I flagged this up to Elsevier about 5 months ago. I would agree that they could be in violation of trading laws as they are asserting rights over free material and charging for it. I don't know whether the trading standards office would be able to deal with it - we might have to make purchases.
>From my observations it has happened frequently with Elsevier (see my blog). I have no idea whether my examples I pointed out have been corrected. There is a more general problem in that many publishers charge for CC-NC articles. It is unclear which categories can be legitimately charged for. I note that Elsevier journals such as Cell Reports have a very high proportion of CC-NC(-ND) on the basis that authors choose it (in the same way that 10 year olds choose burgers and sweets). I was sent an example today of an editor who was being urged by Elsevier to make her journal CC-NC. as it would protect authors. Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Graham Triggs <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks for that Robert. > > Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is > Copyright Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors > (which is only clear when you download the PDF). > > That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use > rights to be purchased, the page is making false and misleading statements > about the item in question. I would say that is breaking UK law, and > presumably other regions too. > > I would suggest that Elsevier needs to urgently review how this is > advertised and/or it's relationship with CCC on the basis of that evidence. > > Although I suspect a lot of this comes from blanket rules in place for an > entire serial with CCC, and a lot of these problems could at least be > mitigated by ScienceDirect: > > a) being clear about copyright and licencing in the HTML page, as well as > the PDF > > b) not providing links to Rightslink for CC-BY articles, where this is > clearly unnecessary. > > G > > > On 17 December 2013 16:30, Kiley, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Laura >> >> >> >> It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) >> quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles. >> >> >> >> Let me give you an example. >> >> >> >> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002489 is an >> article funded by Wellcome, and made available under a CC-BY licence. This >> is made clear at ScienceDirect (albeit in a footnote). >> >> >> >> However, if you follow the link to “Gets rights and content” you get >> redirected to the Rightslink site where there is a form you can complete to >> get a quick quote for re-use. So, for arguments sake I selected that I >> wanted to use this single article: >> >> >> >> · In a CD-ROM/DVD >> >> · I was a pharmaceutical company >> >> · I wanted to make 12000 copies >> >> · And translate it into two languages >> >> >> >> ..and RightsLink gave me a “quick price” of 375,438.35 GBP [I love the >> accuracy of this price.] >> >> >> >> Of course for a CC-BY article, there is no need for anyone to pay >> anything to use this content. Attribution is all that is required. >> >> >> >> I don’t know what would have happened if I had continued with the >> transaction, but I hope that a user would not really end up getting charged. >> >> >> >> As the CC-BY licence information is in the ScienceDirect metadata I’m not >> sure why RightsLink can’t “read “ this and for whatever use the user >> selects, the fee is calculated to be £0.00. Better still would be for >> CC-BY articles NOT to contain a link to RightsLink. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Laura Quilter >> *Sent:* 17 December 2013 14:53 >> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access >> >> >> >> Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments >> for OA reuse? I'd really like to know details. >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> Laura Markstein Quilter / [email protected] >> >> *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher * >> Copyright and Information Policy Librarian >> University of Massachusetts, Amherst >> [email protected] >> >> Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Moving the discussion to a new title... >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but >> which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: >> >> >> >> 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. >> It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for >> born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue >> from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then >> it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate >> for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get >> published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go >> to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. >> >> >> >> 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription >> prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is >> almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very >> difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a >> multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. >> >> >> >> >> There are several other concerns about "hybrid": >> >> * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many >> hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled >> with confusing words "Free content". Many do not have licences, some have >> incompatible rights. >> >> * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for >> Open Access reuse >> >> * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me >> today and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it >> protected authors from exploitation. >> >> * they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal >> Access at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she >> couldn't give it to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have >> no idea how reliable that was. >> >> Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access >> then it should be: >> >> * clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs. >> >> * the XML should be available >> >> * there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher. >> >> Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a >> daily basis. Each of these does exactly what I need: >> >> * lists all new articles every day >> >> * has a complete list of all articles ever published >> >> * collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over >> all the content. >> >> It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about >> these issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it properly - an honest >> product. >> >> Any publisher who wishes to be respected for their OA offerings has to do >> the minimum of what I list here: >> >> * CC-BY >> >> * list of all articles >> >> * easy machine iteration and retrieval. >> >> Anything else is holding back progress >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider >> MailControl<http://www.blackspider.com/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
