601:
1416:
90:
202:
1745:
Google Images for their own lectures. There is a culture in the classroom that does not take copyright seriously because everyone knows it has become unenforceable. Most people have no idea how to comply with any license other than the CC0. And they think it's normal and acceptable to take media from any site for use in whatever they need. No one tattles on the Happy
Birthday singers at restaurantsâno one even realizes the song is still copyrighted. And because most authors do not actively pursue unsanctioned reuse of their work, people assume that
230:
162:
690:
117:
107:
323:
639:
33:
127:
87:
305:
137:
522:, "fewer than half of the files I've personally authored and uploaded to Commons have been attributed when re-used elsewhere on the internet; and fewer than 30% have appeared with the proper licence. Some Wikimedians have tried marking their files with a prominent notice about re-use in addition to the licence template, but this has been controversial at Commons. We've also trialled a
97:
1788:(and the others it links to) -- WMF recently fixed some more egregious license problems on the mobile site and mobile app. But I very much agree with Tony: our pages in general (articles, media, etc.) should do a much better job of conveying copyright status to the reader. If we can build some consensus here about what is the best path forward, I think that would be a great start. -
400:. This is not only outrageous and blatantly false, it also damages our reputation. ... The larger implication, that Springer is "stealing" copyright and the insinuation that Springer is attempting to profit from "ill-gotten gains" is false and we call upon Peter Murray-Rust to correct this allegation immediately.
1749:. And because the situation hasn't yet caused people to stop producing creative works, we all just go along thinking that it's not a serious issue at all. Of course, it usually isn't; we're nitpicking at Springer et al hereâthey wouldn't pay to use freely licensed images either way, so it doesn't hurt
1767:
Displaying the license more prominently will not solve anything. We all routinely ignore those threats of copyright protection and so on. A more watertight solution would be to watermark attribution (and other data as required by the respective licenses) on images whenever they are downloaded or used
533:
at
Commons," he says, "are almost certainly a vast underestimate, and re-use is a persistent problem for the site." We asked whether the solution lies in refining the warnings and making it easier for the public to understand their responsibility as re-users. "Certainly we need to educate the public,
1229:
Your confidence is misplaced, but such wishful thinking is common on
Knowledge. We have good people at the copyright-violation project, some WMF employees, who regularly rewrite articles while stating that they do not regard the violation as important---although it was important enough to justify an
1744:
Ninety-nine per cent of society does not care about copyright. With the
Internet, it is conveniently but regrettably trivial to reuse copyrighted material without permission or adherence to license requirements. Copyright topics simpy are not taught in schools. Teachers feel free to pull images off
1721:
I was just having a look at
Commons photographs again since this article and thinking the same thing. The problem is ignorance more than thoughtful intent to deceive and steal. I think that organizations would be interested in learning more about how to reuse content properly if there were a system
504:, while licensed correctly on the Commons, had been re-used without proper attribution across the Internet." In one notable case, more than 3,000 of the images, all available for free online, had been cropped to remove the attribution line and then listed for sale on Ebay as a "private collection" (
1664:
which also involved plagiarism/failure to attribute properly. Since then, the book publisher acknowledged the error on their part, recalled the book, and offered a 350 HKD (~45 USD) per non-wiki photo (i.e. Flickr, Panoramio, etc.) and 50 HKD (6.5 USD) per wiki photo as compensation as of
February
1286:
We have received your mails concerning text in
Understanding and Management of Special Child in Pediatric Dentistry. We have taken the matter up with the editors of the book and the contributors to the chapter in question. We take care to ensure the veracity of texts, but in this case our systems
1174:
Certainly I am all for getting rid of
Wikipedians who plagiarize and have never pooh poohed this issue. We have had some prominent editors leave us over this. I am also for putting in place more measures to preventing this from occurring in the future. We had a bot in the past that used to check I
1079:
This is precisely why I mark all of my own-work uploads as PD-self â if they want to use my uploads, people are probably going to ignore the licensing terms if I impose any, so what's the point? I have better things to do than checking up on license infringmenet, and as I'm glad to have my images
913:
oh no, they know what they are doing, they will remove all free content, and keep only what they can control and charge for. when you are the pay to play gatekeeper, there was no penalty for stealing from the public domain, merely some loss of prestige. so they had no reason to screen free images,
