Copyright permission from nature

Once authors publish their so called "Intellectual information " they quickly include copyright laws informing the public that before you can copy their info with the many current modalities you must first get " written permission" . But it it really their own work? Or are they just excellent historians , keen naturalists, great photographers or just lucky- a phenomenon called serendipity ?

More critical analysis might show that the published information is based on them either copying and/or selectng for example an offspring what nature regularily produces via - gene mutation and/or genetic transfer during the production of gametes including translocation. They or their colleagues sometimes have the audacity to have the new strain (fauna, flora or micrbial) named after them.This procerdure is also common in Medicine when an investigator decribes a new syndrome or disease. Often in the latter case ,the ownership may be tested in court if the date of the first published report is in doubt.

Probably the most violated copyright law are in the maternity wards of hospitals. I still recall very vividly one of my clinical instructors in medicine who told a group of us medical students as we were observing a delivery on the maternity or delivery floor " remember nature is the surgeon and you as physicians are the first assistants "

I have not seen any of " these publishers" get written permission from nature before they publish. I realize that such written permission would be difficult if not impossible to obtain but at least they could acknowledge nature as co- recipients when they receive their Nobel prize and/or their royalties for their patents as in the case of "velcrom " or in the newpaper page re announcement of births.