Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Heather Morrison]

Although I am one of a number of authors who have argued that we can afford to 
flip existing subscriptions revenue to open access (see 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i6.4370), I argue that there are essential 
flaws in the idea of attempting to transition existing successful commercial 
scholarly publishers from a subscriptions to an open access based business 
model. This post will focus on one such flaw In particular, that payment for 
new articles moving forward via OA APCs does not address other major revenue 
sources for existing publishers.

In this article I speak to the transition of Elsevier to OA as unlikely:  
https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.18.3.53

Excerpt:

"Realistic APC prices that would be required to sustain Elsevier revenue and 
profit based on dividing Elsevier’s stated revenue by Elsevier’s two different 
reports of article production range from over $5,000 to close to $12,000 USD 
per article. The low-end estimate is higher than estimated global academic 
library spend (Morrison, 
2013<http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/charleston/15254011/v18n3/s14.html?expires=1497975509=90910283=75002231=University+of+Ottawa=7738947A38667D7749C747C9016E07F6#bib6>).

Even if every article produced by Elsevier from this day forward were OA 
through APC funding, it is important to note that Elsevier derives considerable 
revenue through subscriptions and pay-per-view for a very substantial 
collection of back issues, and for search services such as Scopus and Science 
Direct. It seems likely that even if signatories of the OA020: Expression of 
Interest in the Large-Scale Implementation of Open Access to Scholarly Journals 
were to be joined by every university and research organization worldwide, and 
even if they were to collectively agree to pay more than current spend to 
transition Elsevier moving forward to Open Access publication, Elsevier would 
continue to seek subscriptions and pay-per-view revenue for back issues, and 
paying for OA articles should not be assumed to include payment for search 
services that libraries and researchers might continue to see as “must-haves.”"

To sum up arguments in these two articles, I argue that there is more than 
enough funding in existing library subscriptions to fund a fully open access 
scholarly publishing system, and that it would be possible to do at 
considerable cost savings. However, the possibility and affordability of an OA 
flip cannot be taken for granted. Providing support for a return to scholar-led 
journal publishing (the norm until the end of the Second World War) through 
such means as library support for journal hosting, modest subsidies for 
journals, and investing in new approaches such as peer-review overlay based on 
repositories would appear to be the most promising routes.

best,

Heather Morrison


On 2017-06-20, at 11:19 AM, "Reckling, Falk" 
<falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at<mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at>>
 wrote:

Right Eric, but it has to be flanked by initiatives like in Finland, Germany 
and the Netherlands to convince some publishers to change their business models 
according what buyers are asking for:
FIN: http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
GER: https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/
NL: http://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/openaccess-eng.html

And as the offsetting / OA deals in the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, UK and 
Germany already show, some publishers have learnt the lesson, not always 
perfect but nearly sufficient deals.

Some other publishers should learn a lesson given by Ivy Anderson from the  
Digital Library of the Universities of California:

“ … the core problem is the persistence of a friction-based business model in a 
network environment that is essentially frictionless. Human factors research 
tells us that when users keep making the same mistake, it isn't a mistake - 
it's the system that needs to change. Flip the business model to open access, 
and the Sci-Hub problem goes away - it becomes unnecessary on the one hand and 
legitimate on the other.“
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone#comment-2648543579<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone>



Best,
Falk

Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:boun...@eprints.org>] Im Auftrag von 
Éric Archambault
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Juni 2017 16:04
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Gemma

The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale 
transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that 
initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the 
system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a 
matter of shifting that money around. Do

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Reckling, Falk]

Right Eric, but it has to be flanked by initiatives like in Finland, Germany 
and the Netherlands to convince some publishers to change their business models 
according what buyers are asking for:
FIN: http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
GER: https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/
NL: http://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/openaccess-eng.html

And as the offsetting / OA deals in the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, UK and 
Germany already show, some publishers have learnt the lesson, not always 
perfect but nearly sufficient deals.