1449:
Springer has generated profit for itself with our images. Perhaps it could grant a site license to us and benefit the work of
Wikipedians. Since the Foundation is downright cheap when it comes to getting Wikipedians the resources they need such as access to JSTOR or Lexis-Nexis, we need to find
1287:
appear to have failed. However, we have decided to permanently withdraw the book from sale, and we will remove the title from our website and recall the book from our wholesalers and distributors. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours
Sincerely Tarun Duneja Director:Publishing
291:
Springer SBM is the largest publisher of scholarly books in the worldâa remarkable 7,000 a yearâand with about 2,000 titles is the second-largest academic journal publisher after Elsevier. Springer owns 55 publishing houses and employs 6,200 people, and has considerable prestige and clout in the
866:
Springer says: "In addition, we have manually stopped display of *all* images with MediaWiki or Knowledge in the caption. These images will not be displayed again until we can reliably differentiate among those that have non-commercial restrictions." What? None of our content has non-commercial
492:
Currently, more than 1800 affected files are on the list, some of which have been used over 100 times outside Wikimedia platforms. The category's description reads "sometimes, media organizations just don't understand that in most cases, you just can't rip an image off Commons and just use it."
1685:
Not so much hiding, but on the file page putting them underneath the picture display in a bland grey box, couched in multiple bullets that fail to alert many downloaders. "It's free, isn't it?", is likely to be the default attitude. The actual constraints are likely to be buried in this ethic.
379:
process: "Folks have been submitting articles to Springer, using Wikimedia images in them, and during upload have ticked a box saying they were the creator of all images. During this process, Springer likely requires you to assign copyright to them. Springer now slightly lazily assumes it owns
894:
In some industries (like film and music) it's standard practice to carefully review a work to make sure all relevant licensing agreements are in place long before publication. I can't imagine why an academic publisher would hold itself to a lower standard. This is really pretty shocking for a
110:
750:
472:
on Commons, many downloaders make no effort to comply with the terms of the licences. With the exception of public-domain content, the use of materials found on Wikimedia projects requires attribution of the copyright holders and either the text of or links to the original licence.
1565:
be, if wrongly attributed or falsely licensed photographs are uploaded here. To some extent WP can rely on service provider notification-and-take-down safe harbour provisions; but this is an area that cannot be seen as something trivial, and must not be treated casually.
1322:
Absolutely true, Doc - some of my own writing I've done here has been taken and published on at least two occasions via (relatively minor) direct copy-and-paste in two different peer-reviewed oncology journals - see my User page for the cites and details :-) Best regards:
584:
was published, the company's executive vice president of corporate communications, Eric Merkel-Sobotta, told us, "We have worked all weekend to solve the issues, and will be ready to make an announcement within 24 hours. I will make sure this is sent to you." The
929:
otoh: "We will also be reaching out to Creative Commons and Knowledge to investigate whether working together might help us to find the best approach to these challenges." hey pete, can you hold their hand? it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
1175:
think. Re activating this should be a top priority if it is not already going again. I have removed a fair bit of plagiarism myself and have been just short of informing students universities regarding content that they have added here which is plagiarism.
130:
484:
that it's disheartening to see freely licensed images with instructions like "Viewing this image requires a subscription. If you are a subscriber, please log in." But the Springer issue is just "the tip of the iceberg", he says. "Wikimedia Commons has a
100:
140:
1151:
No "buts", please. Amateur copyright theft does not seem to get special treatment in law, and Knowledge's copyright violations should not be pooh-poohed. I would suggest less self-righteousness in discussing Knowledge and the firm of Julius Springer.
564:
as early as 2009 by archivist Klaus Graf, Springer appears to have finally taken action to clean up the problem over the past few days. This has been done in part by removing any content generically attributed to "Knowledge" (of which there had been
500:(Bundesarchiv) declined to continue donating images to the Commons in 2010. Efforts by the German Wikimedia chapter had yielded a 100,000-image donation in 2008, the largest in Commons' history, but the results were troubling for the Bundesarchiv: "
1722:
by means of which they could learn these things on a predictable schedule. I also think that more organizations would be willing to donate content if they had any way of learning how that would affect them and what that would mean.
