Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:
1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations 2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing contentiousness and debate, even among experts. 3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time. I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in J-STOR and will be preserved. My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option and for many authors may be the best option. Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Communications Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver 1100 Lawrence St. Denver, Colo. 80204 USA (303) 556-5936 [email protected] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
