×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the how-to-thoroughly-discredit-yourself dept.

The Almighty Buck 176

word munger writes "Commercial scholarly publishers are beginning to get afraid of the open access movement. They've hired a high-priced consultant to help them sway public opinion in favor of copyright restrictions on taxpayer-funded research. Funny thing is, their own website contains several copyright violations. It seems they pulled their images directly from the Getty Images website — watermarks and all — without paying for their use."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

176 comments

0wned (3, Funny)

c0d3h4x0r (604141) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378119)

Nelson says: "Haaah-haaaaah!"

Re:0wned (-1, Troll)

mookie da wookie (919403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378459)

Wow, that was HILARIOUS. You're quite a catch, so let's talk about why... your nick is c0dehax0|2 or something equally lame you trot out the most trite Simpson's quote you can think of as though it were something new and funny your subject line is Owned, except, you don't start with an O. No, you, my exceptionally witty friend, you use a zero. I mean, why do I even bother pointing out your idiocy when it is so blatantly obvious? Grow up.

Re:0wned (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378525)

What I am really trying to say is that I never really got jokes in school and I got beat up a lot! It took me many years of endless pounding on my face by almost everyone that I finally started to get them. Then when I did get the joke and thought they weren't funny I had to tell everyone how stupid they are and thus I get beat up a lot. So all I can do is come to /. and make fun of you guys. I imagine you would all beat me up if you could.

--
I particularly enjoy rubbing your noses in my towering intellect. On a personal note, I am an avid mustard enthusiast.

mookie da wookie

Re:0wned (1)

dr.g (158917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378687)

Plus, he totally mis-quoted. It should always be "ha-HA!", reflecting the meter of the original. And Burns should always be quoted as saying "ECK-cellent."

Re:0wned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379641)

I respectfully disagree. I believe the correct statement should be "HA-ha!"

Re:0wned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378785)

Wahhh! Wahhh! Sounds like somebody bent his wookie!

Re:0wned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379481)

...and Cartman replies "Respect my authoritaaaaah!"

South Park Episode comes to mind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378151)

"(We're) ABOVE THE LAW!"

didn't we already pay? (5, Insightful)

Spacepup (695354) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378173)

From the article:
"They want to restrict access to publicly-funded research results by requiring that everyone pay a fee to see it."

If the research is funded by the public, didn't we already pay to see it?

Re:didn't we already pay? (3, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378261)

I'm sure they would simply say no, and come up with a rationale after.

Re:didn't we already pay? (4, Informative)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378563)

It's not even hard to do so. A lot the publicly funded research builds on non-publicly funded work that has previously been done at the same place or that is being done in parallel with the publicly funded stuff in that very same place. It's not like you can always carve out a complete research item and work on it independently of prior knowledge or of any additional non-public funding.

I've worked in research for many years, and we always had a combination of public and private/corporate funding ongoing for just about anything we did. In fact, doing so was a necessity, as there was no way we could have built and sustained the critical mass needed to be able to even qualify for most public funding if we had been using only public money. In fact, on most programs we got a maximum of 50% public funds. We had to put part of our results in the open in return by publishing, or by providing free licenses to certain parties (who needn't always be a member of the research program). But our work always included material and IP that was privately funded as well. Because of all this, we actually developed a model in which we even gave access to some of the privately funded bits developed with money from company X to company Y (and vice versa) or even to "the public". But it goes without saying that no company X or Y would have funded us if we'd have applied that model to everything we did, just because someone in our lab who was "working on the same big picture" had a public fellowship or was working within the scope of a governmental project.

Re:didn't we already pay? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378657)

Well, too bad for you and your company. Don't expect to take public money and turn it into to your own corporate profits.

End of story. Spare me the "but some was private and some was...", blah, blah, blah, crap. Your company held out its greedy little hands to take OUR tax dollars. Any knowledge gained from public money must be given back to the public. Period. No jumping through hoops or other fancy legal crap to keep from returning the publics ROI. We want our dollars back with interest or with gained public knowledge.

Re:didn't we already pay? (4, Interesting)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378841)

My (previous) employer is a non-profit organisation, created by and partially funded by the local government. They get more than just public results out of the place, they also get jobs (1500 at the place where I worked and a lot more in companies created and/or attracted by us). Not to mention millions of foreign high-tech investment from all the big names in our industry, which is good for the economy. Not to mention also the fact that we publish over 1000 research papers each year, so you can earn your dollars using results that our government and partners paid Euro's for. I.e.: it wasn't even your tax money in the first place!

And since we were non-profit...

Re:didn't we already pay? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379751)

"And since we were non-profit..."

So what does that prove? Lots of "non profits" use predatory practices or exist to serve self-dealing boards or employees; many for-profits have laudable business practices and goals (Google to an extent).

Why not have half as many jobs doing truly free work as twice as many whose intellectual labor ends up bound in chains? Doesn't it matter to you that you likely can't ever touch stuff you worked on there anymore -- given that public dollars (your taxes) were consumed to make it?

