copyrights

[paulcgi]

I've started writing some of the articles for the most wanted sections. I'm not sure about copyright issues as they pertain to the statement on the site about not submitting copyrighted materials without permission.
I would assume that I can paraphrase and/or summarize others work for the wiki. Is this correct?
for example, I am working on the text for estimating bitterness. I am writing the section about Tinseth. Can I summarize his work and put in the calculations for IBU without contacting him about permission or is this an area where we need his permission to reproduce his formulas?

thanks
Paul...

[BeerSmith]

Paul,
  I'm no expert on these things, but I think that if you write an original article and include Tinseth's formula along with appropriate references (for example a link to Glenn Tinseth's Hops Page and credit him for developing the formula) you would be on pretty safe ground.  It would be much like citing a formula from a physics or chemistry book in another article. 

  Copying his page or an article someone wrote wholesale would clearly be wrong, but I believe quoting a formula with appropriate references and citation is acceptable.

Cheers!
Brad

[paulcgi]

OK. I've paraphrased the part about the research he did and I think I've got my 'versions' of the formulas. In his work he talks about bigness factors etc, and I was trying to avoid those to keep it a little more simple.  I'll type some more on what I have and get it posted.

[Kevin58]

Even if you paraphrase, if it comes off sounding like your own ideas or conclusions when in reality you are just re-stating someone else's... you could be on thin ice.

It would be best to state clearly that the figures you are presenting come from "ABC" and then give a link to that source.  For example: "According to Glenn Tinseth, hop utilization is..." as shown on his website: http://realbeer.com/hops/

Now you are covered by crediting the originating author and providing the source publication.

[mr_beer]

In general terms, the  standard approach is that a copyright protects the expression and a patent protects the idea.

Direct copy of a prior expression is most likely a copyright violation if done within the protected period but a similar work that has similar ideas would be OK if much of the expression was new or novel.  In all cases the idea is not protected since it is in the public domain.  Think about all of the boy meets girl love stories or the equivalent.  Each may have its own viewpoint and would not involve any infringement. 

Providing attribution for the source is a courteous approach and often required/expected in academic circles.

A patent provides a fairly short protection for the actual idea from being copied.  That said, the current approach for something really unique is to treat it as a trade secret and not apply for any protection under the theory that the idea may not be easily discovered.  Think about the formula for Coke -- lots of imitators but to this day the actual formulation is secret.