Some other publishers should learn a lesson given by Ivy Anderson from the  
Digital Library of the Universities of California:

“ … the core problem is the persistence of a friction-based business model in a 
network environment that is essentially frictionless. Human factors research 
tells us that when users keep making the same mistake, it isn't a mistake - 
it's the system that needs to change. Flip the business model to open access, 
and the Sci-Hub problem goes away - it becomes unnecessary on the one hand and 
legitimate on the other.“
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone#comment-2648543579<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone>



Best,
Falk

Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Éric Archambault
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Juni 2017 16:04
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Gemma

The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale 
transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that 
initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the 
system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a 
matter of shifting that money around. Do you share the same views? What are the 
challenges and enablers you view in the OA2020 proposal? I think this 
initiative deserves attention as it would allow us to set aside that mounting 
“arm race” between users who want unhampered access and publishers who need 
revenues.

Cordially

Éric

Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal QC Canada  H2J 1Y6

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>
science-metrix.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>  &  MailScanner has detected 
a possible fraud attempt from "www.science-metrix.com" claiming to be 
1science.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2E993.3D1730C0]  [cid:image004.png@01D2E993.3D1730C0]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Sent: June 19, 2017 11:18 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @gemmahersh




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder
Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing re

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Kathleen Shearer]

And then these “researcher driven initiatives" will eventually just get bought 
out by Elsevier or another big publisher, or lag because they can’t find stable 
funding.

That is why we need a community-based infrastructure, governed and managed in a 
distributed way, which will allow researchers to innovate and build their 
services on top.

Some of us are coalescing around an ecosystem that looks like this:

1. Libraries support and manage open content locally (that is actually the 
mission of a library)

2. Value added networked services are built on top - including peer review and 
annotation

3. Move subscription funds towards local content management and to support 
network services

4. Adopt governance principles for this global research infrastructure as 
recommended in Bilder G, Lin J, Neylon C (2015) Principles for Open Scholarly 
Infrastructure-v1, retrieved [date], 
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859

We need to find solutions that are “at scale” if we want to change the system.

Best, Kathleen



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> What’s to conclude from this perplexing answer?
>  
> I did check Elsevier’s policy, in case it had changed overnight... but it 
> didn’t: manuscripts under embargo still must bear CC licenses allowing 
> anybody (except the authors, who are bound by the publishing agreement they 
> have signed) to post them on a non-commercial site (that includes all 
> institutional repositories, as far as I can see).
>  
> I can just assume that “it wouldn’t really work very well for very long” 
> means that if it does works (that is, if enough researchers and repository 
> staff members do what is needed), Elsevier will simply (again) change its 
> policy, like they did before after mandates became more prevalent.
>  
> Will this cat-and-mouse play ever end?
>  
> Researchers could - and should - be the ones calling the shots, deciding how 
> and under what conditions their results are made public. Some are already 
> showing the way ( <>MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 
> "openlibhums.org" claiming to be http:/openlibhums.org 
> <http://openlibhums.org/>, http://episciences.org <http://episciences.org/>, 
> http://discreteanalysisjournal.com <http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/>, 
> etc.).
>  
> Marc Couture
>  
>  
> De : goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] De la 
> part de Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
> Envoyé : 20 juin 2017 02:18
> À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Objet : Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND
>  
> Dear Richard
> 
> Elsevier's hosting policy 
> <https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains how 
> platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
> repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
> publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand. 
>  
> The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very 
> well for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription 
> model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.
>  
> Best wishes
>  
> Gemma 
>  
> Gemma Hersh
> VP, Policy and Communications
> Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
> M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com 
> <mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
> Twitter: @gemmahersh
>  
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)]

Hi Eric

You may be interested in the response to the Max Planck paper published by 
International STM. It is publicly available here: 
http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_12_04_STM_Response_to_MPDL_Open_Access_Transition_White_Paper.pdf

Kind regards
Gemma

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: 20 June 2017 16:04
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


Dear Gemma

The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale 
transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that 
initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the 
system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a 
matter of shifting that money around. Do you share the same views? What are the 
challenges and enablers you view in the OA2020 proposal? I think this 
initiative deserves attention as it would allow us to set aside that mounting 
“arm race” between users who want unhampered access and publishers who need 
revenues.

Cordially

Éric

Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal QC Canada  H2J 1Y6

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>
science-metrix.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>  &  MailScanner has detected 
a possible fraud attempt from "www.science-metrix.com" claiming to be 
1science.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2E9E2.6BCE0430]  [cid:image004.png@01D2E9E2.6BCE0430]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Sent: June 19, 2017 11:18 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @gemmahersh




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder
Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the 
embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted 
manuscript.