1388:
I am not sure that it would be in anyone's interest for the Wikimedia Foundation to start this fight. I regret that content on that site is being stolen and misused. Thank you a lot for pointing out this page - that is fascinating.
288:
is taking Wikimedia content and asserting copyright over it. In his words, this is the "apparent systematic relicensing and relabeling" of Wikimedia content, "a breach of copyright and therefore illegal in most jurisdictions".
460:
announce to the world that there's a problem, and they have failed to do this. I've found hundreds of such instances, including content from museums and other companies. I'd guess there are thousands of images on
1701:
The matter should be revisited, since the failure to correctly licence partly defeats our purpose, and the failure to name authors/photographers (where required) is both unfair and militates against donations.
1095:
530:
486:
1697:
licencing and attribution requirements ("Please see these requirements below ...".) Apparently there's a fear that such a message at the top shifts perceptions too far towards author/photographer ownership.
1797:
1680:
429:
949:
with some of their journals (2) upload (a selection of) their open access images (i.e. CC BY) to Flickr or perhaps even Commons, (3) help us find reviewers for articles on scientific topics, (4) provide
380:
copyright on the images. No great conspiracy." Murray-Rust responded, "But laziness is no defence in law. And Springer are SELLING these. If I appropriate someone's scholarly image I check. Springer ."
1487:
I would suggest that they fund a Wikipedian in Residence in their own offices to support Knowledge and to train their staff about contemporary Internet culture. There is a bit more of this line of talk
1117:
1263:
1715:
1382:
914:
until their nose was rubbed in it. i'm not all that shocked, the wrangling that goes on in public at WP, goes on in private at companies. does "trying to embrace openness" mean fatal embrace.
468:
However, the poor attribution and licensing of material from Wikimedia Commons and the Wikipedias are far more widespread than just Springer's practices suggest. Even though detailed help is
1313:
417:. While Springer has been informed of this, they have made no comment, and these images continue to be offered for resale. "A typical price is US$ 60 for re-use in teaching/coursepacks."
1489:
1269:
1777:
1507:
1634:
Hmm... it looks like they mentioned your name but did not provide a link to the source of the image wherein the licensing terms could be found. Did you contact them about this?
1251:
73:
67:
1337:
I think if more people spent time looking then many cases would be discovered. That is a great catch and a great New York Times post describing this Knowledge article reuse!
1230:
good writer's time! Persons without my overwhelming charity might suspect that such statements avoid leaving a paper-trail of culpability. Examine my edits when I cleaned up
977:
850:
It's not entirely clueful and downplays their culpable behaviour in this incident. But it's a good start. I expect they will achieve enlightenment sooner rather than later -
396:
Mr Murray-Rust not only attributes the problem incorrectly to Springer Images, but also insinuates that Springer is selling commercial rights to use images that are already
1482:
1439:
1404:
1352:
349:
1649:
1196:
1169:
1144:
996:
on creating a fantastic article! Here are Twitter links to the parties mentioned in this article if anyone wants to follow the buzz. @SpringerSBM @EvoMRI @petermurrayrust
1211:
I'm pretty confident that any such violations are routinely identified within our community and removed (without the need for the copyright holder to police Knowledge). -
924:
1762:
885:
765:
1053:
940:
1773:
1758:
1737:
1410:
1332:
1220:
1033:
1011:
859:
734:
724:
1089:
908:
1049:
739:
1415:
Simply do an image search of any of our images with Google. Than bring your cursor over the image and click on "more sizes". Here is an example of an image of mine
955:
871:
729:
120:
1675:
1661:
1591:
719:
676:
505:
265:
Key issues with re-use of materials from Wikimedia Commons: lack of proper attribution (left and right) and improper statement of licensing terms (centre).
