Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf

I have copied this PDF from https://zenodo.org/record/1253886 to supplement its addition at w:en:Hydrothermal vent with an edit activated by Chris Capoccia.

The PDF carries an USGS affiliation and the record on Zenodo (a well known academic repository for self-archival) claims there is no copyright on it. However, some users like EEng have asserted that such statements may be wrong/misleading, so I'd like to hear the opinion of a few more users on whether the CC-0 works on Zenodo like this are usually indeed in the public domain.

Some information I found from USGS: James Bischoff and Robert Rosenbauer employer profiles; Are USGS reports/publications copyrighted?; 1100.5 - Authorship, Acknowledgments, and Credits in USGS Information Products; Frequently Asked Questions about Copyright Issues Affecting the U.S. Government CENDI/2008-1 Revised December 2017.

Nemo 11:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any law which exempts the USGS from being PD-USGov -- if the work was done as part of their duties, it would seem that no copyright can be claimed in the text. If it was done on their own time, it could be different, as would the case where there were non-USGS co-authors. Under current policy (section 6D there), it seems there is 12-month embargo period allowed for journal-published articles, where the USGS will not publish their work. That is per this directive. I still don't think there can be a U.S. copyright on it, but maybe there was a summary or other copyrightable stuff added by the journal, not sure. Anyways, after 12 months it sounds like the USGS makes sure it's openly available if the journal does not. In this case, there is a reference here, which links to the Zenodo page as being the Open Access version. That has a CC0 license, which seems to indicate that there was a copyright which was released by someone (the journal?), though maybe that was just their closest approximation to PD-USGov. But, that can actually be a better license to mention than PD-USGov, and I can't see any reason to doubt it. Keep for me, and I would probably put {{CC0}} as the primary license due to that link, and maybe add PD-USGov as well. May want to add {{License review}} to get a confirmation of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the authors' associations are listed as USGS, the actual publisher and copyright holder for this document is Elsevier. Correct attribution is:
Bischoff, James L.; Rosenbauer, Robert J. (1988). "Liquid-vapor relations in the critical region of the system NaCl-H₂O from 380 to 415°C: A refined determination of the critical point and two-phase boundary of seawater". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 52 (8): 2121–2126. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(88)90192-5.
{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0016-7037(88)90192-5 |title=Liquid-vapor relations in the critical region of the system NaCl-H<sub>2</sub>O from 380 to 415°C: A refined determination of the critical point and two-phase boundary of seawater |journal=Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta |volume=52 |issue=8 |pages=2121–2126 |year=1988 |last1=Bischoff |first1=James L. |last2=Rosenbauer |first2=Robert J. }}
— Chris Capoccia (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, the citation can be improved. Please go ahead and edit as you wish!
  But are you saying you think Elsevier may hold any copyright on such a publication, and can you clarify how? It's complicated https://law.resource.org/pub/us/works/index.html but USA federal employees are not legally allowed to transfer any copyright to the publishers. Publishers generally recognise this, for instance: Wiley «The article will be identified as a US Government Work and will be in the public domain in the USA» and Springer «If you are employed by the NIH… ... you cannot transfer your copyright to the publisher». Nemo 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chris Capoccia: Legally, no, I don't think so. For PD-USGov stuff, which the text would be if USGS employees authored it as part of their duties, no copyright can be claimed. If there is no copyright which can be claimed, it cannot be transferred, so Elsevier cannot own it either. They can only own copyrights for works they create or are transferred to them. PD-USGov stuff is PD by law, unless there is a specific exemption from 17 USC 105 for that government department or that type of work, which I don't believe there is. No copyright can be created for that material, so the USGS has nothing to transfer. At any rate, the CC0 license would apply either way, which is why I suggested that (it's a better worldwide license than PD-USGov, and would also cover any expression that Elsevier did add, if they did). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  click on the "Get rights and content" link on Elsevier's page for this article and see how far you get on getting completely free rights that you need for publishing on Wikimedia https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703788901925 . – Chris Capoccia (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @Chris Capoccia: They can't claim rights they don't own. Well they can try, but there are no teeth. Similar to Alamy or Getty or whatever claiming rights over PD photos -- you will get similar stuff if you try to download from those sites, but for particular photos they are just making money off of PD work, and they can't prevent other people from copying (or selling the same). I would imagine that Elsevier gets authors to transfer their copyrights in most cases, but that is legally impossible for USGS works. Elsevier certainly can still charge for access, and maybe make you sign a contract to download, but they can't make a public domain work copyrighted again. If you get access via some other means, it's still public domain and can be copied, unless they added some additional expression on top of what the authors gave them. In the UK they would probably have a 25-year typographical arrangement copyright, but that is not the country of origin and would have expired anyways. There are no such typographical arrangement copyrights in the U.S. (or most countries really). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The paper in question is linked as an official publication by the US government [1]. And Elsevier's own policies [2] state "For US government employees, works created within the scope of their employment are considered to be public domain and Elsevier's publishing agreements do not require a transfer or license of rights for such works." The official version of the paper lists USGS as the author affiliation, so they are works created within the scope of the authors' US government employment. Therefore I think it is safe to treat them as PD regardless of Elsevier's failure to say so on the official version. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I've ever said to get pinged here, but David Eppstein knows what he's talking about so what he said. EEng (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Life would be so much simpler if people who are aggressive about copyright could at least take the trouble to get it right themselves. It would also be better if the US Government maintained a repository of papers authored by its employees. It seems highly probable that this is PD US Government, but it does not seem as if there is direct categorical proof - it relies on us joining the dots. I would come down on the side of PD with this one. Guy 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD status overrides bogus copyright claims by predatory publisher. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]