Thoughts in a Haystack

.

Update: Shelley has received an apology (of sorts) and permission to use the material. Power to the blogers!

Shelley Batts of Retrospectacle was sent a threatening email by one Lisa Richards, an "Editorial Assistant" of that world-renowned publication, the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (All together now! Whaa?).

It seems that Shelley wrote a brief article that used an image from a graph taken from a study published in that journal. As I understand it, Shelley's article was not even critical of the study but she was, in fact, really writing about the reaction in the popular press that "Alcohol 'makes fruit healthier'."

It is clear that, even if by some stretch of the law, Shelley's use was not protected under "fair use," it was an utterly minor violation without any financial damages to the publisher. In fact, it would have only served to bring this obscure journal to the attention of a wider audience.

But hey! Guess what! There is one of those "For Dummies" books about copyrights: Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks For Dummies.

And guess who it is published by: Wiley Publishing, Inc., which is an American subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. who ... you got it ... are the publishers of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.

Looks like a slight adjustment in the title is necessary...

________________________

P.S. And Lisa, just in case you get any bright ideas ... I'm a lawyer and I know my right to publish parody.

P.P.S. Here are other bloggers who are upset by this. If you are too, join 'Fair Use' Piling on Tomorrow: Take Part!:

Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math

Reed A. Cartwright at The Panda's Thumb and De Rerum Natura

Rory Hester at Kitchen Table Math and Parentalcation

Kristjan Wager at Pro-science

________________________

P.P.P.S. John Hawks is in general agreement but has some quibbles based on the fact that the ScienceBlogs have advertisements and, therefore, may have less leeway than noncommercial sites. While it is true that, in a close case, a court might be more disposed towards a use that wasn't generating income in any way connected to the disputed material, the rules are basically the same in terms of fair use for commercial and noncommercial use. Also, the lack of income on the disputed material affects the damages that the plaintiff could collect. But that is pretty much it. I think that the commercial aspect is less of a distinction than Professor Hawks believes.