I believe moral rights (attribution and integrity) are upheld in UK law ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/IV)
My own issue with CC BY is that its simplicity results in a clumsy catchall - for example, few authors would object to figures from their work being used in another work (=derivative work), but might be unhappy about a translation being produced without their knowledge (=derivative work). Your point about commercial use is well made since this is the area where I hear most complaints from authors - the fact that their publisher can make money is accepted in many cases, but the idea that a third party can "freeload" and make money out of their work is often considered unacceptable. Pippa ***** Pippa Smart Research Communication and Publishing Consultant PSP Consulting Oxford, UK Tel: +44 1865 864255 or +44 7775 627688 email: [email protected] Web: www.pspconsulting.org @LearnedPublish **** Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing: http://www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing Editor of the ALPSP Alert: http://www.alpsp.org/ALPSP-Alert **** On 3 March 2016 at 13:46, Sandy Thatcher <[email protected]> wrote: > Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first issue of > the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication back in 2012: > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint > _Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License > > I was particularly concerned about translations. It should be noted, by > the way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote this > article contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., as part of > the license terms. That part was dropped in later iterations, and the only > reference now is this: "Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are > not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or > other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the > Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the > Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the > Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." In other words, licensors do not give > up their moral rights by offering this license to users, but since moral > rights are not recognized under British or US law (with a very limited > exception under US law to works of fine art), that clause is of little > comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors. > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode > > I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize that > translations may be a problem for HSS authors. > > There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be > addressed: "Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the > originator of a work that is subsequently sold on is not personally losing > a revenue stream." Just because an academic author may not be motivated by > personal monetary gain does not mean that a personal revenue stream is not, > in fact, lost in some circumstances. As former director of Penn State > University Press, I can cite examples of authors who benefited to the tune > of thousands of dollars from the reprinting of their articles from some of > the journals we published. > > There is a general problem also with the definition of what is > "commercial." When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several years > ago as to what people understand to be the meaning of this word in the > context of publishing, there was little consensus beyond a very small core > of shared understanding of what the term means. > > Sandy Thatcher > > > > > At 12:11 PM +0000 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote: > > <Apologies for cross posting> > > Dear all, > > You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at > Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons > Attribution licences. > > Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? > https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555 > > A taster: > *********************************** > > Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet > about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic > community. However, in conversation with some legal people and > contemporaries at other institutions one of the observations was that > generally academics are not necessarily cognizant with what the licences > offer and indeed what protections are available under regular copyright. > > To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or > if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at > Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of > academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners. > > In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences *do not* encourage > plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is > a broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences *could* pose > problems for the moral integrity of the work and cause issues with > translations. CC-BY licenses *do create challenges* for works containing > sensitive information and for works containing third party copyright. > > > ************************************** > Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam problem > with the blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried (we are working > on this). > > Thanks > > Danny > > -- > Dr Danny Kingsley > Head of Scholarly Communications > Cambridge University Library > West Road, Cambridge CB39DR > P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 > M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 > E: [email protected] > T: @dannykay68 > ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939 > > > > -- > > Sanford G. Thatcher > Frisco, TX 75034-5514 > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who > can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > > "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the > limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce > (1906) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
