Heather, others, let's not mix things up. Copyright is not intended and useful to make provenance chains in scholarly communication reliable, complete and efficient. The norms of attribution in science and scholarship are separate from copyright or public domain status. There are created, maintained and changed through disciplinary cultures, not laws. Intellectual property laws are different in different parts of the world. If what you say is true we would have witnessed a huge problem with scholars using but not citing e.g. government documents, out- of copyright works, public domain dedicated works etc., which is not the case as far as I know. Copyright and licenses given by the holders of copyright tell us what the copyright holders and the law allow you and what not. They do NOT tell you what is expected or accepted in academia or science and scholarship in general.
The choice to allow or prohibit use with a commercial intent is for every rights holder or author him/herself to make. But please note that choices made on the basis of your dislike of Elsevier have the effect of disallowing (re)use of your output by e.g. any self-employed or retired scholar giving lectures for money and using e.g. images created by you. They can also have the effect of university teachers of commercial summer school courses of those universities to reuse of distribute your work among 5 students in their class. With the increasing abundance of publications, data, images, code etc this will often mean they will use other material that fits their needs 95% instead of your material that would fit their need 100%. They will not contact you to offer payment for that image created by you. Thus, choosing limited licenses would mean a disservice to science, scholarship and teaching and also a disservice to your self. In the internet age allowing liberal use of your output will quite likely bring you more opportunities and better helps building a reputation than limiting it. Best, Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:02 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles Public domain is not consistent with the attribution requirements of scholarship, regardless of length of the term. Two conundra: 1) If we use Plato's ideas we are obliged to cite them. This is important not just for author moral rights, but to establish a chain of evidence. If I quote Plato then someone else goes to the original, finds that I have misquoted, and critiques my work, this is a service to scholarship. Professors need to teach good citation practices; public domain for recent works sends the wrong message. Taking the work of another author, modifying it and submitting as your own work is legal if the work is public domain, but it is plagiarism. 2) Building a reputation for our research is critical to the success of a scholar's career. For this reason public domain is problematic. Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by academics are not consistent with academic freedom. If I am required to publish my work as CC-BY, Elsevier is free to profit from my work, even though I have chosen to participate in the Elsevier boycott. This is a violation of my academic freedom. best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> Date: 2018-03-23 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu> Cc: "Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>, Schoolcom listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that. David Wojick At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received >any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain. The >question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default >OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether >it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work >into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom? > >Sandy Thatcher > >On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote: > > > >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are > >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. > >Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will > >already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript > >will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions. > > > >David > > > >At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: > >>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, > there > >>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got > reprinted > >>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned > well over > >>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny > >>authors > >>that possibility to earn extra income? Of course, the market for > anthologies > >>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot. > >> > >>Sandy Thatcher > >> > >>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal > >>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 > copies > >>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the > >>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP > >>denied > >>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make > this kind > >>of serendipity impossible to achieve? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > wrote: > >> > > >> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan > >> > > >> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something > >> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just > >> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse." > >> > > >> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher > authors > >> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ > >> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place." > >> > > >> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles > >> >should become public domain quickly. > >> > > >> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that > >> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the > Public > >> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I > do not > >> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community. > >> > > >> >David > >> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > >> > > >> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) > wrote: > >> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors > needn't > >> >>invent it, just adopt it. > >> >> > >> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, > whatsoever. > >> >> > >> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly > >> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on > >> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make > America > >> >>Great Again"...) > >> >> > >> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less > >> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global > >> >>warming in which DW does not believe...) > >> >> > >> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick > >> >><<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote: > >> >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright > law be > >> >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short > >> time. > >> >> > >> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public > >> >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See > >> >>below and also at > >> >><<UrlBlockedError.aspx>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyri > ght >> >.html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html > > >> > >> >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy > >> proposal. > >> >> > >> >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not > written for > >> >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright > protection. > >> >> > >> >>Comments? > >> >> > >> >>David > >> >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Public Access limited copyright? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my > >> >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>newsletter: "Inside Public Access" > >> >> > >> >>Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the > copyright law > >> >>to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense. > >> >> > >> >>Â Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has > >> >>written a thought provoking book and > >> >><<UrlBlockedError.aspx>http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-ac > ces >> > s-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iidm62950ff7b6420580c05d212d85d50f&fl=4&uid!92321690&nid$4+272699400>blog > > >> > >> >>article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make > >> >>research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright > >> >>law to do just that. > >> >> > >> >>Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada): > >> >> > >> >>"Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this > body of > >> >>knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other > >> >>intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s > lifetime)." >" > >>" > >> >> > >> >>What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian > >> >>government has a public access program that is similar to the US > program. > >> >> > >> >>The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a > certain > >> >>time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to > >> >>dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely > >> >>research articles in journals. > >> >> > >> >>As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these > articles OA > >> >>(such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. > Codifying > >> >>this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as > >> >>far as legislative drafting is concerned. > >> >> > >> >>Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having > >> >>bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care > argument for > >> >>OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth > >> argument. > >> >>The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make > >> >>money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to > >> >>them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period > of 12 > >> >>months to protect the publishing system, but that is all. > >> >> > >> >>This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive > >> policy. > >> >> > >> >>In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public > Access > >> >>originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated > it for > >> >>the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. > >> >> > >> >>One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short > >> >>for some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to > raise > >> >>this issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my > knowledge > >> >>none has done so. > >> >> > >> >>On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the > Public > >> >>Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can > >> >>make it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to > >> >>move in the direction of public access copyright there would be a lot of > >> >>discussion. > >> >> > >> >>Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government > >> >><<UrlBlockedError.aspx>https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/new > s/2 >> 017/12/parliament_to_undertakereviewofthecopyrightact.html>review > >> >>of copyright law that is presently getting underway. His book may > even be > >> >>timed for it. The title of his blog article is Let Canada Be First > to Turn > >> >>an Open Access Research Policy Into a Legal Right to Know so this > clearly > >> >>is a policy proposal. > >> >> > >> >>How this Parliamentary review proceeds with regard to Willinsky's > radical > >> >>public access proposal might be worth watching. In any case the US > >> >>Congress should consider it. > >> >> > >> >>Note that Richard Poynder has a lengthy discussion of, and interview > with, > >> >>Willinsky here: > >> >><<UrlBlockedError.aspx>https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-o > f-l >> > earning.html>https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >>Sanford G. Thatcher > >>Frisco, TX 75034 > >>https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > >> > >>"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > >> > >>"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > >>who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > >> > >>"Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance > >>with the limitations and incapacities of the human > >>misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) > > > > > > > > > > >Sanford G. Thatcher >Frisco, TX 75034 >https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > >"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > >"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people >who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > >"Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance >with the limitations and incapacities of the human >misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
