'Fair Use' Piling on Tomorrow: Take Part!

Tomorrow the hammer's coming down hard over the 'Fair Use' issue, at ScienceBlogs and hopefully around the blogosphere. Quite a few of my fellow SciBlings have pledged to post about this issue, as it affects us all (not only all of us, but all of you too.)

If you were thinking about writing a post or an email or a naughty-word on a Post-It-Note, please do it tonight or tomorrow.

If you do put up a post, leave a link in the comments and good karma be thine.

UPDATE: I was contacted by the head of the journal, resolution here.

Tags

More like this

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…
It is with great regret that I am writing this. Scienceblogs.com has been a big part of my life for four years now and it is hard to say good bye. Everything that follows is my own personal thinking and may not apply to other people, including other bloggers on this platform. The new contact…
My general feeling about Judith Curry's stuff over at Collide-a-scape was that it was all tolerably vague. But there was one specfic. Over there, she copied Bishop Hill and proposed "Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006" as key neglected papers. More directly she has proposed: 1. The Spatial…
Shelley Batts and I are of the same "generation", meaning that we became SciBlings on the same day. You need to hurry up and check out her blog Retrospectacle before she moves to a new blog in a few days. At the Science Blogging Conference last month Shelley moderated the Student blogging panel--…

I've had a post up since about ten minutes after I read your post. I've also emailed Lisa Richards to ask if she could outline Wiley's understanding of "fair use".

David, thank you! :D

Rich, you rock! Thanks for sending that email too, much appreciated.

Hi Shelley-

Just wanted to let you know I posted a few words of support here.

I was once in a similar situation when a litigious creationist nutcase threatened me with a lawsuit because I linked to an article that he claimed was libelous. The lawyer I spoke to about it told me a judge would almost certainly laugh the case out of court, but that it wasn't worth taking a stand on. So I took it down.

The nutcase in question later sued the magazine that published the article, and the judge did, indeed, laugh the case out of court.

Sorry you had to put up with this.

Yeah, thanks "Read." :)

I'm at lab now but will transfer all these links on the front page when I get home tonight.

I'll see if I can't get it slashdotted tomorrow

Have just sent the following email to Lisa Richards. Is it polite enough? ThC

Dear Ms. Richards,
as a free lance scholar and teacher I find the reaction of Wiley's to Ms. Batts' review of the article "Antioxidants in Berries etc." highly disturbing, it can only be described as primitive intimidation. Science lives from intellectual exchange and Ms. Batts' usage of a minimal amount of material from the article in her wholly fair and open analysis of the same has to be considered "fair use" by any rational interpretation of the copyright laws. The reaction of your organisation, as expressed by yourself in your emails to Ms. Batts, is at best ignorant and ham-fisted and at worst a serious case of aggravated bullying. In view of this occurrence I for one shall be seriously reconsidering my attitude to the usage of all publication issuing from the various Wiley companies.

Yours Thony Christie

I wrote my second article on this, and I hope you read it.

This is almost a copy of something that happened a few weeks ago with a firm called JL Kirk. Google that name to find out more.

However, the blogger sued in that case, frankly, handled things better. She didn't cave. That you did limits the power of your argument. Wiley has done this before. If you continue to comply, you can be sure they will do this again.

Since we're announcing second posts ...

Wile E. Publishing

See if you can guess what illustration I used before clicking through.

And, Dan, I don't agree with you. It's not Shelley's duty to take on Wiley on our behalf. It's up to all of us. And, trust me, they wouldn't care a bit if they actually brought a suit and lost as long as they cost Shelley time and money. You may have seen people calling Wiley's actions a threat of a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). They can win at that even if they lose the case.

A much more effective way to fight this is to cost them money. They pour a lot of it into advertizing which they lose when word-of-mouth like this goes around.

John,

Nice comment. I was one of the first to call this a SLAPP. I also faced a threat like this, as did Kat Coble (who I blogged about pretty regularly).

You are right that Wiley's victories and losses in this would not be measured in dollars and sense. However, Wiley has a reputation which is wishes to attack. I won, and Kat Coble won, because the corporate hooligans who threatened us saw their baseless threats hurt their reputation.

It is just incorrect to say "A much more effective way to fight this is to cost them money." Companies have a lot of cash, and going after their income is terrible strategy: it attacks them at their hardest point. Attack them at their reputation, where they are weak.

The difference between those situations and this one is moral courage. Shelley has no obligation to do anything -- this is her blog after all, and she can write or not write what she chooses. But there is a term for complaining-without-changing-anything that seems to apply in this situation.

Again, Shelley's completely within her rights no matter how she proceeds. But it would be disappointing if she does not capitalizes on this opportunity, and instead wastes the time of everyone who swarmed to help her and others like her.

It is interesting that this is brought up, as I heard about it from a couple of professors of mine, as well as a listserv for faculty on campus. Some of the professors are asking for a moratorium on using Wiley publications for readings and references especially on items like research posters where the referenced material might be displayed. Very unfriendly of Wiley to do this.

By Ian McKinnon (not verified) on 26 Apr 2007 #permalink

Shelly --
Here's my post in support of your position. It's not widely read but I'm glad to do my part. I've crossed them off my list of publishers whose product I'll buy, or whose journals I'll subscribe to. Take that evil publishers!

Hey Shelley,
Neuroscientists unite! Here's my post supporting your position. It's terrible that they would use such underhanded legal threats to get their way. Your use of the graph clearly fell under fair use. As I mention in my post, they're apparently too tied to their slogan "where business meets science" to realize that a basic tenent of science is to freely share knowledge.

Wow, I'm so overwhelmed at the response. Thanks everyone! We have now come to a resolution, but its clear they responded due to the posts, emails, and insights from all of you.

this is a personal victory for you, and congratulations, but i'd say that this is a victory for society as well.

the idea-space regarding intellectual property, copyrights/patents, and fair use is such a war zone right now, and the gestalt of the law seems to be moving away from the rights of citizens and toward the rights of corporations and institutions.

your story has given me a little bit more hope that fair and open society is not lost.

--cid

0wn yourself