Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright 176

Posted by kdawson
from the how-to-thoroughly-discredit-yourself dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • 0wned (Score:3, Funny)

    by c0d3h4x0r (604141) on Monday August 27, 2007 @07:43PM (#20378119) Homepage Journal
    Nelson says: "Haaah-haaaaah!"
  • by Spacepup (695354) on Monday August 27, 2007 @07:47PM (#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?

    • by pembo13 (770295) on Monday August 27, 2007 @07:55PM (#20378261) Homepage
      I'm sure they would simply say no, and come up with a rationale after.
      • by mce (509) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:23PM (#20378563) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:34PM (#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.
          • by mce (509) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:54PM (#20378841) Homepage Journal

            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...

            • "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 mak
              • by mce (509)

                If you read my post again, you'll see that a lot of what that organisation does is put out for public use. Actually, the public gets more than it paid for (also considering that local tax money of a very small region in Europe is going into world-class results). But the public is not the only source of funding and the other parties also need to get what they paid for. There is no fundamantal difference between tax money and "ordinary" money: in both cases the previous owner wants to get something in return.

                • Nothing was meant to suggest your particular non-profit was in any way unethical; just that the term "non-profit" doesn't mean much anymore. The only really formal definition of "non-profit" or "not for profit" is a corporation whose profits are not given to owners (like the board) -- the profits are just spent in other ways -- given to employees as salaries or to users in terms of lower fees or invested in new ventures or given to other non-profits (or sometimes unrelated individuals).

                  Top lawyers are now b
            • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
              Care to tell me what place that is, and why you don't work there anymore?
              • by mce (509)
                The place is IMEC in Belgium. The reasons why I left are in part personal, so I don't want to explain the details here.
            • by Pragmatix (688158)

              they also get jobs (1500 at the place where I worked and a lot more in companies created and/or attracted by us)

              I wonder how many jobs there would have been if the government hadn't taxed that money in the first place? I find it funny people think that somehow the government can magically make the economy better by taking money from the citizens and then redistributing it in whatever inefficient manner it sees fit.

              It reminds me of a story I heard on NPR about some dying town in New Jersey. Some of the e

              • by homer_s (799572)
                I wonder how many jobs there would have been if the government hadn't taxed that money in the first place? I find it funny people think that somehow the government can magically make the economy better by taking money from the citizens and then redistributing it in whatever inefficient manner it sees fit.

                That is insane - you are considering the cost! Like an economist even!
                We the taxpayers do not care about the cost - we want our govt to feed us, clothe us, wipe our arses and "create jobs".

                The nex
        • by kebes (861706) on Monday August 27, 2007 @09:49PM (#20379271) Journal
          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.)
        • > 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.

          Sure, but no private research is ever done on completely sandboxed environment either. Many places in the world have publicly funded universities.
          • by mce (509)

            First of all, all patents expire. In the original US law (by Jefferson, IIRC, but I could be mistaken in that) after 13 years, which was recently proven to be the optimal duration for the overall benefit of all. Nowadays it takes longer, but expire they still do.

            Next, patents are only one solution within the realm of IP protection. That they are not optimal for any problem at hand is something everybody who is actually involved understands, including those who might apply for them and those who have to

    • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by benhocking (724439) <benjaminhocking.yahoo@com> on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:15PM (#20378485) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • My comments were meant to be tongue in cheek, but I would think that for an under-grad that wants to go into the "business" the experience and a bit of chump change for beer would be worth quite a bit.
      • by mce (509)

        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 t

    • 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.
    • by Coppit (2441) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:49PM (#20378789) Homepage
      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.
      • by drew (2081)
        You know, in order to get a patent, you have to publish. It's kind of the whole point.
        • by Coppit (2441)
          But as soon as you publish a clock starts for how long before a patent can no longer be filed. And in cases where a trade secret is more appropriate than a patent, the school would rather you didn't publish. Ditto for copyrightable stuff like software. But basically you're right... The patent foundation wants scientists to self-disclose (before or after publication) primarily because they need help identifying things what could become cash cows for the school.
    • by Ioldanach (88584)

      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?

      Ok, just show me where to enter my taxpayer ID number to prove that I've paid for the research already.

  • they totally got pwn'd on this one.
  • Oh, and by the way, make sure you cut a check to every taxpayer who funded it in the first place...
  • 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 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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by micpp (818596)

        Godwin's Law means you lose the argument
        Not necessarily. As originally formulated it read "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one". The idea of this meaning someone loses the argument was a later addition and not part of the original law. It's "law" as in science rather than "law" as in rules.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by QuantumG (50515)
      My guess would be that the point of the watermark is to shame people who are copying the image without permission.
  • by WwWonka (545303) on Monday August 27, 2007 @07:54PM (#20378255)
    Those in glass houses shouldn't throw someone else's copyrighted stones.
  • 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.
    • 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?
    • by Xiaran (836924)
      I agree. I'm not in the academic world but Ive often wondered why universities don't leverage the power of the internet. I could imagine many universities around the world forming a web site for research papers. It could be similar to something like this very site, but the moderators and submitters would have to have their identities verified. Imagine if a scientist could submit a paper and instantly have other scientists commenting, pointing out errors or even linking to others work on the same issue/subje
  • Obligatory. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tackhead (54550) on Monday August 27, 2007 @07:58PM (#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."
    • by Obfuscant (592200)
      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?

  • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FunWithKnives (775464)
      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? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sunburnt (890890) * on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:15PM (#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.

  • by budgenator (254554) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:22PM (#20378553) Journal
    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.
  • web designer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gogo0 (877020) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:29PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oliphaunt (124016) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:53PM (#20378827) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816) on Monday August 27, 2007 @09:21PM (#20379043) Homepage Journal
      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.
  • by golodh (893453) on Monday August 27, 2007 @08:59PM (#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

    • 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 i
      • 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

    • by kocsonya (141716) on Monday August 27, 2007 @09:47PM (#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'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: (Score:2, Informative)

          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 indi

        • by kocsonya (141716)
          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by kocsonya (141716)
            Ah, I forgot: in a grant application budget you can (and should, these days) have an item for "publication cost". I.e., the money you expect to pay for publishing your results.
        • by codegen (103601)
          It does differ by field. In the Computer Science, Software Engineering fields,
          publication is free for academic submissions. For some journals (but not all),
          commercial submissions must pay a publication fee. They usually try to entice
          the academics to pay a voluntary publication fee by offering extra offprints.
          I've never had to pay a publication fee for any of my papers.
    • by mpe (36238)
      I admire the chutzpa of the complaint about "undue government intervention".

      Especially considering that copyright is a creation of government in the first place.

      Research is carried out (often funded by federal government), and written of for free by the researchers who did it.

      Other posters have said (first hand) that they have to pay to be published. (Possibly even pay to submit an article for publication.

      Peer review of scientific articles is carried out for free by scientists in their field.

      It wo
    • It's probably fair-use anyway.

      No, probably not. Unless the Getty Image content was presented in an educational or critical context (e.g., "see how this copyright holder has used watermarking to reduce the value of unlicensed copies?"), there is most likely no valid "fair use" exemption which would apply.

    • by Miraba (846588)

      Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher [agu.org]. Here's what actually happens:

      The paper is submitted.
      The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
      The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
      The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
      The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.

      The paper now moves in-house.
      The col

  • by bigbigbison (104532) on Monday August 27, 2007 @10:39PM (#20379619) Homepage
    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.
    • by codegen (103601)
      In the CS field, it is the convention that if the paper is sufficiently different, then
      the revision can be published separately. I have been guest editor of three journal
      special issues related to conferences. We require that there be at least 30% new material
      in the revised papers from the papers in the conference, and the referees for the revised
      papers are asked to comment on how different the extended paper is. To the best
      of my knowledge it has not been tested in court, but it is the accepted practice.
  • Something's up (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kwesadilo (942453)

    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,

    • by Shados (741919)
      I dont think google caches images, actually. They still pull em from the original server, which can be quite a mess when a server is down and you want more than the text.
  • It's possible that they DID have permission to use those images, and that they simply displayed the watermarked ones by mistake. That's an awfully serious charge you guys are throwing around without evidence.
    • Then they are blitheringly incompetent. Besides, technically they'd have only paid for the non-watermarked images, not the images with watermarks. Also, I notice that a number have suggested that the current images have been edited with photoshop - open them with a hex editor and see the info, I notice at the moment it comes up as Adobe Photoshop 7.02007:08:27 22:06:26.
    • by pimpimpim (811140)
      A comment from an ex-getty employee that has been posted later answers this: using the watermarked-images is prohibited. If you pay the license, use the non-watermarked ones. Furthermore, research from commenters on the cognitive daily site seems to indicate that they have used photoshop to remove the watermarks.

      In any case, it reeks of amateurism, just the kind of people you trust your money to, isn't it. Also, as a researcher I am offended by the way these people want to mingle in research, saying it is

    • by Tsu-na-mi (88576)
      Insightful? o_0

      The only way to get the watermarked images is to browse their catalog and click "save image" on the sample image. Any image you purchase does not have the watermark on it. They watermark the images in the catalog so people have to properly pay for them or their copyright infringement is blatantly obvious, such as this case.

      I would appreciate it if clueless people (people who have never worked in publishing, design, or other fields where one uses stock photos/footage) would refrain from com
  • PRISM claims [publishersweekly.com] that free publication of science reports on the Web will undermine peer review.
  • Looks like they've bought the images in question. Current front page has great big "copyright xxx" on all three pics. Guess Prism's out a few bucks.... And probably a couple of web designers are out of a job. That's life.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...