Maybe a "subsidy" publishing model made sense in the dead tree age, when it cost lots to make results available via printed media and was hard to collaborate in a fine-grained way, but in the internet age, anything can be copied cheaply and documents can be developed by multiple authors simultaneously. Why create artificial scarcity? And why prop up an economy based on artificial scarcity which is likely largely going away as, say, 3D printers become more common?
    http://www.reprap.org/ [reprap.org]
From there: "The promise of advanced fabrication technology that can copy itself is a truly remarkable concept with far reaching implications."
        - Sir James Dyson, 17 April 2007.
"[RepRap] has been called the invention that will bring down global capitalism, start a second industrial revolution and save the environment..."
        - James Randerson on the front page of The Guardian on November 25, 2006.
"Money is a sign of poverty."
        - Iain M. Banks, 1987.

Re:didn't we already pay? (4, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379271)

Sure, publicly-funded research builds on privately-funded research, and vice versa. Sure, labs will sometimes receive a mixture of funding, receiving university funds (which derive from tuition), government funds (which derive from taxes), and corporate money (which derive from economic activity). But, you're mixing up the "corporate funding" with "corporate publishers." The two groups are totally distinct.

The public should be outraged that their money is used to fund research that is then restricted from them. The corporate sponsors should also be outraged, for they too have to pay the publishers for access to research which they already funded!

Why should the researchers agree to surrender control of the information to a publisher, who uses it to turn a profit, rather than distribute the information openly? The open distribution suits the needs of the academics much better: it is better for science because the information is freely available to be analyzed, improved, and built upon. It is also better from a career standpoint, because free dissemination increases one's citations and reputation.*

The fact that science receives a mixture of corporate and public funding changes nothing. In the current system, *everyone* has to pay for access to information. Even the people who funded the work or did the work have to pay for access, whether they are a university, a corporation, or the public. Something is very wrong with that antiquated system.

(*Note: Open access is better for the career of an academic if all other things are equal. The main roadblock to open-access is that scientists feel pressure to publish in "high impact" journals, which are the older, more established journals. Thus at present there is a conflict between the desire to publish openly, and the desire to publish in high-repute journals. Luckily the landscape is changing, with more journals moving towards open policies, and newer open access journals gaining reputation quickly.)

Re:didn't we already pay? (1)

rgaginol (950787) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379507)

Right. And this should be a continued practice. Dare I say it but times are changing and hopefully there's enough frustration with this existing system that all public grants now mandate that they are the owners of the IP for any work performed under the grant. If this is a level handed approach to all "public grants", I'll bet the commercial sector adjusts just fine. And if public grants aren't currently at the level where they can pay for the entire grant, then they should be increased to cover the rest: it's much better to buy the whole horse then half of it.

I work as a software developer and have worked on a few projects for the Australian government. Nothing gives me more satisfaction then working on a true Open Source project which is given to the public with absolutely zero strings attached. It would be nice to see other public money for research grants spent in a similar fashion.

Re:didn't we already pay? (2)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378375)

well we paid for the research done by the under-grads who did the real work, but the one guy who sat on his fat butt with 3 letters after his name wasn't paid for.

In many labs (4, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378485)

The undergrads aren't paid at all, and in almost all labs part of that money is going to "the one guy who sat on his fat butt with 3 letters after his name". Incidentally, in our lab, some undergrads are paid and other undergrads do work for research/thesis credits. The guy with the 3 letters after his name does an awful lot of work himself. All joking aside, I'm pretty sure that's the norm.

Re:didn't we already pay? (1)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378755)

Nope. The guy with the 3 letters was the one who was paid. Here's how it works: some public body says: "OK, we'll fund you to to this work under these and these conditions. You'll get 3 person-years of funding spread out over 1.5 years." The lab internally then says: "Well, who are our most expensive people that we can allocate to this project, if need be only for 10% of their time?" Provided that these prople are not yet funded elsewhere and can credibly be claimed to work on the project, be it for doing the core work or for supervising, they are the ones that go on the list.

Besides, I worked with a lot of "three letter" guys for a long time, and they do a lot more work than you seem to think. We always had unpaid undergrads do some of the "monkey work" for us, but we also had a rule that any work that really needed doing or doing well would not be assigned to them. When attracting undergrads, you always try to get the good ones and you hope you'll be lucky, but in reality you're running a major risk as well if you depend on them. I've seen some stunningly incompetent ones.

Last but not least, on my last project before embarking on my MBA study, I was the so-called fat guy who did limited real work and spent most of his time on politics. The real R&D work was done by two very senior "three letter" people. I myself didn't have three letters back then. Stereotypes can kill.

Re:didn't we already pay? (5, Funny)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378409)

If the research is funded by the public, didn't we already pay to see it?

Ah, but you didn't pay for the results. Results costs extra. Good results cost even more.

Re:didn't we already pay? (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378437)

Ah, but you didn't pay for the results. Results costs extra. Good results cost even more

But dumb looks are still free.

Re:didn't we already pay? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379561)

Ah, but you didn't pay for the results.