"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal 
site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the 
license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the 
author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline 
this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in 
questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified mat

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

What’s to conclude from this perplexing answer?

I did check Elsevier’s policy, in case it had changed overnight... but it 
didn’t: manuscripts under embargo still must bear CC licenses allowing anybody 
(except the authors, who are bound by the publishing agreement they have 
signed) to post them on a non-commercial site (that includes all institutional 
repositories, as far as I can see).

I can just assume that “it wouldn’t really work very well for very long” means 
that if it does works (that is, if enough researchers and repository staff 
members do what is needed), Elsevier will simply (again) change its policy, 
like they did before after mandates became more prevalent.

Will this cat-and-mouse play ever end?

Researchers could - and should - be the ones calling the shots, deciding how 
and under what conditions their results are made public. Some are already 
showing the way (http:/openlibhums.org<http://openlibhums.org>, 
http://episciences.org, http://discreteanalysisjournal.com, etc.).

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Envoyé : 20 juin 2017 02:18
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @gemmahersh

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Éric Archambault]

Dear Gemma

The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale 
transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that 
initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the 
system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a 
matter of shifting that money around. Do you share the same views? What are the 
challenges and enablers you view in the OA2020 proposal? I think this 
initiative deserves attention as it would allow us to set aside that mounting 
“arm race” between users who want unhampered access and publishers who need 
revenues.

Cordially

Éric

Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal QC Canada  H2J 1Y6

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>
science-metrix.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>  &  
1science.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2E993.3D1730C0]  [cid:image004.png@01D2E993.3D1730C0]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Sent: June 19, 2017 11:18 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @gemmahersh




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder
Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the 
embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted 
manuscript.

"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal 
site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the 
license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the 
author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline 
this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in 
questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any 
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that file-trading 
is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of compliance with the 
NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other items of value is not 
permitted.”
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sharing-networks

The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
“CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms only.”
http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD>

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)]

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @gemmahersh




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the 
embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted 
manuscript.

"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal 
site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the 
license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the 
author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline 
this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in 
questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any 
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that file-trading 
is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of compliance with the 
NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other items of value is not 
permitted.”
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sharing-networks

The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
“CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms only.”
http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD>

and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on 
commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net>, 
www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu>)” :not allowed

I’ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that position. 
She replied:
„Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<http://academia.edu> use content commercially 
to sell advertising & services around the content they disseminate” and “Both 
ResearchGate & academia.edu<https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> are problems in Germany as 
they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available” 
(https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and 
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )

My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article by 
commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which they 
don’t do).
But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not prohibited 
because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.

What do you think?

Kind regards
Bernhard
###

Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library
52425 Jülich
Tel  ++49-2461-613013<tel:+49%202461%20613013>
Fax ++49-2461-616103<tel:+49%202461%20616103>

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jue

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Heather Morrison]

In Canada in recent years major gains have been made in fair dealing through 
case law and legislation, in particular the 2004 CCH v Law Society of Upper 
Canada in which the Supreme Court asserted that members of the society had 
rights to make personal copies of articles and that the library staff could do 
the copying for them, ie an active user's right. This was followed in 2012 by 5 
Supreme Court cases on the side of fair dealing in one day, and the Copyright 
Modernization Act which broadened fair dealing rights to include educational 
use and user-generated content, among other uses (but unfortunately allows for 
digital locks). Canadian fair dealing used to be far more limited than US fair 
use, but now we are a model. The copyright act is scheduled for review later 
this year. Proponents of fair dealing need to speak up; the 
pro-copyright-limitations lobby certainly will. OA advocates can play an 
important role in this effort - as examples of creators who are not motivated 
by IP limitations, and as experts in why re-use is needed. I encourage everyone 
to do so.

In the EU I gather that there are efforts to expand fair dealing / fair use, 
e.g. this blog post from the authors' alliance talks about globalization of 
fair use:
http://www.authorsalliance.org/2016/02/25/international-fair-use-developments-is-fair-use-going-global/

I am not fully up to speed on efforts to expand fair use / fair dealing in the 
EU and elsewhere and would appreciate more information.

