NAS and NSTA do not have to endorse the Kansas Board of Education's decision to teach intelligent design. The theory isn't supported by science, and Kansas should not be able to imply that teaching it comports with NAS or NSTA standards. United States trademark law would certainly prohibit Kansas from claiming NAS or NSTA approval for its alternative curriculum. But instead, the organizations are leveraging their copyrights in the standards manuals to get Kansas to accept evolution theory.

I've avoided commenting on this discussion for a couple weeks specifically because I think the devil is in the details here, and no one talking about this has really illuminated the details to the point where I feel comfortable taking a position.

In general, I don't like the idea of copyright controlling derivative artistic works, because I think it limits people's freedom of expression, but there is a problem here. Ultimately, if you are taking a large chunk of my IP, you really aren't making a "fair use" of the material, particularly if the thing you are publishing serves the same purpose that mine does. So you need to pay me. Its impossible for the legal system to distinguish between a scenario where I refused to sell you the rights because you can't meet my price, and I refused to sell you the rights because I hate you. So ultimately, copyright holders are going to have some control over the artistic nature of derivative works. It cannot be avoided.

Furthermore, if you accept the line of reasoning that copyright should only serve a financial purpose you MUST reject the GPL, and you must at least raise questions about BSD licenses. These licenses do not require payment for a work. They simply impose a set of controls on the use of that work by others. How is that for a philosophical pandora's box? I'm not sure I'm afraid to open that box. Hence my unwillingness thus far to talk about this question.

Why is this science standard copyrighted? Does that copyright exist entirely for the purpose of control, or do they charge for it? If they charge for it, and Kansas wishes to use it almost in it's entirety but with criticial changes, is it not within their rights to refuse to sell it. Is all use of copyright for control bad?

I think the standard that we have is that you can use copyright to control, but only certain kinds of control are ok. You cannot prevent comment, criticism, etc... You can prevent the release of closed source modifications, or competitive works that are largely derivative. These balances are muddy and messy and still evolving. I don't think there are any bright lines here. I do wonder if the fair use exemptions for educational purposes might apply to Kanas in this case?

On the other hand, Its not clear that this decision by this science board is simply an attempt to stifle criticism. It may be an attempt to prevent a copyrighted work from being used to produce a competitive, mostly derivative work which the original authors object too. It may be more the sort of control that we accept rather then the sort of control that we don't accept. I don't think anyone has made a clear case about where it falls on that spectrum. More details about what is specifically going on are needed. Seems like it might make a meaty trial...

I'm not sure terms like "conservative" and "liberal" make sense in the funhouse world of artificial scarcity. But, to the degree that they do, Granick is not a copyright liberal. GPL is copyright "liberalism." Her perspective requires it's rejection. She is a copyright minimalist. A public domainer. A Copyanarchist.

Intellectual Property Evolutionists Are Wrong!