Why you can't copy abstracts into Wikipedia

This is a guest post by Joe Dunckley
This is an archival repost of something first published elsewhere a year ago.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have six years experience of Wikipedia, was once a very prolific Wikipedian, and, despite my lack of activity there in more recent years, am apparently still an "admin" on the English language Wikipedia. This, coupled with working for an open-access publisher, means that I have also picked up a little knowledge of (mostly US & UK) copyright over the years. Since I can't boil all that down to just 250 characters (or whatever the limit is), this post serves to answer this question, raised at FriendFeed: 'Does an article in pubmed belong to the "legal public domain", can I copy and paste it in wikipedia?'

The answer is 'no'. I don't endorse this position, and I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but it is the correct answer nonetheless. Since there appears to be some confusion over why the answer is 'no', let me explain. First I'll define some terms, then the copyright status of journal abstracts, and finally why the policy of Wikipedia must be to exclude abstracts.

First the definitions. Don't quote me on these. Like I say, IANAL. These are all just definitions that I have picked up over the years in the context of Wikipedia and open-access. In order of increasing protection of rights:

• Public domain: completely exempt from all rights given by copyright law. Anyone can reprint it, remix it, and make money selling it, with no obligations.
• Public/copyleft licensed, e.g. GFDL, CC-BY: the producer of the work has asserted their ownership and claim their rights, but have voluntarily given everyone in the world permission to do certain things with the work without having to ask first. There are actually several tiers of these licenses.
• Copyright: you're not allowed to do anything with the work, unless the copyright owner has said you can.

Public domain is not a synonym for "publicly available". Something is not "in the public domain" just because it is on the internet -- indeed, most of the internet is not public domain, it falls in that third category. There is no presumption that you are allowed copy and paste material all over the internets. Perhaps there are corners of the internet where that is de facto the case, and perhaps it would be great if everything was public domain or copyleft, but it's not. Napster was a place where music was de facto public domain, before the recording industry reminded them that the law doesn't work that way. However, there is a fourth area to copyright: fair use.

Fair use is not a fourth category, like the categories above. Fair use is just a set of exemptions to copyright protections. It allows you to make use of copyrighted material without the owner's permission to do so. However, it is very limited: you may only use a limited amount of the copyright material, and you can only do a limited range of things with it. If you want to use something copyrighted and say that you are doing so under fair use provisions, you have to make the case for your specific creation being fair use of the material. Getting away with claiming fair use for an abstract in PubMed does not mean that you will get away with it for Wikipedia, or some other creation. And the copyright owner is always within their rights to object to your fair use claim.

The copyright status of journal abstracts. Copyright to most journal abstracts will be owned by the journal's publisher (or society). Copyright to others will be owned by the authors. For open-access papers, the copyright is usually owned by the authors, but the journal has made sure that they have released it under a copyleft license, allowing you to do lots of things with their work. Papers written by employees of US federal agencies in the course of their employment will be public domain, as will very old papers.

It is true that there is a culture amongst scientists of free movement of published ideas. Copyright is worthless to a scientist, who actively wants his ideas to spread, so long as he is cited and acknowledged. Scientists freely share and reprint things like abstracts.

Scientists assume that publishers feel the same about all use of "their" material. Note the fierce and desperate opposition some of the traditional publishers raise against the open-access movement, though. Ideas mean different things to a scientist and to a (traditional) publisher. You shouldn't presume that publishers will react in the same laid-back way as scientists do when the words that "belong" to them are used in novel ways.

Note that PubMed carefully argues the case that its use of abstracts falls under fair use provisions. It doesn't just say "yeah, whatever, everyone freely reproduces abstracts, no one cares."

Why you can't turn abstracts into Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia can't be laid back about copyright any more than PubMed can. Wikipedia is now, what, a top-ten website by most metrics? People notice things that are put on Wikipedia. If you start putting abstracts on it, somewhere a publisher will notice, not like it, and have the material removed. You could claim fair use, but (and remember, IANAL), I very much doubt you would be successful: an encyclopedia is very different to an index, and in Wikipedia you are remixing the material. Well, whatever. One page gets deleted. No lasting harm done. End of story?