Well that sounds absolutely, completely off. Results are precisely what was paid for. Otherwise why pay for the research? I'm not paying for research. I'm paying for answers. How you get those answers is the researchers' problem. Oh, but I do want to see your work, so I can verify the veracity of your answers.

Re:didn't we already pay? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378523)

Yes, we paid and paid, and we all know just how expensive it must be for them
to maintain a website...

I am an amateur researcher, working on my own bucks - my table top fusor is already
making neutrons, for example. I wanted access to rev sci instruments
back to the way past as a lot of what I'm doing would find some help from that.

Ok, they hide the pricing pretty well, that's the first sign. Assuming I get the
good guy rates, that mag is on the order of several hundred bucks a year. Ouch, but I
could afford that if it gave me backwards access on the web.

Access to past? May as well be priceless even for this millionaire. Try over 70k at the
cheapest rates in a bundle of things I don't want. Shades of cable TV (which I refuse to get)!

These guys need public shaming. They claim to be promoting science. Bah.
They sure built a pretty building for themselves...

These guys do no science, fund no science, charge for publication on both sides.
What AAhats.

Re:didn't we already pay? (5, Informative)

Coppit (2441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378789)

That's the point of view that I have. I'm lucky enough to be at an institution with rather liberal IP rules (William and Mary). Larger institutions have patent foundations, which are fundamentally against the whole point of research since the patent foundation wants/claims ownership of things you discover, and would rather you didn't publish it.

Happily, I haven't had a problem inserting "release code as open source" as a bullet in all my grant proposals. Since the grant proposal is a contract of sorts, I can point to the proposal (that the institution signed off on) if any lawyer starts hassling me about disclosing patentable discoveries.

Note to all you folks in grad school: put everything you can, including printouts of your code, as appendices in your thesis. Your thesis is copyright you, so the institution can't keep your work (in the thesis) as their own.

Re:didn't we already pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379727)

They don't make you assign all copyright in your thesis over to the school?

Last I heard, most colleges asserted copyright over all work product created by undergraduates in the course of their studies. I'm kind of surprised that grad students get any better treatment.

You didn't pay for peer review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378967)

Journals provide peer review. This is not paid for by govt. grant money. Do you really want to go to a govt. database with tons of unreviewed research and try to figure out what is good and what is bs?

Re:You didn't pay for peer review (4, Informative)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379129)

Journals provide peer review. This is not paid for by govt. grant money.
Actually a substantial amount of that peer review is funded by government grants. The reviewers are not paid. They are volunteers, with their salaries coming from the usual sources. In most countries university professors (and obviously employees of government-funded research institutes) get most of their research funds from government grants. (Additional funding may come from the university or from corporate collaborators.)

The journal subscription fees, which fund the editorial staff and so forth, are paid by libraries at universities and government labs (which, again, receive money from university funds and/or government grants). So, again, a good fraction of the costs are being covered by public funds. The scientific journals could not continue operating without the money coming from public sources, so the question remains: why does the public have to pay to read material that they have already funded in other ways?

Do you really want to go to a govt. database with tons of unreviewed research and try to figure out what is good and what is bs?
You misunderstand the intentions of the open-access movement. Scientists are not asking for peer review to be eliminated. Quite the opposite: having the information more open can only enhance the amount of open criticism and discussion of science. The intention is to have journals continue to rely on volunteer reviewers, and to cover journal editorial costs using publication fees instead of subscription fees. So, instead of the public paying to read the final article, the authors would pay a charge when they are publishing, and the results become freely available.

In the end, this changes very little from the financial perspective of the scientific institutes. If journals switched to open access, then institutes would pay publication charges instead of subscription charges. The net effect would be the same for them. The upshot is that the public, and smaller research labs, have better access to scientific knowledge. In no case is peer review removed from the process.

In fact, take note that many high-impact open-access journals are starting to appear (most notably the publications of the Public Library of Science [plos.org]). These new journals are maintaining the rigor of the peer-reviewed scientific process.

In the end, the Journals and publishers still make money under an open access paradigm. So why do they resist it? The usual reasons: they fear change, they fear competition, and they may make less money than they are currently used to. But science will continue.

you can't see research (1)

gambolt (1146363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379137)

You can see written reports and abstracts. You can see data. Once the research is done somebody still has to tabulate data and write it all up. They like to eat too.

That's not to say that journal subscriptions that cost thousands of dollars a year in order to help so-called experts keep their monopoly on knowledge aren't a sham. All the same, people should be paid for their labor.

Hard Line (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379255)

I take a hard line on this one. If a university accepts one dime of public funding, then any and all research it does must be public domain, peioid. No exceptions, no "well, this was privately funded", no nothing. We need a really good bright-line rule regarding public research spending.

Re:Hard Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379417)

I take a hard line on this one.

And you are ... ?

Re:didn't we already pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379463)

I am an academic with a PhD and publish in non-open journals. Thanks to PLOS this is changing but currently I pay around 400-800 dollars to 'publish' my research in any given biology journal. The reader than pays roughly 30 dollars per paper to read the journal. This is so wrong in so many ways I cannot even begin to express it. Even my students are confused. When I mention a publication I have they ask "how much do you get paid for it?" All I can do is laugh.