US fair use has long been a model, but this is not to be taken for granted. I 
would be interested in hearing if there are any developments there too.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca>
Date: 2017-06-18 4:39 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Hi all,

Just to make myself clear: I also think we can safely reuse ideas found in a 
text, irrespective of permissions granted, and that means reproducing 
expressions and significant excerpts when needed. This falls under fair use / 
fair dealing or similar exceptions. I also think also that scholars/scientists 
don't - and shouldn't - care too much about these subtleties when they write.

The main problem I can foresee is when they publish in commercial venues (which 
is the case for almost all book chapters and monographs, and now for the 
majority of articles).

(1) In some jurisdictions (UK, US) the commercial nature of the use goes, or 
tend to go against these exceptions.

(2) Publishers may be overly cautious as to potential infringements. I remember 
colleagues explaining me that the publisher (of a book) required that authors 
obtain written permissions from copyright owners for any excerpt reproduced, 
although this falls clearly under the (Canadian) fair dealing exception.

I certainly agree with Heather that we need broad exceptions to copyright and 
user rights, but it's a long term objective, and I don't see nowadays much 
movement in that direction (but I would be happy to be pointed to any and, 
well, participate in it if feasible).

Marc Couture

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Just to make myself clear: I also think we can safely reuse ideas found in a 
text, irrespective of permissions granted, and that means reproducing 
expressions and significant excerpts when needed. This falls under fair use / 
fair dealing or similar exceptions. I also think also that scholars/scientists 
don't - and shouldn't - care too much about these subtleties when they write.

The main problem I can foresee is when they publish in commercial venues (which 
is the case for almost all book chapters and monographs, and now for the 
majority of articles).

(1) In some jurisdictions (UK, US) the commercial nature of the use goes, or 
tend to go against these exceptions.

(2) Publishers may be overly cautious as to potential infringements. I remember 
colleagues explaining me that the publisher (of a book) required that authors 
obtain written permissions from copyright owners for any excerpt reproduced, 
although this falls clearly under the (Canadian) fair dealing exception.

I certainly agree with Heather that we need broad exceptions to copyright and 
user rights, but it's a long term objective, and I don't see nowadays much 
movement in that direction (but I would be happy to be pointed to any and, 
well, participate in it if feasible).

Marc Couture

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Heather Morrison]

If we cannot cite, use excerpts from, paraphrase, etc., any work for which 
derivative rights have been explicitly granted through CC licenses, this means 
we forego these rights for the vast majority of copyrighted works, including 
almost everything published before about 15 years ago and vast amounts of works 
produced by entities other than scholars, even though as Marc points out below 
(and I concur) we already have these works.

Strong arguments against ND may do more harm than good to scholars' ability to 
re-use work. By claiming we have no rights without explicit derivative rights 
we risk losing more than we have to gain.

We need broad exceptions to copyright, strong users' rights / fair dealing, 
moreso than open licensing.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca>
Date: 2017-06-18 3:14 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Jevan Pipitone wrote :

>
The fact that it says "No Derivatives" seems a concern for example sometimes 
researchers can publish a summary of other peoples articles and then include 
all the articles used in the references. [...]

... to gain ideas from other people which can then be used to create new things 
by the researcher, but, this is potentially a "derivative" work since it can 
build on the work of others. So I think there is a problem there too.
>

This is a relevant question.

Ideas are not protected by copyright. Thus whatever the license (if any), one 
can always build upon the ideas found in the texts of others. One has to 
mention the source, but it's a matter of scientific integrity, not of 
copyright. What is protected is the particular expression of ideas, as found in 
a text, for instance.

However, the difference between ideas and their expression is not clear-cut, as 
the only way to communicate ideas is by expressing them. In order to guarantee 
the free use of ideas embedded in copyright law, courts have held that when 
there are just a few ways to express an idea, or when an idea is so simple that 
there is no significant "creativity" or "originality" involved in its 
expression, reusing the expression is deemed using the idea; it's not thus a 
basis for copyright protection (and infringement).

In particular, creating a summary of a work can be viewed as expressing in 
another way the ideas found in the first work. The summary is then an original 
work, based on the ideas of the first, so that there is no copyright issue. But 
such a summary could include particular expressions, some of them not simple, 
taken from the first work. At an extreme, one could build a summary mainly by 
juxtaposing carefully chosen excerpts from the first work; this would open the 
door to the summary being a derivate work. You can imagine all intermediate 
situations; there is a grey zone here.