Not exactly. Wikipedia is GFDL. What you put on Wikipedia gets copied to hundreds of mirrors and put in paper versions. People use it for whatever commercial purposes they want, and it gets remixed to death. It's difficult to undo what goes into Wikipedia. That is why, when you write in Wikipedia, you must declare either that the words are your own, or that they are already released under a compatible copyleft license. You are not just giving permission for your words to be used on Wikipedia, you are giving permission for your words to be reused and remixed for virtually any purpose. This is why Wikipedia has to be pretty careful not to let copyright violations through.

This is also why Wikipedia does not actually allow any text to be contributed as fair use (except when marked as quotations): the permissions granted by Wikipedia are just too great for the fair use claim to be defensible.

But can't Wikipedia make an exception for abstracts? Theoretically, perhaps it could be done, but sadly, the reality is 'no'. Wikipedia is too big, too old, too well known, too bureaucratic. Wikipedia's policy on copyrights is well established; it must be generalist, covering all fields and all nations, and it can't afford to be lax. To come up with exceptions to the policy would be too difficult for such a generalist site with such a tiny legal team. The Wikipedians would have to establish beyond doubt that publishers were happy for their abstracts to be used not just on the encyclopedia, but by anyone, anywhere, for virtually any purpose, reprinted and remixed. And that sounds like the open-access movement to me.

Conclusions. You can't put (non-open access) abstracts on Wikipedia. It would be nice if the gentlemen's agreement whereby publishers overlooked reuse of their material by scientists extended to all spheres, but that ain't necessarily so. Of course, it would great if it were so, and the story is just one of thousands which emphasise the need for a more rational and restricted copyright system.

Journalology roundup #7

Scooped by a blog. A then PhD student Reed Cartwright came up with the same hypothesis on his blog as an accepted paper in Plant Cell, so the author offered him co-authorship on the paper. A nice feel-good story, but by Reed's admission "There are maybe three sentences in the published paper that I had anything to do with". I might be a spoil-sport, but I think that an acknowledgement would have made more sense! Reed's blog is here.

Physician-Industry Relationships. "Most physicians (94%) reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%). More than one third of the respondents (35%) received reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education, and more than one quarter (28%) received payments for consulting, giving lectures, or enrolling patients in trials".

The Scientist's take on the Shelley Batts figure reuse affair.

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature. "Large trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations". This is the kind of journalology research I love to see!

Open Access & Science Publishing. Results of a Study on Researchers’ Acceptance and Use of Open Access Publishing

In the eye of the Open Access storm. "Publisher Matthew Cockerill is one of the father figures of open access. So, exactly how open is he?". A profile of our Dear Leader.

Open access and the reuse of images

Pedro on Public Rambling has written about the reuse of scientific images and notes that the Creative Commons license used by both BioMed Central and PLoS allows him and other bloggers to freely post images from our journals without the need to laboriously fill out forms or the worry of facing legal action: “From a user point of view this is absolutely liberating. I can not only read these manuscripts but I can use their pictures to comment on them and I can even think of creatively combining their content with other works”. All that is needed is an acknowledgement of the source of the figures (this wasn't given when an article was published in Cytometry Part A, hence this erratum).

Pedro's comments were well placed. Shelley Batts on Retrospectacle, reports that she had a “tangle with lawyers ... over the 'fair use' of a figure ... In short, I was threatened with legal action if I didn't take it down immediately. I used a panel a figure, and a chart, from over 10+ figures in the paper. I cited and reported everything straight forwardly. I would think they'd be happy to get the press. But alas, no”.

John Hawks has pointed out that unfortunately Wiley (the publisher in question) might be within their rights to argue that 'fair use' does not extend to posts on a blog on a commercial platform that carries advertising. Shelley initially redrew the figures after being contacted by Wiley, but a check of the Wiley permissions FAQs confirms that “If you redraw a figure, you have created an adapted version of the original figure. You are still required to credit the original source. If the figure or figures you are redrawing exceed the limits of "fair use," you must request permission from the original source. Redrawing is not a way to by-pass copyright protection” (my emphasis).

