The Jolly Contrarian:About: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This website is the product of years of accretive rambling and doodling on the part of one chap. Occasionally I have summarized, extracted, adapted, borrowed or outright copied snippets I've found on the internet, sometimes changing just names and identifying characteristics, but mostly it's just my own fevered ramblings. | This website is the product of years of accretive rambling and doodling on the part of one chap. Occasionally I have summarized, extracted, adapted, borrowed or outright copied snippets I've found on the internet, sometimes changing just names and identifying characteristics, but mostly it's just my own fevered ramblings. | ||
Bits of it - especially the | Bits of it - especially the [[anatomies]] may contain content in which copyright is vigorously ''claimed'' --- but to the extent one ''accepts'' that claim (and I'm not sure I do) I'd argue this reproduction is ''fair use'' or ''intended study purposes'', and has hardly been commercially exploited anyway. | ||
Plus, anyone to whom I might commercially exploit this wonderful wiki (wouldn't ''that'' be nice!) who isn't in the employ of a licence-holding institution must be a stone cold weirdo. No one reads a goddamn ISDA for fun. | |||
So - even if ISDA ''can'' claim copyright in text which was generated by consensus, in committee, without compensation - I don't feel like I'm outraging anyone's public decency by replicating and analysing text which - as you'll see if you read on - the composition of which is nothing to be proud about anyway. | |||
Revision as of 18:32, 4 February 2016
This website is the product of years of accretive rambling and doodling on the part of one chap. Occasionally I have summarized, extracted, adapted, borrowed or outright copied snippets I've found on the internet, sometimes changing just names and identifying characteristics, but mostly it's just my own fevered ramblings.
Bits of it - especially the anatomies may contain content in which copyright is vigorously claimed --- but to the extent one accepts that claim (and I'm not sure I do) I'd argue this reproduction is fair use or intended study purposes, and has hardly been commercially exploited anyway.
Plus, anyone to whom I might commercially exploit this wonderful wiki (wouldn't that be nice!) who isn't in the employ of a licence-holding institution must be a stone cold weirdo. No one reads a goddamn ISDA for fun.
So - even if ISDA can claim copyright in text which was generated by consensus, in committee, without compensation - I don't feel like I'm outraging anyone's public decency by replicating and analysing text which - as you'll see if you read on - the composition of which is nothing to be proud about anyway.