May I be the first to say.. (1, Redundant)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378193)

they totally got pwn'd on this one.

Re:May I be the first to say.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378273)

they totally got pwn'd on this one.
Hardly. Do you think Getty Images is going to go after lobbyists who are trying to get more draconian copyright laws written? They may not have any direct relations, but they will at least be sympathetic to each other.

Honor among thieves? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378955)

Do you think Getty Images is going to go after lobbyists who are trying to get more draconian copyright laws written? They may not have any direct relations, but they will at least be sympathetic to each other.
Honor among thieves? Hardly. That's why one music publisher sues another music publisher [wikipedia.org].

The only silver lining...... (1)

budword (680846) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378225)

The only silver lining on people like this is that they, like the nazis, are too stupid to prevail in the long run. (Did I set a record for Godwins Law ?)

Godwin's Law (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379467)

Godwin's Law means you lose the argument, so why intentionally try to invoke it unless it is an underhanded move to make their argument look better by any means necessary?

The only way you could defend this hypocrisy is to poorly argue against it, and invoke Godwin's Law.

How Do You Know??!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378227)

How do the hell do you know for certain that site didn't violate copyright by paying Getty Images for use of the images while still keeping the watermark?

As far as I can see, just the appearance of the watermark isn't a certain indicator that their copyright was being violated at all. Did anybody ask Getty?

I love how slashdot posts some blog entry and states definitely that this was copyright violation. If only they were this hard on people and sites who you know, pirate movies,music and games.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1, Troll)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378287)

OK there Prism employee of the month, you can crawl back into your shell now.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378331)

I was wondering this myself. I bet it's a lot cheaper to get a license for stock photos that requires you to include the credit watermarked in, instead of being able to use the photos on your own without obvious credits.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (5, Informative)

VultureMN (116540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378481)

I work at Getty, and while I'm a code monkey and not in the biz side of it, I'm pretty sure we don't sell images w/the watermark still visible. (I've had to write code dealing with our rights-management crap, and I've never seen anything about "keeping the watermark")

Hell, if they just wanted a legit cheap picture, they'd have gone to iStockPhoto. :)

Re:How Do You Know??!! (4, Interesting)

admactanium (670209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379315)

I was wondering this myself. I bet it's a lot cheaper to get a license for stock photos that requires you to include the credit watermarked in, instead of being able to use the photos on your own without obvious credits.
no, i buy images from getty quite often, the point of the watermark is to specifically show that the image has not been bought. who in the world would want to use a watermarked image? the extra stupid thing about it is, you can get non-watermarked low-rez getty images simply by registering for an account. that way people like me can make comps with their images without that distracting watermark. so the "designer" who did their site is not only unethical, but quite stupid as well. to top it off, they could have hidden their "borrowing" quite easily by just cropping in tighter than the watermark.

if getty images wanted to support this cause, i'm sure the designer or the organization could have negotiated out a pro-bono deal with them easily. getty commonly supplies non-watermarked high-rez images for their regular customers if you ask. i've downloaded high-rez images from them and even stock footage for project presentations. no designer in their right mind would use a watermarked image like that.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378369)

My guess would be that the point of the watermark is to shame people who are copying the image without permission.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

nitroamos (261075) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378447)

i think the question was not why a watermark would exist...

but just because it still has the watermark does not mean that it was not paid for...

Re:How Do You Know??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378489)

they remove the watermarks when you buy the photo

Re:How Do You Know??!! (4, Funny)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378515)

Technically no, but a person who pays for a stock image and then keeps the watermark on is retarded. Thus, either they are hypocritical or they are retarded, and I try to be generous.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378587)

What do you mean "keeps the watermark on"? It's not like a sticker that can be peeled off (unless it's delivered as a PSD file or something). It's either on the image or it's not.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378693)

Speaking of retarded. What part of this don't you understand.

1. You can look at the images with the watermark on them and choose if you want to buy them.
2. When you buy them you get the images without the watermark and the right to distribute them.

Therefore, if you choose to use the image with the watermark, even though you've paid to use them, then you're an idiot.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378949)

Maybe they did buy the images and the webmaster has made an error in the HTML. Error - people make them.

Sweet Pope Benedict fucking a donkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379225)

Will you please just shut your fucking hole already.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379327)

Maybe they did buy the images and the webmaster has made an error in the HTML. Error - people make them.
When you buy an image from Getty, you download it on to your own computer. You do not simply like to it, brain trust.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379365)

Not only that, but the Royalty Free licence might only good for the image without the watermark. Since the image with the watermark is a derived image, it may be true that you can't buy a licence for that version at all.

Re:How Do You Know??!! (1)

admactanium (670209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379361)

i think the question was not why a watermark would exist...

but just because it still has the watermark does not mean that it was not paid for...
getty doesn't watermark the images that are bought. i'd guess they don't even have high-rez files with watermarks. so you're suggesting that someone paid getty for the rights to an image and rather than download the high-rez non-watermarked file they chose to use the watermarked low-rez preview file? that's completely ridiculous and utter nonsense. nobody would do such a thing. is it technically possible that it happened? sure. in the same way that most absurdities are within the realm of physical possibility. but it's so idiotic that if it did happen that way, then someone really really needs to understand how the design process works.

