Sorry, but that is not quite correct. We are paying fees for reproduction with every equipment we buy (Photocopyers, scanners, computer software, and computer hardware [some may not notice, but we are paying]). And this is not a commercial site. You can only ask for damages if there have been damages. Has the author been "damaged" because his article was put on the internet? NO. Surely not. To the contrary. His work is made known. His vanity claim is completely counter productive. If the author would not want anyone to know that he published the species, why did he publish it?
The only copyright that was infringed here is the copyright of the
Orchid Review. And that copyright is only enforcable in respect to the format of the articel, not the content. Of course one could argue that RHS wants to sell
Orchid Review and that is certainly correct. However, they would have to proof that someone would have subscribed OR if the article would not have been put on the internet. Even if they could, the cost would be enormous and their reputation would be mindered. And if they did, all what is to do is to sacn the article in a WORD format [I just go a magnificent software that does just that] and put it the text on the internet in Word Format.
The situation is different with "larger" parts of books. And there again, it is a matter of opinion and a matter of how one does it. And again, a matter of whether damage is done.
For articles, it is completely sufficient if one gives proper credit in those cases, and in a scan that is done, as it shows the author and it shows the name of the journal. But Beware: only for
non-commercial purposes!!
As far as "bad manners" is concerned, people screaming "bad manners" should check whether they are not sitting in a glass building before throwing stones.
Guido J. Braem
ORG said:
I agree also,
it is the best to delete this part. All interested persons had the possibility now to get the information.
We must be more careful in the future with the copyright.
Best greetings
Olaf
