmmm, what the heck do I put on my accomplishments list for this year....aha, I've got it: 'Defended company intellectual property from evil internet bloggers.'")
Marcie, Revere, Alba. Shelley has just posted that they have revisited their decision based upon the amount of email or support that Shel got. She can now post what she wants too.
Now about those Tripoli guys.........
Randy: Waiting to hear about Tripoli 6. Will bring it to you as soon as I hear something.
Sometimes you have to stand up to the bullies and just resist complying with their demands.
I'm always surprised at how easily people will concede. The lawyers sending out letters (in this case it was just an assistant at the publisher) aren't always telling you the true state of the law (ha!). They're just bullying you into giving up your rights (in this case fair use rights).
It's disgusting, but they get paid a lot to do it.
Steph
The problem is, for a lot of things, responding to a probably bluff isn't worth the trouble. Suppose you know the law is on your side, but that this is going to consume 10 hours of your working time, which you could otherwise spend on research or keeping up on literature, or just playing with your kids or chatting with your co-workers. How often does it make sense to respond to the bluff? And how does that tradeoff look when you're, say, 80% sure this is nonsense, but not 100%? Or when the only way to decide whether this is nonsense is to call your lawyer and spend a couple hundred dollars of your own money?
Situations like this are why Creative Commons copyright was created. It's time to take back our rights (legally) from the publishers and content providers who are primarily out to make mega-bucks, rather than to advance science or any other form of knowledge or creativity.
The way to deal with events of this type is to contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) and then write back to the "copyright holder" and threaten to countersue. Don't back down.
When people stand up to this BS, very often they win.