In conclusion, because of this uncertainty, the ND condition could indeed be an 
impediment to the reuse not only of a work, but even of the ideas it conveys.

Marc Couture

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Couture Marc]

Jevan Pipitone wrote :

>
The fact that it says "No Derivatives" seems a concern for example sometimes 
researchers can publish a summary of other peoples articles and then include 
all the articles used in the references. [...]

... to gain ideas from other people which can then be used to create new things 
by the researcher, but, this is potentially a "derivative" work since it can 
build on the work of others. So I think there is a problem there too.
>

This is a relevant question.

Ideas are not protected by copyright. Thus whatever the license (if any), one 
can always build upon the ideas found in the texts of others. One has to 
mention the source, but it’s a matter of scientific integrity, not of 
copyright. What is protected is the particular expression of ideas, as found in 
a text, for instance.

However, the difference between ideas and their expression is not clear-cut, as 
the only way to communicate ideas is by expressing them. In order to guarantee 
the free use of ideas embedded in copyright law, courts have held that when 
there are just a few ways to express an idea, or when an idea is so simple that 
there is no significant “creativity” or “originality” involved in its 
expression, reusing the expression is deemed using the idea; it’s not thus a 
basis for copyright protection (and infringement).

In particular, creating a summary of a work can be viewed as expressing in 
another way the ideas found in the first work. The summary is then an original 
work, based on the ideas of the first, so that there is no copyright issue. But 
such a summary could include particular expressions, some of them not simple, 
taken from the first work. At an extreme, one could build a summary mainly by 
juxtaposing carefully chosen excerpts from the first work; this would open the 
door to the summary being a derivate work. You can imagine all intermediate 
situations; there is a grey zone here.

In conclusion, because of this uncertainty, the ND condition could indeed be an 
impediment to the reuse not only of a work, but even of the ideas it conveys.

Marc Couture

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Couture Marc]

Bernhard Mittermaier wrote:
>
My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article by 
commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which they 
don’t do).
>
Despite the large amount of discussion around the notion of “non-commercial”, 
and the meaning of the terms defining the NC condition of CC licenses, it 
remains difficult to determine if a specific use is commercial or not.
As explained in the CC site 
(https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation), the key 
is not “the category or class of reuser”, but the “primary purpose” of the 
reuse. In the case of ResearchGate, for instance, a researcher’s primary 
purpose is not “intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or 
monetary compensation”, but ResearchGate’s primary purpose certainly is. But 
who is the reuser here? The researchers who post their files, or RG who hosts 
them, making much effort to help researchers uploading them (sending multiple 
emails pointing to one’s own articles and inviting to upload them)?
The same CC page concludes: “the context and purpose of the use is relevant 
when making the determination, but no class of reuser is per se permitted or 
excluded from using an NC-licensed work”. This doesn’t clarify much the issue.
>
But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not prohibited 
because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.
>
There’s another issue here: the publishing agreement signed by the authors 
explicitly forbids posting on repositories (except on arXiv and RePEC) before 
the end of the embargo, and on commercial repositories forever (there is a 
definition of “commercial”, not so clear IMHO, in Elsevier’s Sharing FAQ 
https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/sharing/policy-faq).
However, according to the policy, embargoed postprints must carry a CC licence. 
It allows anybody to post it anywhere for a non-commercial purpose, so that 
institutional and subject-based repositories are OK, but RG or Academia may not 
be. By anybody, I mean anybody except the authors, because they are bound by 
the publishing agreement, unless some legal subtlety makes the clauses of the 
CC licence (that applies to all, authors included) take precedence over those 
of the publishing agreement. Frankly, I don’t know how, from a legal point of 
view, is treated such a case, where someone is subject to conflicting contracts 
(the publishing agreement and the CC licence).
In any event, there’s a way to circumvent the embargo, as has been pointed out: 
repository staff could legally post any CC BY-NC-ND manuscript they get or 
find, because obviously they are not bound by the publishing agreement.
I had envisioned this when Elsevier changed their policy 2 years ago, and 
discussed the issue privately with some colleagues, but I had concluded that it 
wouldn’t constitute an efficient and/or viable strategy, as it breaks the usual 
self-archiving workflow and relies in coordinated actions involving researchers 
(for instance, putting their postprints on their websites instead of on the IR, 
or sending copies to third parties, or even to repository staff, hoping (but 
not asking) that they will end up being posted by someone else than themselves.
One thing which could work though, is repository staff switching to open access 
postprints researchers have posted in restricted (or closed) access, complying 
with their publishing agreement. This also require that researchers post their 
manuscripts well before the end of the embargo, and that repository staff (or 
the legal counsel of their institution) don’t hesitate at the slightest risk of 
infringement (though I don’t see any here, but one never really knows on 
complex legal matters).
The bottom line, as has been suggested, is that if this strategy did work 
(meaning become significant), Elsevier would soon change its policy, as they 
did before.
My own conclusion two years ago was to not pursue this line of action, and 
simply let researchers decide what to do. I never hesitated to point out that 
when faced with a convoluted, fuzzy and ambiguous policy, one should just do 
what they want: publishers have a duty to adopt clear, coherent and easily 
understandable guidelines, adapted to their intended audience.
One last point, of a more general scope: when I recently made a roundup of the 
“big-five” self-archiving policies, I wondered why three of them (Elsevier, 
Springer and Taylor & Francis) have embargoes for posting on IRs, but not for 
posting on personal websites. Part of the answer is surely that almost all 
researchers have access to an IR, but not all have personal websites. But what 
struck me is that this allow them to be Green according to Sherpa-ROMEO, which 
makes no distinction as to allowed platforms: if there’s a way for researchers 
to post immediately, you are Green.
I find this quite unfortunate, because these publishers can boast their “Green” 
status to prove 

