Congratulations to Casey Luskin for finally fumbling an attempt to actually discuss something approaching the outer reaches of science at Evolution News and Views. Even a facsimile of a scientific article makes the false advertising of Evolution News and Views appear slightly less obviously false. It seems like it's been years since any post at EN&V even attempted to resemble an actual scientific discussion. I can't think of a single recent article discussing any peer reviewed intelligent design research recently. In fact, I can't think of one, ever. Still secret, I guess.
So, that's news by itself. What's not news is Casey's misunderstanding of intellectual property law.
Notice that "Peer reviewed" checkmark at this article? I did and was stunned. I went to the website and found out that any blog can submit an application to display that blog reviewed check mark when blogging on peer-reviewed research. Even this blog might qualify. I won't do it because, frankly, peer-reviewed scientific articles are well outside my expertise. I have nothing intelligent to say that wasn't said in the article itself. I leave that for qualified scientists to digest and explain.
Still, I was impressed the Casey had taken the initiative to join the scientific community. It would be a good thing and perhaps a learning experience. Alas, like almost all else about Intelligent Design Creationism, it was a fake.
Yes, the checkmark is copyrighted.
No, it's not fair use. Succinct analysis.
Potential infringers sometimes claim their work is a parody, a recognized fair use.
That doesn't apply here. You see, the parody has to be "intentional"--not accidental.
The biggest objection is that the peer-reviewed checkmark represents a screening process that Casey has apparently subverted, affecting the market for the work. Why go through the screening process when you can just shortcut it and hold yourself out as a "peer review" blogger, as Casey has demonstrated? The organizers of researchblogging.org invested a lot of time and effort in their screening guidelines to represent real science research to the general public. Luskin has compromised their hard work and efforts. Now, we have no idea if the displayed checkmark means anything at all.