On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Couture Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > One set of licensing terms applies to their generic web content, and the > other to specific > > articles that are surfaced via that website. This isn't a conflict in > licensing terms as different > > things are being licensed, although the presentation could perhaps be a > bit clearer. > > > > > Quite an understatement! One wonders if this kind of confusion is > deliberate, or simply evidence that copyright matters are not taken > seriously enough by (some) publishers. > > In many cases this is (a) historical / ignorance / laziness (b) deliberate. I have written to several publishers. A common phrase is "this journal is copyright FooBar" - the implication being that an all-knowing superintelligent reader can work out that the article is not copyright FooBar. I think it's critical that publishers highlight the fact that the articles are copyright(Authors) and/or the article is CC-BY. It's demeaning to authors and funders not to have their efforts formally and prominently recorded. Other variants include "this site is copyright FooBar". University repositories are as bad as some publishers in this respect. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
