At 01:55 +0100 23/9/06, geni wrote:
On 9/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1373
Everything back to 1665. Really quite a lot of which is public domain.
Get downloading.
Have they stated it is in the public domain?
Below are two extracts from an article from the THES (Times Higher
Education Supplement) Friday 22nd September 2006.
***
Ambiguous copyright law catches out scholars
Publishers and galleries are charging unnecessarily. Jessica Shepherd
reports
Academics are being incorrectly told to hand over thousands of pounds
to use works of art, literature and music in their research, a report
has revealed. The study by the British Academy criticises those
copyright holders who wrongly charge scholars in the name of the law.
Many publishers and art galleries have failed to grasp that copyright
law does not apply when material is to be used for private study,
criticism, review or non-commercial research, the report points
out. It argues that the demands of copyright owners hinder scholarship
in the humanities and social sciences. The British Academy hopes to
lobby the Government to make copyright law clearer for publishers and
academics with the publication of its study Copyright and Research in
the Humanities and Social Sciences.
[...]
Stephen Navin, chief executive of the Music Publishers' Association,
said: "Our members are not trying to mislead academics. Copyright law
is complicated...."
[...]
Hmmm.... "non commercial research". Wikipedia is non commercial, but
derivatives, such as
Answers.com are not, thanks to the GFDL.
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///