Talk:Clarence Crafoord

Untitled

This text is a copy of of an abstract of an academic article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19101336 This abstract belong to the public domain (see http://friendfeed.com/e/0795d1b5-cb91-d6ce-d9eb-01eeb12b4752/an-abstract-of-an-article-Is-it-in-the-public/) Please do not erase Working copy in Clarence_Crafoord/Temp --Plindenbaum (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your link to FriendFeed (which is not a reliable source anyway) does not support your assertion that article abstracts are public domain, or any sort of licence compatible with Wikipedia or the GFDL. I think your best option is to write the article from scratch. Somno (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the author is simply using the abstract as a basis for his article. As he has stated, the abstract is freely-available at PubMed: a resource from which authors routinely obtain abstracts for citation. I do not see that this is a copyright infringement with respect to the original journal. PubMed do not state explicitly that their material is public domain, nor do they discuss any kind of formal licensing, but generations of authors have treated article abstracts as "fair use" (i.e. link back to original source) with no argument from anyone.Neilfws (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Most information on the web is "freely available", but that doesn't mean it can be copied into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a GFDL licence and its overall aim is to provide free content; this does not meet the encyclopedia's definition of fair use. Somno (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that copyright statement NCBI says clearly that users are "expected to adhere to the terms and conditions asserted by the copyright holder", which would be in this case the owner of the abstract, which is the The Annals of Thoracic Surgery journal. Anyway, I would be surprised, if a citation of a NCBI abstract on Wikipedia would not also fall under a fair-use agreement, but I am not a lawyer. JKW (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the license agreement for NLM data, which covers PubMed, for inspection. Note the sentence: "WHEREAS, NLM data may include abstracts provided by third parties for inclusion in NLM data, and use of the abstracts should be guided by the principles of fair use". Neilfws (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, fair use = non-free content, and it doesn't meet the first criterion in the non-free content criteria because it is replaceable by free content. Simply write articles from scratch, using the information from PubMed but not the text, and then there are no copyright problems. Somno (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed abstracts are freely available. They are summaries of a work, and therefore can be used in their entirety under the fair use provision. No need to excerpt or re-word anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.153.57 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk was followed by an interesting conversation on FriendFeed http://friendfeed.com/e/4950d465-2b8c-4570-b2aa-85c5317c8952/Does-an-article-in-pubmed-belong-to-the-legal/ (thank you all) and a blog post by Joe http://www.cotch.net/blog/20090126_1005. I'm now convinced that I need to change the content of the pubmed abstract.--Plindenbaum (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)