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Heather Morrison]

Scholars have been building on the work of other scholars, e.g. citing, 
paraphrasing, building on the ideas of others, for a very long time. This 
tradition predates copyright, is compatible with All Rights Reserved copyright, 
and certainly predates Creative Commons licensing, which is only about 15 years 
old.

Use of ND simply indicates that the author is not granting additional 
derivative rights. I argue that ND is often in the best interests of advancing 
our knowledge. For example, one type of derivative that would make sense in the 
scholarly context is a downstream volunteer co-author, using the original, 
updating or changing the work, including the original authors and themselves as 
co-authors. Use of ND is one way to signal to potential downstream volunteer 
co-authors that this would not be welcome. This is one of the reasons I suggest 
that OA activists who use or advocate for CC licenses should embrace ND.

I also suggest that CC is not the simple solution for OA it appears to be, and 
I do not recommend paying commercial companies like Elsevier for works to be 
licensed CC.

best,

Heather Morrison




 Original message 
From: Jevan Pipitone <ema...@jevan.com.au>
Date: 2017-06-18 2:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


Sorry - sending this again - since I forgot to add the list email to it.

Re: Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND)

The fact that it says "No Derivatives" seems a concern for example sometimes 
researchers can publish a summary of other peoples articles and then include 
all the articles used in the references. But if it says "No Derivatives" does 
this mean the articles written by other people cannot be used to contribute 
towards your research, in which case, what is the point in reading them? Also 
part of the point of reading an article is to gain ideas from other people 
which can then be used to create new things by the researcher, but, this is 
potentially a "derivative" work since it can build on the work of others. So I 
think there is a problem there too.

Jevan.

On Sun 18-Jun-17 10:29 PM, Richard Poynder wrote:
On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the 
embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted 
manuscript.

"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal 
site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the 
license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the 
author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline 
this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in 
questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any 
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that file-trading 
is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of compliance with the 
NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other items of value is not 
permitted.”
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sharing-networks

The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
“CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms only.”
http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD>

and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on 
commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net>, 
www.academi

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Heather Morrison]

This is an interesting discussion that for me raises some questions that I do 
not think are entirely addressed by any CC license that merit further analysis 
and research. This post will focus on just one issue, ad revenue.

Key points that I argue:

granting blanket downstream advertising rights has nothing to do with re-use 
for advancing knowledge

while many authors may be comfortable with some use of their works for 
advertising purposes, such as services they choose to participate in, it does 
not follow that all authors, if they fully understood the implications, would 
want to grant rights to use their works for advertising purposes to anyone

protecting ad revenue may be needed not just by Elsevier, but also small 
not-for-profit journals. In future such journals might need protection from 
large companies like Elsevier. If smalls give away their work as CC-BY, bigger 
companies can take their work and compete with them for ad revenue

Is it clear whether internet services that involve advertising are necessarily 
using  copyright? I suspect not.

