CC-BY - they were published through BioMedCentral. Springer labelled all images that went through their business as (C) SpringerImages. This included Wikimedia, many third-parties and I even found D*sn*y content.
Wikimedia rightly cared. No-one in academia cared. Of course it's copyright breach. The point is that toll-access publishers have a mentality that everything that crosses their doors belongs to them. It's much cheaper to claim the lot rather than work out what they own and what they don't. It's only awkward people like me who care. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by > Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) > SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just > because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be > substandard. > > > Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so, > re-labelling them as "© Springer" is a form of copyright breach > (actionable?), but selling them isn't, of course. > > Jan Velterop > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