707:
1628:
537:
Mietchen says that improper licensing sometimes starts at the source, even with publishers. For example, PAGEPress has been labelling their articles as
945:
That was also the most interesting part to me, and several options for how to collaborate come to mind. They could for instance (1) try something like
1073:
469:
804:
701:
52:
41:
1768:
outside of Wikimedia articles. No one steals low-resolution thumbnails and uses them for anything other than a fourth-grade science fair project.
822:
277:
1610:
1208:
Individual photographers, not Knowledge as an entity, are the ones whose rights are being violated; so that would not be a parallel instance; and
844:
413:, though, that the current position for Knowledge and many other providers is that there are many instances of apparent rebadging of material in
1575:
1273:
1459:
1539:
of at least ÂŁ250 per photograph per annum for misused photographs -- even though the photographs in question were taken down straight away (
600:
1871:
1372:. Since Baidu is actually listed on NASDAQ, I really believe that WMF can do something about this because both have operations in the US.
338:
477:
1059:
Are you kidding me? Some person thinks he can claim copyright over a public domain? This is worse than Nintendo vs. Universal Studios!
770:
308:
188:
496:
Mietchen says "media organizations are far from the only organizations and individuals misusing Commons' content." For example, the
661:
248:
176:
1272:
this textbook has borrowed many thousands of words from us. The New York Times today has further details regarding the issue here
867:
restrictions. They should've just complied with the licenses, not removed them all wholesale. They are definitely a bit clueless.
1369:
777:
21:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1606:
954:" tools, (5) organize some workshops for Springer employees on Creative Commons licensing and Wikimedia projects, (6) set up
1769:
1754:
1045:
1831:
1041:
828:
810:
342:
657:
383:
Murray-Rust's accusations drew a sharp response from Springer's executive vice president, Wim van der Stelt, on the
1521:
1655:
607:
285:
1234:, and about 8 other articles one day last summer, if you want to see a cluster of years-old copyright violations.
1070:
363:, together with three other images that had been generically attributed to Knowledge, without mention of author (
191:
at least twice on the academy's website without proper attribution. One example has already been taken down, but
302:
charges people for the use of their growing collection of 3.4 million scientific, technical, and medical images.
318:, violating the terms of the original licence. The watermark obliterates much of the information on the graph.
1532:
375:
One commenter at Murray-Rust's blog sought to explain how this could have happened, rightly pointing out the
992:. I can imagine that many publishers will be presenting this article to all of their staff. Congratulations
1826:
1475:
1431:
1305:
1244:
1188:
1162:
1136:
1110:
689:
376:
46:
32:
17:
1528:
946:
1368:, the Chinese-equivalent wiki encyclopedia that agrees to censor by central Chinese government. We have
1040:
The above mentioned link to Springer's statement doesn't work any more. Here ist a workongt link to the
329:, co-recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the HIV. Photo by
619:"The Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling Expedition: Northwest Atlantic through Eastern Tropical Pacific"
406:
754:
1597:
972:
304:
1435:
1309:
1192:
1140:
618:
1016:
That's nice of you to say so; it wouldn't have been possible without considerable assistance from
951:
384:
786:
497:
252:
896:
1785:
1730:
1642:
1543:), or had been used on the assurance of the website designer that they were copyright-cleared (
1500:
1418:. Has be borrowed by the like of the University of Iowa among others with no attribution given.
1397:
1345:
1004:
855:
549:
to CC BY-NC throughout, which renders the content ineligible for re-use on Wikimedia projects.
489:
for cases in which uploaded files have been re-used externally in violation of these terms."
341:
more than 100 times on non-Wikimedia websites, mostly without proper attribution, including a
1793:
1671:
1515:
1468:
1378:
1328:
1237:
1216:
1155:
1103:
904:
881:
456:
journals had been copied and recopyrighted onto the Springer site. We've asked that at least
356:
256:
1558:
Springer should be aware that an apology may not be sufficient -- this could get expensive.
1852:
1624:
1231:
1080:
used elsewhere, it's more pleasant for me to know that people aren't violating my rights.
1017:
964:
368:
334:
8:
1065:
937:
921:
215:
remains, complete with intrusive watermark and for sale). Originally posted on Flickr by
1123:
I am sure we have for brief periods of time. But we have no generated profit from it. --
1100:
Has Knowledge every violated the copyrights owned by Springer Verlag, Birkhauser, etc.?
