On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Marc this is helpful info although these links do not work. > > An important related issue is a tendency towards copyright expansion in > the form of seeking to define linking under copyright. One manifestation of > this was the EU proposal of a "link tax", as covered by Open Media here: > https://openmedia.org/en/press/eu-commission-formally-proposes-link-tax- > european-parliament-part-new-copyright-directive > > If there are updates I would appreciate hearing them. > Hi Heather: The Commission introduced the proposal (Article 11) in their draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. At this time MEPs are collecting proposed amendments to the text, which will be negotiated in the relevant committees, and eventually voted in the Parliament and the European Council. I found this paper to be helpful for a more in-depth understanding of the issue: http://www.openforumeurope.org/release-ofe-academic-paper-publishers-intellectual-property-right-implications-freedom-expression-authors-open-content-policies/ Other groups tracking it: https://openmedia.org/ (as you mention above) http://ancillarycopyright.eu/ http://www.communia-association.org/ https://edri.org/ https://juliareda.eu/en/ Hope this helps, timothy > This is very problematic for scholarship and the Internet per se. This > issue requires a broader understanding and discussion than CC licensing of > a small subset of works on the Internet (not everything is scholarship, > education and government). > > Different people and organizations may have different reasons for concerns > about linking. For some this may be a way of protecting economic rights > (eg newspapers with free sites protecting ad revenue), for others > expanding economic rights (eg scholarly publishers who want paying > customers to pay even more for linking), while for others the issue may be > protecting an organization from false claims of association by third > parties. For some of these issues there are likely better solutions than > bringing linking under copyright. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> > Date: 2017-01-23 12:12 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able > to meet the definition of open access? > > Hi all, > > > > Éric wonders if Google infringes copyright (or violates the licence) when > displaying CC BY-NC papers in its search results pages. > > > > As these pages only contain basic bibliographical data, very short > excerpts and hyperlinks, I would think that this “use” falls either outside > of copyright protection or under the fair use/dealing exception. > > > > Add to that the fact that copyright owners can “ask” Google (through > metadata in the header of a page) not to be indexed. That’s indeed one the > reasons even Google’s cache, which doesn’t reproduce small excerpts but the > entirety of the indexed page, was deemed non-infringing in a 2006 US case. > Fair use was another. > > > > For the legally inclined: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Field_v._Google,_Inc. or https://en.wikisource.org/ > wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc for the actual decision. > > > > Marc Couture > > > > > > *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la > part de* Éric Archambault > *Envoyé :* 23 janvier 2017 11:14 > *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Objet :* Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able > to meet the definition of open access? > > > > Marc has a good point on the NC character. > > > > Does intermediation counts? For example, Google presents millions of > papers on its search results pages and these papers contribute as fodder to > Google’s $2.18 million net after taxes profit per hour (the vast majority > of these profits are from advertising obviously). Is this a commercial use? > > > > Éric > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *Couture Marc > *Sent:* January 23, 2017 10:46 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is > able to meet the definition of open access? > > > > Stephen Downes wrote : > > > > “From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that > is CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all” > > > > I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that: > > > > - The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and > this attribution normally includes (at least in the case of online > distribution) a link to the original source https://wiki.creativecommons. > org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution . > > > > - The first person, or institution paying the access fee can then freely > (in all senses) distribute the work online. > > > > Not considering fraudulent activities (e.g. not mentioning the license, > which violates the terms of the licence), which could be done for any > version of the CC license, one could certainly find cases (best practices > not followed; print copies) where one would have to do a little work to > find the original work (nothing more though than a Google search with the > title). In any event, I wouldn’t describe such a work as being “not free at > all”. > > > > On the other hand, the problem with the -NC condition is that the > definition of non-commercial is quite vague, so that one can easily imagine > uses that authors wishing to impede profit-seeking uses would also prevent > others they wouldn’t object to. Stephen mentions educational uses, but many > of them could well be considered commercial (for instance, in private > institutions, or even public ones, if students pay documentation fees). > > > > Recent lawsuits, in Germany and in the US, illustrate the problem. > > > > - Germany: “non-commercial” equates “private use only” (2014 decision > appealed, still waiting for the outcome) http://merlin.obs.coe.int/ > article.php?id=14679 > > > > - US: Public school disctrict subcontracting reproduction and distribution > of print copies to private firm (2016 case yet to be heard) > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/00165835421/ > creative-commons-wants-to-step-into-lawsuit-over- > definition-noncommercial-cc-license.shtml > > > > Marc Couture > > > > > > *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *De la part de* Downes, Stephen > *Envoyé :* 23 janvier 2017 09:46 > *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Objet :* Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able > to meet the definition of open access? > > > > > Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not > all of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major > strategic error for the OA movement. > > > > I also have been arguing that CC-by-NC ought to be considered equally > acceptable. Open access licenses prior to Creative Commons sought typically > to prevent commercial appropriation of openly published work. From the > perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is CC-by, > but which requires payment to access, is not free at all, in either sense. > This is especially important in the context of open educational resources. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------------------------------------------- > > *Stephen Downes* > > > > National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada > > 1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6 > > Tel.: (613) 993 0288 <(613)%20993-0288> Mobile: (613) 292 1789 > <(613)%20292-1789> > > stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ http://www.downes.ca > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather Morrison > *Sent:* January-23-17 8:19 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is > able to meet the definition of open access? > > > > Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not > all of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major > strategic error for the OA movement. Key arguments: > > > > Granting blanket downstream commercial re-use rights allows for downstream > toll access whether or a one-off or broad-based scale. > > > > Examples (broad-based at end):… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Invest in an open future. Support Creative Commons today. https://creativecommons.org/donate/
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
