h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: e-MERLIN - The Future of the UK's National VLBI Facility - A3978174
Author: MeganArgo - U165548

Overview of the upgrade to the UK's national radio astronomy facility.

Very nice entry, but there's a potential copyright problem here.

This entry is a copy of http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mkargo/articles/emerlin.html which has apparently been written by you, so there's no need to ask for the author's permission to present it here. That might not be the case with the originating website though. I haven't been able to locate the copyright policy at the Jodrell Bank website, but if there is one it may clash with that of h2g2 and the BBC once this entry gets into the Edited Guide - "anything you create on h2g2 is done under the condition that you grant us a non-exclusive licence to distribute and edit the material in any way that we want, and in any media. (See the Terms and Conditions for the full terms of our rights.) As we may wish to distribute the Guide in various formats over time, we need to be sure that we have the right to publish everything that's on h2g2" (<./>HouseRules</.&gt

You might want to read this too <./>HouseRules-Copyright</.>

Either way, the Editors prefer to have work in the EG that is original and not published anywhere else, even by the same author. This could mean a simple rewording or a minor rewrite.

Since the original piece is your own work I don't feel it's necessary in this instance to ask the Moderators to hide the entry on the grounds of copyright violation... yet. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait until you can find out what the copyright policy of http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/ is. Once you do, perhaps you'd be so kind as to post it here

The article is indeed similar, and that version was also written by me. They are different in that this the original was written for the local astronomical society's newsletter, this version has been altered to explain a few things that may not be so obvious to a more general audience. The original is on the web as it is the easiest way for me to get my articles to the editor of the newsletter (I work at Jodrell Bank).

The University's copyright notice states:
"Material published by The University of Manchester on these web pages is copyright The University of Manchester and may not be reproduced without permission. Copyright exists in all other original material published on the internet by staff or students of The University of Manchester and may belong to the author or to The University of Manchester depending on the circumstances of publication."

If it will cause a problem, I will remove the original.

Leave it here for the time being and let's see how we can work around it. I compared a handful of sentences in the two pieces and found them to be identical, but if you've altered this one slightly to allow for a different readership then that might be enough.

There are other PR regulars who know more about this sort of thing than I do so let's see what they have to say. And the h2g2 Editors will have the ultimate say on whether it's okay.

Have we decided whether it's okay? I think the entry's pretty cool... but I won't say anything until someone who knows what they're talking about (i.e. not me) does.

Unfortunately MeganArgo hasn't posted since May 9th.

I hate it when this happens.

Wait two weeks, then give it over to the FM. I find this intensely depressing.

What do you find depressing emr?

I'm still here, just been busy.

Nice to see you back MeganArgo. Just so's you know the way things work around here - if an author submits an entry to Peer Review but then disappears for more than two months they're considered to be no longer active as an h2g2 Researcher for the purposes of Peer Review, and the Scouts will ask the Editors to take the entry out of PR and either send it back to itself... which isn't as daft as it sounds, or - if it has potential - send it to the Flea Market Writing-FleaMarket where it can be picked up by any other Researcher and worked on with the intention of submitting it to PR again.

If you believe that you may be away from h2 for a while but you don't want that to happen to your entry, post here letting us know that you'll be absent for a while, and we'll leave the entry alone until you come back.

Sorry Ooj, didn't see your post from ages ago. I find it depressing when someone submits an entry and just leaves for some reason. I don't know... I just get this depressed feeling whenever it happens.

But now Megan's back! I hope you keep working on this.

I was waiting for someone to decide whether I needed to remove the other version or not, forgot all about when no one posted here for a while!

Any comments on this, or shall I just abandon it...?

I for one would like to see this entry in the Guide. I would hate to see it dropped. It's very well written, informative, and from a real expert in the field. The idea of telescopes measuring hundreds of kilometres in diameter sounds like science fiction, but it is being done right now.

If the entry here has been adjusted to make it available for a general audience then I think it works for me.

I definitely want to see this one in the EG.

So, it's ok then...?

also would like to see this in the EG. However, it needs a much simpler and more informative title, perhaps 'The Merlin Radiotelescope Facility'.

Then the first para needs to explain what this is. Then the bulk of the Entry to detail its function(s) and capabilities, and something at the end to outline some of the problems and its future.

Having just skim-read the Entry, I think my last comments amount to just reaaranging the info under the first Header. i.e. Explain what the facility is/can do, before (perhaps) saying that its not quite so famous/photogenic as Jodrell Bank (that sounds a bit too apologetic at present).

The first paragraph has been re-written, is that any better?

Megan

This is a tricky one. Without doubt, it is a great entry and would be perfect for the Guide.

Thinking with head not heart for the moment, though, it sounds like the UofM own the copyright to your work now - 'Material published by The University of Manchester on these web pages is copyright The University of Manchester and may not be reproduced without permission.' - and if the BBC was to reproduce it, that would be a breach of copyright.

However, that 'without permission' is ambiguous. If that refers to permission [from the University of Manchester], the BBC would need the University to give consent. If it refers to permission [from the author], then by submitting it you are giving that consent yourself, so it's not a problem. If you could email the webmaster and clarify whether you can allow this to be reproduced, or whether the Uni has to give consent, the waters would be much clearer.

If the Uni holds copyright and will not allow the BBC to reproduce it, you'll need to extensively rewrite the entry so that it is unrecognisable from the original. I think we'd all rather avoid that, if possible.


I hope we get to the bottom of this technicality; I'm sure there's many a Scout on this thread who would recommend the entry in a flash. Unfortunately, we need to get to the bottom of the copyright issue before this goes upstairs.

Thanks for your patience Megan!

(from a Manchester University dropout )