Wiley Interscience: Where Legal Threats are Apologized For

Posted 26 April 2007 by Reed A. Cartwright

Yesterday, I wrote about Wiley Interscience and the Society of Chemical Industry making legal threats against fair use: Wiley Interscience: Where Science Meets Legal Threats. Today, Shelley Batts received an apology from them:

We apologise for any misunderstanding. In this situation the publisher would typically grant permission on request in order to ensure that figures and extracts are properly credited. We do not think there is any need to pursue this matter further.

Congrats to everyone who helped get the word out about the threats. You helped Shelley and the rest of the science-bloggers out.

16 Comments

Gary Hurd · 26 April 2007

Not much of an apology. "We do not think there is any need to pursue this matter further."

Sure they don't. Greedy scums.

Dave Cerutti · 26 April 2007

Is the title meant to contrast with ID-related individuals and groups, where baseless legal threats are the modus operandi, often retracted but never apologized for?

Jeff Chamberlain · 26 April 2007

What Gary said.

Go to Retrospectacle and read the whole thing, and see if you can figure out what's changed.

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 April 2007

The title is parody of the slogan found in the emails sent to Shelley: "SCI - where science meets business". I used such a parody yesterday and felt like I should use another one.

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 April 2007

Mengele, how can Genie Scott lose a lawsuit if she was never actually sued?

Go try to find some information that she or NCSE was ever served with the lawsuit you are thinking of. Go ahead, look at court records. You won't find any information.

JohnK · 26 April 2007

WrongwayMengele must be talking about the frivolous-lawsuit-happy Caldwell, who dropped his claim.

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 April 2007

Hmm, I must have remembered it wrong. I thought Caldwell filed against the magazine but never filed papers against Genie and NCSE; although, he threated to and/or claimed to have done it.

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 April 2007

Okay, he never served Genie with the suit. That was what I remembered.

JohnK · 26 April 2007

There was no settlement agreement and no proposed settlement. Scott simply corrected a few minor errors in her article, the most significant involving dis-attributing two things from Caldwell to his partner in the "information session". Lawsuit went poof. End of story.

ruidh · 26 April 2007

They *still* don't get it.

You don't need permission to make a fair use.

Popper's Ghost · 27 April 2007

Oh no, the evolutionists never make legal threats, no sir! Why don't you ask Eugenie Scott about the guy she slandered and who sued her?

Then it was his legal threat, not hers, you effing moron.

Popper's Ghost · 27 April 2007

And anyway, who ever said that evolutionists don't make legal threats? If you creationist types don't want people to think that you're all cretins, why do you always act like you are?

Sir_Toejam · 27 April 2007

And anyway, who ever said that evolutionists don't make legal threats? If you creationist types don't want people to think that you're all cretins, why do you always act like you are?

who ever said they don't want people to think they're cretins? they take pride in their ignorance. ignorance is strength. just ask fearless leader, he'll tell ya.

Popper's Ghost · 27 April 2007

who ever said they don't want people to think they're cretins?

I asked them a question. I'd be happy to have them agree that they're all cretins. I do believe, however, that some would deny it.

Moses · 30 April 2007

Sigh... Because with their crowd it's a badge of honor to be ignorant. The more ignorant the better. They'll have 10 coaches and a million dollar field for a HS football team, tell you it's "making money" when it isn't, but won't put enough money in the budget for a physics teacher because it's not required to pass the state competency test.

agnes · 7 July 2007

;)The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.