Like Billy Joel said... (4, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378255)

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw someone else's copyrighted stones.

ah yes now I remember (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378269)

just goes to show how stupid copyright law is in its current state. tax payers fund the research, researchers pay to have it submitted/access to journals and then pay again if anyone wants to actually see any of the research that was done. that is utter bs, there isnt a reason for them to charge as much as they do [the university I go to has had to shell out who knows how many thousands for this very reason] hell half the research papers are 20-40 $ unless you get an unlimited account with those crooks.

Springer Slutz (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378895)

I'd like to see Universities who let their researchers give away their copyright to private publishers (like Springer) lose their public funding. The fees these private publishers charge are just way too much: usually more than a book, and they didn't even write the stuff.

Like taking someone out on a first date, only to have them hump another diner in the toilet who slips them US$40. Is that Ivy League?

Sorry, dudes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378281)

Universities have very nice internet connections, and hosting PDFs is trivial. Your days are numbered.

Obligatory. (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378285)

Nothing to see here. Especially that Getty watermark in the hair of that guy in the lab coat in doc_image.jpg. And definitely not the Corbis watermark in the left-hand skull/shoulder X-Ray picture in header.jpg. Or the one that looks like some sort of text on the shoulder (and the hair, and the shelf all the way to his elbow) of the guy in the library in header.jpg that I can't quite make it out yet, but I'm sure someone else on Slashdot will. Umm, I mean, "Move along."

Re:Obligatory. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378627)

Or the one that looks like some sort of text on the shoulder (and the hair,

Ummm, if text in the hair means "copyright", who is this "sex" who has the copyright on my Farah Fawcett poster?

Submitter didn't do their homework (0)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378421)

I did a lookup on Getty myself and discovered that the image on the first page, #AA011147, is marked as RF: royalty-free. So, actually, the copyright advocacy group in question has full rights to publish that image. I've used Getty for years, and their usage agreement for low-res images is very liberal; hence their popularity among designers.

Re:Submitter didn't do their homework (5, Informative)

word munger (550251) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378477)

No, royalty-free is different from free. Royalty-free means that you don't have to pay based on the number of uses of the images. It does NOT mean you get it for free.

Re:Submitter didn't do their homework (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378889)

So in other words, there's still no proof of copyright violation here. The presence of a watermark isn't indicative of anything. You got owned. Admit it and hang your head in shame.

Re:Submitter didn't do their homework (0, Redundant)

admactanium (670209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379383)

No, royalty-free is different from free. Royalty-free means that you don't have to pay based on the number of uses of the images. It does NOT mean you get it for free.
repeated for accuracy.

Re:Submitter didn't do their homework (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379011)

I worked at Getty, and use of watermarked images is prohibited. "Royalty-free" = when you license an RF image, you can use it in any application, for as long as you like, in as many different projects as you like (eg: a printed ad with 1,000,000 copies).

The difference is... (1)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378435)

that when these transgressions are pointed out to them, they'll probably pay for license to use the images. When Joe Average infringes, most of the time it's deliberate, and he has no intention to pay.

I know I don't have proof to back either of these statements, but I suspect they ring true to those of us willing to be honest about our motivations.

Re:The difference is... (2, Insightful)

FunWithKnives (775464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378579)

Are we overlooking the fact that this is a "high-priced consultant" group, and "Joe Average" is, well, your average Joe? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that our government already considers corporations to be legal people. Why should this situation be any different, right?

Surprised? (4, Informative)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378483)

I notice a lot of comments pointing out, reasonably, that since we the taxpayers have already payed for research, we should not be expected to pay for it again to the benefit of a few businessmen with a special interest.

The concept makes sense...to most of us, at any rate.

The U.S. Government, however, disagrees. [wikipedia.org]

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

Let's give them a shout! (2, Interesting)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378553)

I encourage everyone on slashdot to drop them a note [prismcoalition.org] condemning copyright violations such as the apparent ones that are on the prism website.

Taxpayer research is public domain (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378589)

Troll me down again, but while I may disagree with many slash dotters about when something should be publicly funded, this 2nd amendment purist, capitalist, right wingnut is honored to stand with the most radical left wing, nationalize everything liberal when something is publicly funded. All federal research, federally funded research, should be in the public domain and for any use by US citizens, and by extension, the world. Most of us who are interested in this data would just as soon be able to get loads of open data anyway. That includes all NASA research, images, all government data, census, geographical, geological, or any other sort of non-classified data that the government might collect or generate as part of its ongoing operation.

It's our data.

Re:Taxpayer research is public domain (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378943)

apparently some bigots have modded your post down again.

its curious though, there are actual people in the world, who PAY for some research through their taxes, and then does not want the ownership of it through public domain.

totally contradicts capitalism. you paid for it, but you dont own it.

Re:Taxpayer research is public domain (4, Informative)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379577)

[T]here are actual people in the world, who PAY for some research through their taxes, and then does not want the ownership of it through public domain.

