I am not in favor of censorship, but I do think that if someone wants to use something of mine, then it is mine. If someone wants to use it in ways that I do not find fit, then as the "owner" I should not be required to accept money to be used to support an abhorrent position. That strikes me as "30 pieces of silver."

I think there are a number of questions involved here because we are dealing with NAS as opposed to a purely private body. We may want to draw some lines, because I do not accept the idea that an illogical extension of something I created is fine to use simply because someone pays me.

The only situation I can think of where compulsory licensing exists is music. If you write a song, you have the right to publish exclusively until it's been published the first time. At that point, others can record it without permission as long as they pay the standard royalty.

If you write a song called "The Copyright Blues", and I hear you play it at a private party.. I can't go off and record it without infringing your copyright. If you put it on an album and release it, I can then record it. I just can't make significant changes. I can change it to suit my style, but I can't make any significant changes to the lyrics or song structure.

If I did make significant changes to the song, than it would qualify as a derivative work. Derivative works are a right retained by any copyright holder, and the right exists in all mediums. If you write a book, and I make a Readers Digest like abridged version, it qualifies as a derivative work and I'd need permission.

Referencing work is a different story. That's covered by the fair use defense. It may or may not be allowed depending on the nature of the work (non-profit, profit), how its used, how much of it is used, and if any damage is done to the original work's profit potential.

In the case of classroom material, it would depend on how it is fixated and used. If it's in a textbook, it's the publishers of the textbook who matter. They are the ones responsible for making sure they have the rights for whatever they publish. In this case, my understanding is that it's teaching guidelines. If the schools are copying them and distributing them to teachers, then they would need permission depending on how it's licensed.

If someone is looking at the guidelines, and using them as a model for how to create their own.. It would depend on how much is copied. You can't copy verbatim, but nothing is stopping you from using the same style and structure. Even incorporating some of the data. Lots of grey area.

For instance, you can't copyright forms. To obtain (an enforceable) copyright, the work in question must have some form of originality.

You can't copyright facts either. No one has a monopoly on the truth. That could figure into any copyright angle taken on evolution material. You can however copyright a work that conveys facts.

RE: Intellectual Property Evolutionists Are Wrong!