541:, i.e. with long and short forms of the licence text in contradictionâat one point with
244:
220:
184:
1753:. But the problem is just a culture of ignorance and apathy toward copyright concepts.
1444:
800:
425:
201:
180:
168:
1723:
1635:
1493:
1455:
1390:
1338:
1085:
997:
851:
761:
501:
281:
539:"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence (by-nc 3.0)"
420:
Murray-Rust's interest in uncovering the misappropriation of Wikimedia materials by
216:
1789:
1666:
1571:
1551:
case ÂŁ675 was awarded for one photo, plus ÂŁ50 for moral rights, plus costs. In the
1427:
1373:
1324:
1301:
1212:
1184:
1132:
900:
877:
818:
557:
436:
1710:
1620:
1589:
1028:
839:
542:
330:
1060:
959:
932:
916:
546:
538:
452:
326:
223:. Licensing confirmed in 2009. Now labelled at Flickr as "All rights reserved".
1524:
629:
1865:
1613:
868:
796:
345:
by Springer on the Nobel prize; after notification, the image was taken down.
561:
1451:
1081:
526:
button, but there were technical problems and it's not currently in use."
409:
his more trenchant allegations, including that of "copytheft". He told the
1567:
1419:
1365:
1293:
1176:
1124:
988:
This is excellent journalism and I feel proud that this is published in '
814:
397:
68:
Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"
1814:
1536:
322:
1703:
1021:
993:
832:
649:
611:
574:
570:
566:
515:
444:
432:
312:
212:
192:
172:
150:
968:
161:
1681:
What do we expect by hiding the licence and attribution requirements?
1205:
Agreed, the profit motive is an important distinction. Additionally:
792:
653:
638:
240:
229:
1818:
1555:
case ÂŁ12,444.57 was awarded for 19 photographs, including interest.
1810:
1689:
I believe there's some opposition among Commons editors to placing
1619:
I am the copyright holder of the said image for being the creator.
1582:
876:
Yeah. Wacky. Seems like maybe rushing is compounding the problem. -
514:
This is reflected on the individual level, too. Commons bureaucrat
450:"I was personally affected", he said, "in that my CC BY content in
293:
1096:
Knowledge's violations of copyright owned by Springer-Verlag?
364:
298:, the site on which Murray-Rust found the Wikimedia content.
573:), with just one remaining watermarked "SpringerImages" and
1264:
It is not just images that are borrowed without attribution
645:
440:
1581:
My compliments go to Tony1 for this article. Great work!
1520:
Various legal cases in the UK -- for instance, the recent
1274:
Book That Plagiarized From Knowledge Is Pulled From Market
292:
knowledge industry. One of their most popular websites is
251:
several times without proper attribution, including this
236:
435:
in which content imported from other publishers such as
610:. Still on sale and displayed with intrusive watermark
589:
has received no further correspondence from Springer.
1364:
Agreed. I also want to draw all of your attention to
775:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1602:But all kinds of media and it happened to myself.
424:was piqued when he discovered images there from a
1660:There was an incident about 2 years ago that was
534:and what you suggest may be part of the answer."
348:
1863:
351:File:Beluga, WeiĂwal (Delphinapterus leucas).jpg
1370:documented their blatant copyright infringement
617:. Originally published in Rusch et al. (2007).
1693:a short, polite but firm reminder that there
239:base station on a rooftop in Paris. Photo by
148:
207:Sunset on Lake Geneva with poppies. Used on
580:More than a day before this edition of the
280:in which a Cambridge researcher, Professor
1411:An easy way to find copyright infringement
1290:Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Pvt Ltd
664:several times without proper attribution.
309:File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png
447:âwas incorrectly labelled or licensed.
321:
303:
177:Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
778:
478:Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science
14:
1864:
1607:commons:File:Wave_in_Lake_Ontario.jpg
428:on which he was a co-author. He also
51:
1872:Knowledge Signpost archives 2012-06
1784:Might be worth noting this related
813:in response to these allegations --
211:twice (one already taken down, one
27:
688:
53:
31:
28:
1883:
760:These comments are automatically
637:
608:Global Ocean Sampling Expedition
599:
350:
228:
200:
160:
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
1490:here on WikiProject Open Access
1283:Dear Dr. Heilman and Mr. Cohen
286:Springer Science+Business Media
193:one remains without attribution
1465:What price would you suggest?
771:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
1533:National Union of Journalists
502:more than 90% of their images
1279:Response from the publisher
895:business that is supposedly
746:
361:Brain Structure and Function
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
1325:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus")
1276:published June 12th, 2012.
962:or some such, and so on. --
658:featured picture on Commons
10:
1888:
897:trying to embrace openness
809:Springer just published a
524:click to re-use this image
465:that have been rebadged."
1798:13:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1778:03:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1763:03:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1738:15:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
1716:00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
1676:02:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1650:21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1629:17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1592:15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1576:12:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1531:-- have awarded standard
1508:15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1483:14:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1460:12:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1440:22:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1405:21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1383:14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1353:14:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1333:01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1314:22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1252:14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1221:22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1197:15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1170:14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
1145:22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1118:22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1090:20:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
1074:10:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1054:22:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1034:00:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1012:20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
978:23:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
941:20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
925:20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
909:19:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
886:19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
872:19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
860:19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
845:00:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
827:Springer has changed the
823:19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
805:19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
560:licensing terms had been
1656:Related Signpost article
359:in the Springer journal
960:WikiProject Open Access
529:"The 1800 files in the
498:German Federal Archives
405:Murray-Rust has indeed
1662:documented by Signpost
1292:
768:. To follow comments,
693:
403:
372:
346:
319:
36:
1281:
692:
567:368 results on Friday
552:While the failure of
545:âthat has since been
393:
354:
325:
307:
257:predatory open access
35:
1561:As indeed so should
1232:Freedom in the World
1018:User:Daniel Mietchen
764:from this article's
644:A thunderstorm over
628:(3): e77. licensed
606:Sample sites of the
445:in the public domain
831:for the statement.
577:to "Wikipaedia" .
569:) and "Wikimedia" (
1529:David Hoffman case
755:Discuss this story
735:Arbitration report
725:WikiProject report
694:
531:"misused" category
487:dedicated category
377:copyright transfer
373:
355:Used in Fig. 1 of
347:
320:
42:â Back to Contents
37:
1598:Not just journals
1537:photography rates
1527:, or last year's
1481:
1250:
1168:
1116:
952:Cite in Knowledge
779:purging the cache
740:Technology report
648:. Photo taken by
476:Daniel Mietchen,
282:Peter Murray-Rust
47:View Latest Issue
1879:
1855:
1735:
1734:
1728:
1713:
1708:
1647:
1646:
1640:
1587:
1505:
1504:
1498:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1466:
1424:
1402:
1401:
1395:
1350:
1349:
1343:
1298:
1249:
1247:
1242:
1235:
1181:
1167:
1165:
1160:
1153:
1129:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1101:
1068:
1063:
1031:
1026:
1009:
1008:
1002:
976:
935:
919:
842:
837:
782:
780:
774:
753:
730:Featured content
712:
704:
697:
681:"Special report"
680:
656:. Selected as a
641:
603:
558:Creative Commons
401:
352:
284:, observed that
232:
204:
164:
153:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
1887:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1851:
1849:
1844:
1839:
1834:
1829:
1822:
1802:
1801:
1732:
1731:
1724:
1711:
1704:
1683:
1658:
1644:
1643:
1636:
1600:
1583:
1522:House of Harlot
1518:
1502:
1501:
1494:
1476:
1469:
1467:
1447:
1420:
1413:
1399:
1398:
1391:
1347:
1346:
1339:
1294:
1266:
1245:
1238:
1236:
1177:
1163:
1156:
1154:
1125:
1111:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1066:
1061:
1029:
1022:
1006:
1005:
998:
965:Daniel Mietchen
963:
931:
915:
840:
833:
789:
787:Assigning blame
784:
776:
769:
758:
757:
751:+ Add a comment
749:
745:
744:
743:
705:
700:
698:
695:
684:
683:
678:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
642:
634:
633:
604:
556:to comply with
395:
367:), or licence (
276:was alerted to
272:Last week, the
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
261:
260:
233:
225:
224:
205:
197:
196:
169:Endre Szemerédi
165:
154:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1885:
1875:
1874:
1850:
1845:
1840:
1835:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1804:
1803:
1800:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1770:108.78.177.119
1755:108.78.177.119
1741:
1740:
1726:Blue Rasberry
1682:
1679:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1638:Blue Rasberry
1605:Compare this:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1517:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1496:Blue Rasberry
1450:other paths.--
1446:
1443:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1393:Blue Rasberry
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1341:Blue Rasberry
1265:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1224:
1223:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1057:
1056:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1000:Blue Rasberry
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
891:
890:
889:
888:
863:
862:
788:
785:
759:
756:
748:
747:
742:
737:
732:
727:
722:
720:News and notes
717:
715:Special report
711:
699:
687:
686:
685:
675:
674:
673:
671:
643:
636:
635:
614:SpringerImages
605:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
592:
554:SpringerImages
463:SpringerImages
458:SpringerImages
453:BioMed Central
422:SpringerImages
415:SpringerImages
327:Luc Montagnier
315:SpringerImages
300:SpringerImages
295:SpringerImages
271:
264:
263:
234:
227:
226:
209:SpringerImages
206:
199:
198:
171:, awarded the
167:Mathematician
166:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
65:Special report
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1884:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1867:
1854:
1848:
1843:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1805:Keep up with
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1729:
1727:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1709:
1707:
1699:
1696:
1692:
1687:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1663:
1651:
1648:
1641:
1639:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1615:
1614:National Post
1611:
1608:
1603:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1586:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1523:
1516:Law in the UK
1509:
1506:
1499:
1497:
1491:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1472:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1423:
1417:
1406:
1403:
1396:
1394:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1371:
1367:
1354:
1351:
1344:
1342:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1297:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1241:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1180:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1159:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1128:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1107:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1064:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:87.78.238.106
1043:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1027:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1003:
1001:
995:
991:
987:
979:
974:
970:
966:
961:
957:
953:
948:
944:
943:
942:
939:
934:
928:
927:
926:
923:
918:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
898:
893:
892:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
870:
865:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
848:
847:
846:
843:
838:
836:
830:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
781:
772:
767:
763:
752:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
709:
703:
696:In this issue
691:
682:
672:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
640:
631:
627:
624:
620:
616:
615:
609:
602:
593:
590:
588:
583:
578:
576:
572:
568:
563:
559:
555:
550:
548:
544:
540:
535:
532:
527:
525:
521:
517:
512:
510:
508:
503:
499:
494:
490:
488:
483:
479:
474:
471:
466:
464:
459:
455:
454:
448:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
423:
418:
416:
412:
408:
402:
399:
392:
390:
388:
381:
378:
370:
366:
362:
358:
353:
344:
343:press release
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
317:
316:
310:
306:
301:
297:
296:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
231:
222:
218:
214:
210:
203:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:User:Sergio01
178:
174:
170:
163:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
1807:The Signpost
1806:
1750:
1747:no one cares
1746:
1725:
1705:
1700:
1694:
1690:
1688:
1684:
1672:
1667:
1659:
1637:
1618:
1604:
1601:
1584:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1519:
1495:
1470:
1448:
1421:
1414:
1392:
1379:
1374:
1363:
1340:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1267:
1239:
1178:
1157:
1126:
1105:
1099:
1058:
1023:
999:
990:The Signpost
989:
852:David Gerard
834:
826:
808:
790:
714:
708:all comments
702:11 June 2012
670:
625:
623:PLoS Biology
622:
613:
591:
586:
581:
579:
553:
551:
536:
528:
523:
519:
513:
506:
495:
491:
481:
475:
467:
462:
457:
451:
449:
421:
419:
414:
410:
404:
394:
387:SpringerOpen
386:
382:
374:
360:
331:User:TĂșrelio
314:
299:
294:
273:
270:
208:
175:2012 by the
54:11 June 2012
1853:Suggestions
1668:OhanaUnited
1616:in Canada.