I've read quite a number of histories of science in which the authors point out that the Western "scientific revolution" during the last few centuries has nothing to do with discovering "the scientific method". Scientific methods have been independently discovered in nearly all societies, going back into prehistory. One example I ran across recently was the comment that from what we know of their methods, the North American Indians' "medicine men" had better medicine than Europe did until sometime in the 1800s. The reason was that the medicine men actually had better scientific methodology than European doctors did. But then things changed

So what caused the big advances in Western science in the past few centuries? The historians answer to this is simple: open publication. In all other societies, such knowledge has almost always been strictly controlled by small "guilds". The knowledge was secret, and discoveries were usually not even shared with colleagues outside the discoverer's immediate circle of professionals. This meant that everything had to be rediscovered over and over again. You could only learn what your mentors knew, and you could only build on what they passed on to you, because everyone else's knowledge was unavailable to you.

But a few hundred years ago, some researchers in Europe developed a curious new approach: They published their discoveries openly, making them available for others to read, use, and build on. This led to the explosive growth of knowledge that we're familiar with.

In most of the West, such open publication is historically done only by government researchers. Before the 20th century, this meant the few idle rich such as Isaac Newton, who had brains and curiosity. So it took a while to really get going. But in the 1900s, various governments slowly got it through their thick skulls that funding research was one of the things that was building other countries' economies (and militaries), so maybe they should be funding research too. Then things really started ramping up.

But there is still one major drag on scientific advance: A lot of funding still goes into "private" (i.e., corporate) research. This is, scientifically speaking, usually a dead end, because the results of such research is kept private, and as of with the guilds of old, it isn't available for others to build on. The legal system cooperates in this, by prosecuting people who get access to private research results and try to build on it. In recent years, this has been happening more and more in the US, as the corporate world consolidates its control over the government and determines how most research is funded. Some universities also contribute to the problem, by claiming ownership of research results when they can and keeping it secret (or usable only under high license fees). I've read a few predictions that useful American research may be ending now, as the corporate world takes most of it private. And it's curious to see the publishers of scientific journals jumping in to block the advent of cheap open publication via the Internet.

Anyway, at least according to these histories, we should be supporting the open-publication people, because they're the ones pushing for more of what really made Western science the success it has been. If we really want Science to continue to improve our lives, we should be pushing for full access to all research results.

(And people have pointed out that the Internet is an example of the same phenomenon. It hasn't succeeded because it's such a great network. The IP/UDP/TCP/DNS/SMTP/HTTP/... protocols aren't all that good, actually. They're good enough to do the job, but anyone who knows them can tell you lots of ways to improve them. The reason for the Internet's success is mostly that all the specs have been published openly from the start. Anyone can download them for free, read them and implement them without legal restrictions. This gave the Internet a huge advantage over other privately-developed protocols that were often technically better but weren't available to any developer that was curious.)

web designer (2, Insightful)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378603)

So some stupid web designer put some images on the site he was hired to make, that means the whole organization is hypocritical?

Not to defend their movement or anything, but assuming the site wasnt made in-house by an "IP believer", the situation is ironic, not hypocritical.

Re:web designer (4, Insightful)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378827)

Someone still signed off on the site before it went live, meaning at least one marketdroid or PHB decided that it was OK to use those photos without asking where they came from. Unless the operation is totally half-assed. Which I guess is the point.

Re:web designer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378849)

it is an oversite on their part not to ensure that all ip issues were ironed out before the site was unveiled. sepecially since the water marks are clearly visible.

if not hypocrisy then severe incompetence on the internal person charged with approving the final version of the website.

Why extend what even they can't follow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378961)

> So some stupid web designer put some images on the site he was hired to make, that means the whole organization is hypocritical?

If you push for stronger copyright laws when you can't manage to follow the ones we have now, isn't that pretty bad? It'd be like someone campaigning for lower speed limits being caught doing 15+ over.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that one moral failure makes one a hypocrite, or you'd have to be amoral not to be a hypocrite. Still, it calls into question just why we need to extend copyright laws any further when no one can follow the laws we have now.

Re:web designer (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379043)

Organizations are collectively responsible for their joint actions, even if every single member didn't sign off on the specific action. Suppose Prism persuades the administration of a University that they have to stop their faculty from "stealing IP." If the university seriously want to change its people's behavior, it implements new policies and make it very clear to the faculty that they have to follow them.

In general, that's how organizations respond when they decide they shouldn't be doing something: they tell their people not to do it, and sanction them if they don't listen.

So Prism is going around telling other organizations to implement a policy while failing to implement it themselves. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

word munger is lying to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378669)

What is this, Digg? This prism group is battling against the govt. demanding copyright for research which they have funded. Whatever you feel about the issue, it has nothing to do with copyright enforcement, but instead copyright ownership.

Looks Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378673)

Among other things, the watermarked image just looks cheap and ugly.

Lets wipe out peer reviewed journals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378735)

That sounds like a great idea butt muncher. Than all research articles can be as suspect as everything else on the internet. If a researcher does not own the copyright to his own writing, he cannot submit it to a peer reviewed journal for publication.