Although Wiley has now backed down since the blogosphere exploded on this issue - a good summary is on A Blog Around The Clock - this confused picture of permissions and rights only goes to bolster the argument that traditional closed access publishing damages the dissemination and discussion of science.

Peter Suber has noted before that open access solves not just the 'serials crisis' on journal pricing, but also the 'permissions crisis'. Although Wiley allows self-archiving, the instinct and practice of traditional publishers is to limit the reuse of work published by them unless they give permission and receive payment. If you believe that scientific work should be communicated and debated without barriers, publish in an open access journal.

Declaration of Pomposity, and a Declaration of War?

Ahead of the EC Conference on Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area, a group of publishers have released what they dub the 'Brussels Declaration', which shamelessly echoes the Berlin Declaration on Open Access, the Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Bethseda Statement on Open Access Publishing. Richard Charkin, who works for Macmillan, has irreverently nicknamed it the Bognor Declaration, which will hopefully take some of the wind out of their sails.

They have stated that "we have decided to publish a declaration of principles which we believe to be self-evident". Oh, for pity's sake! Using language that apes the US Declaration of Independence makes them sound very pompous. Is it really 'self-evident' that "Copyright protects the investment of both authors and publishers"? Insisting on transfer of copyright to the publisher certainly helps maintain publisher profits, but how does that help the authors? The statement that "authors should be free to choose where they publish in a healthy, undistorted free market" is plainly a dig at PLoS (who have received philanthropic funding), but since when was journal publishing an 'undistorted free market'? The many mergers over the years have led towards the creation of monopolies.

The real target of this declaration is self-archiving. Stevan Harnad, the "archivangelist", optimistically commented on the IWR Blog that "There will be no war in Brussels. The meeting is about online access to European research findings. The European research community is meeting to decide how to maximise access, usage and impact for its research findings. The answer -- the very same answer -- has already been proposed by the European Commission [...] As a condition for receiving public research funding, all funded researchers should self-archive the resulting research publications online in an Open Access Repository, free for all would-be users".

In other news, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has declared that there will be "peace for our time". Um, perhaps not. The ninth "principle" in this declaration is that "Open deposit of accepted manuscripts [self-archiving] risks destabilising subscription revenues and undermining peer review [...] Free availability of significant proportions of a journal’s content may result in its cancellation and therefore destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend". I sense that hostilities have started... Perhaps soon the publisher tanks will be parked on the University of Southampton's driveway?

Overall this declaration makes these publishers look self-satisfied and a bit silly. I'd have expected better from the BMJ Group, who are one of the signatories.

Response to '10 Problems with the Peer-Review Publishing Process'

Kevin Dewalt's blog on the 19th January includes 10 criticisms of peer review. I've posted a comment on his blog with my response to each of the points, but I'll copy them here as well.

Kevin's original points are italicised, and I've made a couple of additional comments since I replied on his blog that are indicated by square brackets. I hope I've corrected some misconceptions about peer review.

---
1. Unstated real or perceived conflicts of interest. Reviewers and authors can have relationships with entities that have an ulterior motive in getting material published.

True, but many journals, such as mine, require authors and reviewers to declare their competing interests - in our medical journals, these interests are published with the article. Editors are used to watching out for this.
---
2. Peer-review process advances slower than scientific progress.

Yes, but peer review doesn't stop someone first posting their article on their own web-site, discussing their work at conferences, or posting their work on a pre-print server like ArXiv. Anyway, scientific progress isn't as rapid as people believe, and without the checks and balances that peer review gives, all sorts of rubbish would be published, and scientists would have to follow even more blind alleys than they do already after reading profoundly flawed research. Peer review adds some rigour into the process of communicating scientific research. Less haste, more speed is an apt concept here.
---
3. The current process does not provide authors and reviewers with basic collaborative web tools.

That's nothing to do with peer review, just the delays in the Web 2.0 revolution getting to publishers. PLoS ONE (published by Public Library of Science, another OA publisher) does now offer reviewers and authors interactive tools to annotate articles. Many journals, like mine and the BMJ, allow any reader to comment on a published article.
---
4. Authors lose copyright privileges when publishing yet are often forced to publish to continue career advancement.

