DSM5 in Distress

"The field must remain vigilant in its efforts to contain APA commercialism and persistent in trying to penetrate APA's secrecy and inbred decision making. APA must finally come to realize that DSM 5 is an open public trust, not a private business enterprise."

Alternatively, maybe it is time for the public to realize that the DSM5 is actually a private business enterprise and not an open public trust.

I think they are just protecting their brand name which is well within their right. Unusual that it was discovered on Wordpress but there is probably a company looking out for this sort of thing. I disagree that the DSM should be open to the public. Open to the medical professionals within the mental health field, yes. But not the general public. Its beyond their scope. You can't have cult members or so-called scientists adding their views, its not Wikipedia. Unless people are in the mental health field its truthfully none of their business.

Anonymous on January 12, 2012 - 7:19pm, commented:

"I think they are just protecting their brand name which is well within their right."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) grassroots legal advocacy site makes its site content copyright free for distribution under Creative Commons License.

Extract from the EFF site:

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP

[...]

Questions About Trademark

I want to complain about a company. Can I use their name and logo?

Yes. While trademark law prevents you from using someone else’s trademark to sell your competing products (you can’t make and sell your own “Rolex” watches or name your blog “Newsweek”), it doesn’t stop you from using the trademark to refer to the trademark owner or its products (offering repair services for Rolex watches or criticizing Newsweek’s editorial decisions).

That kind of use, known as “nominative fair use,” is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you’re talking about, and you don’t use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you’re complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it’s clear that you’re not claiming to be or speak for the company.

Since trademark law is designed to protect against consumer confusion, non-commercial uses are even more likely to be fair. Be aware that advertising may give a “commercial” character to your site, and some courts have even gone so far as to say that links to commercial sites makes a site commercial. (See PETA v. Doughney)

Can I use a trademark in my blog’s name or in the title of a blog post?

Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name http://www.bosleymedical.com).

Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn’t give them a right to stop you.

[End extract]

Suzy Chapman
Dx Revision Watch

If the APA were 'just protecting their brand name' there was nothing to prevent them sending a friendly email politely requesting Ms Chapman to change her domain-name.

They did not. They sent a threatening letter to an independent citizen who would predictably be vulnerable to such threats.

If this conduct is representative of APA behaviour in general then they are in serious need of re-evaluating their core values and their own psychological state; before they start on everybody else's.

They are in effect telling their members that it is ok to be a bully and to ignore the well-being of others if it suits them to do so.

An appalling example to set for its members.

Peter Kemp comments:

"If the APA were 'just protecting their brand name' there was nothing to prevent them sending a friendly email politely requesting Ms Chapman to change her domain-name.

"They did not. They sent a threatening letter to an independent citizen who would predictably be vulnerable to such threats."

Indeed, and the timing could not have been more inconvenient.

The 10 day period within which I was expected to comply and to provide the APA with proof that I had complied, ran from Thursday evening UK time on December 22 to Saturday, December 31 which, because of the Christmas and New Year holiday, meant there was just one working day left before Christmas and only three working days between Christmas and New Year in which I might have discussed these demands with the Licensing and Permissions department - that's assuming the office would have been open between Christmas and New Year (information which was not provided and neither was a telephone number). I could have been away from home for the holiday with no access to the internet in order to meet their demands and carry out a domain name change or to communicate with them via email. What if I had wanted to speak to a lawyer over the holiday period or to my site hosts?

Given the non commercial status of my site, would it have hurt the APA so very much to have waited until after the New Year? So very nastily worded letters and very inconsiderate timing, too.

Sounds like their timing was very well considered, if not very nice.

Thanks for your hard work. Before this went down, I distrusted the DSM5's content. Now I distrust the authors' intentions. Their actions have harmed them more than anything you could have written about them.

This is a favorite time to let no-bid contracts as well, for jurisdictions who do not wish to be bothered by pesky citizen-input.

A rather strange title to an article, when in fact the APA's specific goal was achieved: Ms. Chapman's domain name was in fact changed from "dsm5watch.wordpress.com" to "dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com".

The APA won the BATTLE, time will only tell whether the negative publicity will change their future behavior -- I can't claim any optimism . The only way they lose THIS WAR is if dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com gets prominent standing on search engine results for people researching info on DSM5.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.