I have been arguing none of those three. Jeroen
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------- From: Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> Date: 24/03/2018 18:20 (GMT+01:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access Jeroen, For clarification, can you confirm that you are arguing: 1. The "royalty free" clause in CC-BY means that works licensed CC-BY means a) the copyright holder is obliged to make the work available for free and b) no one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access services? 2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work? best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" <j.bos...@uu.nl> Date: 2018-03-24 12:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access Heather, Again, I think this argument creates much confusion. Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any publication in the public domain. Period. (Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what the CC-BY license says: "....a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.....") The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that the flow of water is endless.) Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in place as part of the common pool of resources. By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being able to refer to it. And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably ..... JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection (https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a time. Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, both by the original publisher and downstream. To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years ago). US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own employees. Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA. best, Heather Morrison
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