1547:). In the
1375:OhanaUnited
1366:Baidu Baike
947:Topic Pages
762:transcluded
562:pointed out
480:, told the
398:open access
333:, licensed
253:cover image
243:, licensed
179:. Photo by
1691:at the top
1621:SYSS Mouse
1609:and this:
1477:.Wolfowitz
1445:Suggestion
1246:.Wolfowitz
1164:.Wolfowitz
1112:.Wolfowitz
994:user:Tony1
956:banner ads
652:. Licence
650:User:Smial
575:attributed
543:a bad typo
516:User:99of9
217:Pear Biter
183:, licence
173:Abel Prize
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2012-06-11
1847:Subscribe
1422:Doc James
1296:Doc James
1179:Doc James
1127:Doc James
1042:statement
933:Slowking4
917:Slowking4
811:statement
793:Copyfraud
766:talk page
547:corrected
518:told the
470:available
407:retracted
365:Eva Hejda
241:User:~Pyb
213:in a book
1866:Category
1842:Newsroom
1837:Archives
1819:Mastodon
1815:Facebook
1432:contribs
1306:contribs
1189:contribs
1137:contribs
869:Dcoetzee
797:Ssilvers
679:Previous
654:artlibre
587:Signpost
582:Signpost
520:Signpost
509:coverage
507:Signpost
482:Signpost
411:Signpost
385:Google+
369:CC BY-SA
335:CC BY-SA
311:as seen
274:Signpost
259:journal.
245:CC BY-SA
221:CC BY-SA
185:CC BY-SA
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
1811:Twitter
1712:(talk)
1553:Hoffman
1545:Hoffman
1452:Wehwalt
1082:Nyttend
1030:(talk)
841:(talk)
662:Re-used
357:a paper
249:Re-used
189:Re-used
111:Twitter
1733:(talk)
1665:2012.
1645:(talk)
1568:Jheald
1549:Harlot
1541:Harlot
1503:(talk)
1471:Kiefer
1400:(talk)
1348:(talk)
1240:Kiefer
1158:Kiefer
1106:Kiefer
1067:jaxoxo
1007:(talk)
969:WiR/OS
815:DarTar
795:. --
278:a blog
219:under
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
1832:About
1436:email
1310:email
1193:email
1141:email
630:CC BY
437:Wiley
433:cases
430:found
426:paper
255:on a
151:Tony1
16:<
1827:Home
1794:talk
1790:Pete
1774:talk
1759:talk
1706:Tony
1625:talk
1572:talk
1525:case
1456:talk
1428:talk
1329:talk
1302:talk
1270:here
1268:Per
1217:talk
1213:Pete
1185:talk
1133:talk
1086:talk
1050:talk
1024:Tony
973:talk
958:for
938:â @1â
922:â @1â
905:talk
901:Pete
882:talk
878:Pete
856:talk
835:Tony
819:talk
801:talk
791:See
646:Unna
443:âor
441:PLoS
439:and
389:blog
339:Used
141:Digg
1817:or
1809:on
1786:bug
1695:are
1612:on
1585:AGK
1062:gta
899:. -
829:URL
612:at
571:157
511:).
313:on
237:GSM
149:By
76:â
1868::
1813:,
1796:)
1776:)
1761:)
1751:us
1627:)
1574:)
1563:we
1535:'
1492:.
1458:)
1438:)
1434:·
1430:·
1331:)
1312:)
1308:·
1304:·
1219:)
1195:)
1191:·
1187:·
1143:)
1139:·
1135:·
1088:)
1071:©Ÿ
1052:)
1044:.
1020:.
975:)
967:-
907:)
884:)
858:)
821:)
803:)
677:â
660:.
621:.
391::
371:).
337:.
247:.
235:A
187:.
1821:.
1792:(
1772:(
1757:(
1623:(
1570:(
1454:(
1426:(
1327:(
1300:(
1215:(
1183:(
1131:(
1084:(
1048:(
971:(
950:"
936:â
920:â
903:(
880:(
854:(
817:(
799:(
783:.
773:.
710:)
706:(
632:.
626:5
195:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
