Schryver - have we discussed this?

[_3sheets2thewind]

Dr. Shades "fair use" would also apply, even if there were copyrights, most certainly Williams piece is educational or research, therefore exempt via "fair use".

[Guest]

I'm too lazy to go looking, but I think Will posted, maybe on his blog after the last time this issue came up here? that he had a contract to not publish his research without permission. Who's permission is not clear.

Such contracts can be broader than simple copyright restrictions. If you don't sign it, you don't get access to the archive. And if you do sign it, its terms are enforceable. I'd suggested that Schyver publish a copy of any claimed contract.

Most scholars won't sign such contracts because it gives someone else control over their independent scholarly output.

If such a contract was signed, I would argue that basic ideas of academic openess would require that the terms be published so that readers can fully evaluate what limitations might have been on the author.

So if the article does ever get publish, I think it should include a copy of any contract Schryver signed.

ETA plus the maker of a high res photo, I think, can claim a copyright on the photo, even if the object being photographed is in the public domain. But I think Will was arguing the contract angle not the copyright angle. Sometimes you can just re-write the article or not use the photos themselves in the publication to get around contract restrictions. But if its a broadly written contract (which it might be assuming such exists) it might forbid any publication without prior permission, which is really stupid for a scholar to sign.

I'm meandering and should go to bed.

[_moksha]

Before FAIR was established, there were LDS Church publications warning of the insidious nature of apologetics:

http://video.staged.com/firstworld/funny_80s_mormon_lds_antilying_psa_commercial

[_3sheets2thewind]

I'm too lazy to go looking, but I think Will posted, maybe on his blog after the last time this issue came up here? that he had a contract to not publish his research without permission. Who's permission is not clear.

Such contracts can be broader than simple copyright restrictions. If you don't sign it, you don't get access to the archive. And if you do sign it, its terms are enforceable. I'd suggested that Schyver publish a copy of any claimed contract.

Most scholars won't sign such contracts because it gives someone else control over their independent scholarly output.

If such a contract was signed, I would argue that basic ideas of academic openess would require that the terms be published so that readers can fully evaluate what limitations might have been on the author.

So if the article does ever get publish, I think it should include a copy of any contract Schryver signed.

He posted contract issues in his "wo is me" thread on mddb, that thread is link in this op.

[_lulu]

He posted contract issues in his "wo is me" thread on mddb, that thread is link in this op.

Thanks, and I see this in the OP quote:

1. "require the authorization of his [Elder Jensen, Church Historian] supervisors in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (at the time, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Russell M. Nelson), as well as the First Presidency."

2. "after affixing my signature to a detailed research contract"

3. "This article had been submitted to and approved for publication by the Church Historian,"

brackets added

That's not how scholarship is produced, its how propaganda is manufactured.

[_Elphaba]

Of course, he had his defenders who were just as obtuse, but enough saw his behavior for what it was, and were so insistent that he was guilty, that I admit, flawed being that I am, I enjoyed it immensely.

Good to hear from you, Elphaba.

Hope all is well!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hey Ceeboo!

Thank you. It's so nice to be remembered. I hope you and yours are wonderful as well.

Elph