CLIPART (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20378877)

ever hear of it?

A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion (4, Informative)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20378879)

I had a look at the website (on behalf of commercial science publishers) in question and I really couldn't care less about those pictures. It's probably fair-use anyway. What did grab my attention is the sneakily dishonest attempts to rouse public sentiment against federal support for alternatives to commercial journals (such as Open Source journals) or even the use of federal money for outright support of such journals, which I'll share with you:

Various initiatives and proposals have been put forth by special interest groups and some legislators that would force private sector publishers to surrender to the federal government all peer-reviewed articles that report on research supported by federal research grants.

Such undue government intervention in scholarly publishing poses inherent risks and problems, including:

(1)undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it

[...]

(4) introducing duplication and inefficiencies that will divert resources that would otherwise be dedicated to research.

I admire the chutzpa of the complaint about "undue government intervention". Research federally funded, peer-review carried out by publicly funded academics, but commercial publishers would first copyright articles sent to them for free, and them charge federal government for those same articles? Measures to ensure that the feds can download and copy those articles for free is "interfering"? Oh boy!

How about some proper negotiation with those publishers about copyrights? How about setting up all-electronic Open Source journals that offer access free of charge, and let commercial publishers compete with the Open Source journals for articles they want to publish? Or is that "compromising the viability" of the commercial offerings?

Yes ... on the subject of "compromising the viability". Joe Sixpack might not recognise this statement for the fallacy it is. Research is carried out (often funded by federal government), and written of for free by the researchers who did it. Peer review of scientific articles is carried out for free by scientists in their field. Those are the "peers" that conduct peer-review. And they are *not* funded by the publishers, the are funded by their respective employers (universities, companies), and by the individual researchers themselves, who will often spend their own time reviewing papers..

Now it's widely known that todays science publishing is big business (commercial science publishers post excellent earnings every year) and scientific journals are terribly expensive (just ask any university library near you).

The fun part is that commercial publishers really do very little for the journals they publish. Just consider:

- the raw material is delivered to them in the electronic format of their choice, free of charge

- they must then employ a qualified editor who does the first crude selection. (This individual will have to be paid be paid a good salary, say $60k - $80k a year.)

- then they send the articles to individual researchers for peer-review. This takes a few hours of secretarial support, a rolodex, and an email account.

- then they read the comments from the peer reviewers that help them decide whether the article is publishable, and they route the comments to the authors for improvement and response

- finally they receive the amended article, in electronic form, do a final check, and have it typeset.

That's all. The little secret is that commercial publishers don't really add that much of value. But a library subscription can easily come to $8,000 - $12,000 per year. How many of them would you need to cover your costs? Publishers don't let on obviously, but a fair guess is that $200,000 annually will be enough to keep a journal running. That would be, say 40 subscriptions of $5,000 annually. Now consider how many universities, institutes, and research centres there are in any given field in the US alone. Each university, engineering school, institute, or research centre has a central library and universities have several faculty libraries. If your journal is in any area of science or engineering those 40 annual subscriptions aren't that hard to find ... especially if you already have a list of established customers.

Now ... due to the widespread use of the Internet, Open Source, all-electronic journals have become a viable proposition. They can be accessed free of cost, but need a modest amount of money to cover the cost of a web-server, an internet account, some secretarial assistance, and the services of a competent editor (usually done part-time by an academic). But their content can be every bit as good as that from commercial journals.

The upshot is that commercial publishers feel threatened (with good reason), and set up sites like the one referred to in the article. Aimed at bad-mouthing government efforts not to be charged for research the government funded in the first place, let alone support (however small) for things like Open Source journals.

Oh yes, and about "duplication of efforts". I just hope that those publishers don't mean that they regard a competing journal as "duplication of effort". The last time I looked, it took 6 months to a year to get a finished article published. Peer review takes about 2-4 months. Could it be that we could benefit from having one or more parallel journals?

It's because most people have no idea what the issues *really* are that allows such efforts to have any traction at all.

Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379065)

I had a look at the website (on behalf of commercial science publishers) in question and I really couldn't care less about those pictures. It's probably fair-use anyway.

photographs and images never have republishing rights as fair use. If you grab anything from a clip art collections or someone else's collected works it needs the appropriate license. Photographers and graphics artists can't make money on support thus require licensing fees to get paid for their work. They take it really seriously because it is their primary income. Photographers for an organization like the associated press or independants don't just do it for shits and giggles.

Ok, sorry about that (1)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379567)

Ok, sorry to be so flippant about those photographs (my ignorance shows here I'm afraid, and I just skipped them while searching for the text). They really look so generic and nondescript that it never crossed my mind that they might have value. But that's not an excuse of course.

On second thought, and when I look closer, I see that they are good-quality photographs that weren't taken as an afterthought with someone's mobile phone. So you're right ... someone had to go and take them, and that someone had to be paid out of the licensing fees. Point taken.

your post is pure bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379073)

Peer reviewed journals generally make you sign over your copyright to them. How can you do that if the govt. owns the copyright? Most peer reviewed journals are not funded by the govt. They are generally paid for by members, subscribers, and authors.

Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion (3, Informative)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379263)

> I admire the chutzpa of the complaint about "undue government intervention".
> Research federally funded, peer-review carried out by publicly funded academics,
> but commercial publishers would first copyright articles sent to them for free,

FREE? But it is not free! The scientists PAY money to the publisher for an article to be published! It is by no means free. Certain journals make you pay a couple of thousand dollars for publication, plus extra for images plus a lot more extra for colour images. Mind you, as the author of the article you can usually download the PDF form of the article (i.e. the same file you sent them + journal name and page number on the bottom) for free. Forget about a free copy of the journal itself, that's a very much outdated concept - buy the paper, if you want it, like everybody else. You are not the copyright holder, after all.

For what it's worth, some scientific journals put a disclaimer in a footnote on the first page of each article. The footnote states that since the athors of the article paid for the publication of their results, in the legal sense the whole article should be considered as paid advertisement. No kidding.

I know of no journal you have to pay to publish (1)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379435)

I'm surprised. I never saw any scientific journal that I had to pay to publish in, and I never saw any scientific journal stating that its contents were "paid advertising".

It might be that it differs by field and by journal (I'm in engineering / maths), and I'm sure that e.g. Nature doesn't demand fees to publish.

Re:I know of no journal you have to pay to publish (2, Informative)

Sparky McGruff (747313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379711)

You might check out, for example, the The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [pnas.org]. A sample article (the first article from the first issue of 2001) is here [pnas.org]. (New articles require a journal subscription, but archival articles are online). The relevant text, found in the bottom right corner, reads like this:

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
I haven't noticed if they do that in recent articles, but the page charges are surely still there. If you want color figures (and who doesn't these days?) most journals charge you $500-800 per figure. Some journals (the Journal of Neuroscience, for example) now charge a "Submission fee" of $70-100 when you hit the submit button; that money goes to the journal even if they summarily reject your article and don't send it for review. The "open access" model of most journals requires that you add an extra $1000 or so on to the publication costs (which are probably already $1000-$3000) so that it can be viewed by those without a subscription. Or, by people who work at institutions with subscriptions who are at home, but can't get the freaking VPN software to work correctly on Windows Vista because each "beta" version works less reliably than the last.

Re:I know of no journal you have to pay to publish (1)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379767)

Check out IOVS, supposedly the most respected (i.e. loads of real paid ads...) journal in ophthalmic research. Quite a handful of medical and/or biomed research journals make you pay. A lot.

word munger is misinformed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20379517)

"Commercial scholarly publishers are beginning to get afraid of the open access movement. They've hired a high-priced consultant to help them sway public opinion in favor of copyright restrictions on taxpayer-funded research."

This is a complete lie. Currently, researchers own the copyright to their own writing. This organization is trying to prevent legislation from being passed that takes away the researchers copyright to his/her own research, and gives it to the govt., if the research is govt. funded. So this group isn't trying to change anything. They are trying to keep things the way they are. Changing things may have drastic consequences given the way research is perr reviewed in the US and worldwide.

Scholarly publishing is a moneymaking scam anyway (2, Insightful)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379619)

I'm in the humanities so things may be different in the hard sciences.

In order to get your article published you have to subscribe to the journal and in most cases the society that the produces the journal. When you get published you don't get paid and the publishers take the copyright. Because they take the copyright when you want to revise the paper, turn it into a book, or even pass it out to use in your own class you have to get permission. Now they always give permission but they are under no legal obligation to do so. They own the article outright.
Then the journals turn around and sell access to their articles to a database company like ebsco or someone else. That database company then charges universities for access to those articles.

As academics part of what we get paid for is to publish. So the university pays us to publish and then turns around and has pay someone else to get access to those very same articles that they paid to have written in the first place. Sure they get access to lots of other articles written by people from other universities but the fact is they are paying twice for these articles. I'm sure there are lots of other businesses that wish they had the same business model.

To top it off, as I said earlier, a lot of these journals are the official publications of academic societies. These societies are organized by academics in the field for academics in that field. It is supposed to help with the advancement and promotion of that area of study. So why are they taking the copyrights of their members? Sadly, most academics don't know or care about intellectual property and so the few times I've asked that very question I've been met with "I don't know" or the editor of the journal trying to defend profiting off our backs.

Something's up (2, Interesting)

Kwesadilo (942453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20379787)

When I went to the site, I didn't see any watermarks in the images, which indicated to me that the Prism Coalition had fixed the problem, either by acquiring the images through the proper channels or by painstakingly editing the photos.

Then I went to the Google cache [72.14.209.104] of http://www.prismcoalition.org/ [prismcoalition.org]. The bar at the top says that the cache was made on August 23, four days before the blog post from the summary. There are not any watermarks in the Google cache. If the cache is accurate and accurately dated, then the watermarks were added and then removed sometime in the last four days. That is, if they ever were there at all.

Something fishy is going on here. In addition to the fishiness that was the original topic of discussion, I mean.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...