Traditional journals insist on copyright transfer. Many open access journals, including those published by BioMed Central and PLoS, allow the authors to retain copyright. The article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution License.
---
5. Peer-review networks tend to form around cliques. Those “outside the club” of a particular discipline - where often the best ideas surface - cannot get published because new ideas are rejected by the current establishment. As a result great ideas are often lost.

I don't believe that this complaint is really that valid. The complaints I've read about were by top scientists who couldn't get their idea published in Nature, Cell or Science. Well, just publish it elsewhere. There are plenty of journals that aren't as picky as those journals, and if authors had a little more self-awareness they'd recognise that they aim too high sometimes. Besides, many journals don't use established lists of reviewers, but go straight to those publishing related work and ask them. So, yes, you usually have to be a published scientist to review, but then it is called *peer* review, isn't it? I doubt that "the best ideas" surface outside academic research, the lone researcher is more likely to be a kook than a genius. There are some geniuses out there, but they are the ones you read about in the news - there's a teensy bit of a selection bias going on...
---
6. Precedence is often establish by those with the best personal contacts and not those who first introduce new theories.

I don't see the basis for this argument. Precedence does go to those who first raised a theory, so long as scientists are aware of it [this is the idea of 'priority']. Those who publish in languages other than English are at a disadvantage, admittedly, but some journals allow republication of work in English that was previously published elsewhere in another language, so that gives authors the possibility to widen their audience. Peer reviewers go out of their way to alert authors to work that first demonstrated something, and I have also insisted that authors cite certain studies. Scientists are very attuned to giving due credit for the origin of ideas or techniques.
---
7. There is no medium for wider, instant dissemination. Doctors or researchers who prepare a presentation or speech cannot “publish it” to a wider audience.

Yes, they can. ArXiv and other pre-print servers allow the publication of non-reviewed work (see e.g. Public Knowledge Project). Theses and dissertations can be published electronically (e.g. NDLTD, MIT on DSpace). This Portugese university repository, for example, allows the publication of reports, presentation etc. If a university doesn't have a repository for this kind of material, then it should do! Staff and students can take the lead, rather than waiting for journals to do it for them - journals are traditionally for peer-reviewed research, why would we necessarily expect them to post presentations? That said, Nature has recently launched Nature Protocols, so publishers are making some effort to include material that is outside their usual range.

8. Participating in the review process has little benefit for the reviewer. Performing reviews can take an enormous amount of time and the written reviews are not themselves “published”.

Reviewing takes between 2-6 hours, according a survey I read [an average of 3 hours]. I've seen reviews done in 10 minutes...
Here are a few reasons for participating in peer review:
- Allows a researcher control over what is published in their field - they are the "gatekeepers of science".
- Allows researchers to ensure that what is published accurately reflects and acknowledges their field.
- Can help a scientist get promoted and get grants, as journals often list the names of their reviewers annually.
- In the case of the medical journals in the BMC-series, published by BioMed Central, we *do* publish the reports, along with the name of the reviewer.
- Reviewers are actually paid by a small minority of journals [the BMJ pays £25], and more commonly can get other perks such as discounts on reading or publishing in the journal.
- Reviewers get the opportunity to read their competitors' work months before it will be published, and unscrupulous reviewers can deliberately block publication.
- It's interesting! They're scientists, they enjoy critiquing science!

9. Reviews and reviewers are not “reviewed”. An author who receives a biased review or one based on poor critical thinking has no recourse to publicly respond or invite others to comment.

Not true. Editors assess the reviewer reports and qualifications. Authors who receive what they perceive to be a biased review can appeal to the editor, and request a further opinion. If they are badly treated and the journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (such as BioMed Central, BMJ, Lancet) then authors can even take a case to that body [currently only editors can submit a case, but often will in cases of a dispute]. Some journals (BMJ, Lancet) have an ombudsman.

10. Journals can be prohibitively expensive for some in the developing world.

Yes - this is one of the reasons why open access is a good idea! The research is free to read for anyone with Internet access. Traditional pay-to-view journals are also members of a scheme called HINARI, a WHO project that allows some people in developing countries to read the research for free (but it does have limitations, as they need to be connected to an institution).