Details:

Permitting downstream re-use to facilitate further knowledge creation is 
considered by many to be essential to open access. However, it is not clear to 
me that granting blanket downstream commercial rights is always in the best 
interests either of advancing knowledge or of open access.

The question of advertising is a good issue to discuss. It seems reasonable to 
assume that authors who have placed their works in services like academia.edu 
have agreed to how these services use advertising. But does this mean that all 
authors would find any use of their work by anyone for advertising purposes 
acceptable? This seems unlikely. CC licences make it possible for downstream 
users to stop attributing the original; that this is in the license suggests to 
me that this has come up in practice. Most authors do not have the time or 
skills to track and evaluate downstream use; I think with education on this 
most would choose not to grant blanket downstream rights to advertisers.

Many OA activists will have little sympathy for Elsevier protecting their ad 
revenue, but what about small not-for-profit journals that need this revenue? 
If they release their work as CC-BY, Elsevier would be able to distribute it 
and compete with the original journal for ad revenue, quite possibly 
successfully due to their larger reach.

Another legal issue to consider is whether all advertising that involves 
copyright material necessarily invokes copyright. For example, when Google 
sells advertising are they selling the copyright in works that are displayed or 
are they selling their search services to users and/or placement priority to 
businesses?

Best,

Heather Morrison
 Original message 
From: "Mann, Paige" <paige_m...@redlands.edu>
Date: 2017-06-18 1:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Hi Bernhardt,

My understanding is that compliance with the NC restriction is (1) not clearly 
defined and (2) does more than restrict someone from profiting from sharing a 
file on a commercial platform.

>From 
>http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/2013/06/13/cc-by-what-does-it-mean-for-scholarly-articles-3/:
"When choosing a CC BY-NC licence you might think that you only prevent use 
within the for-profit sector. This is not entirely true: you may actually 
prevent use within the public and non-profit sectors as well (Friesen 2013, p. 
83). For example, CC BY-NC prohibits someone from using a figure or table from 
your paper on any website (even a scholarly blog) that carries advertisements. 
Since the definition of non-commercial is ambiguous, the CC BY-NC licence can 
therefore lead to confusion."

Perhaps Elsevier is trying to clear up some of that confusion through a policy 
that may be more restrictive than what is legally permissible.

Paige


Paige Mann
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Armacost Library
University of Redlands



Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:24:36 +
From: "Mittermaier, Bernhard" 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>>
Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND
To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Message-ID:
   
<c5cdaec3c8d961468b33625dbd6896b76b56f...@mbx2010-e01.ad.fz-juelich.de<mailto:c5cdaec3c8d961468b33625dbd6896b76b56f...@mbx2010-e01.ad.fz-juelich.de>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear colleagues,



on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:



?Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?

Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
compliance

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Mann, Paige]

Hi Bernhardt,

My understanding is that compliance with the NC restriction is (1) not clearly 
defined and (2) does more than restrict someone from profiting from sharing a 
file on a commercial platform.

From 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/2013/06/13/cc-by-what-does-it-mean-for-scholarly-articles-3/:
"When choosing a CC BY-NC licence you might think that you only prevent use 
within the for-profit sector. This is not entirely true: you may actually 
prevent use within the public and non-profit sectors as well (Friesen 2013, p. 
83). For example, CC BY-NC prohibits someone from using a figure or table from 
your paper on any website (even a scholarly blog) that carries advertisements. 
Since the definition of non-commercial is ambiguous, the CC BY-NC licence can 
therefore lead to confusion."

Perhaps Elsevier is trying to clear up some of that confusion through a policy 
that may be more restrictive than what is legally permissible.

Paige


Paige Mann
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Armacost Library
University of Redlands



Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:24:36 +
From: "Mittermaier, Bernhard" 
<b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>>
Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND
To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Message-ID:
   
<c5cdaec3c8d961468b33625dbd6896b76b56f...@mbx2010-e01.ad.fz-juelich.de<mailto:c5cdaec3c8d961468b33625dbd6896b76b56f...@mbx2010-e01.ad.fz-juelich.de>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear colleagues,



on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:



?Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?

Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other
items of value is not permitted.?

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sh
aring-networks



The ?Elsevier Sharing Rules? say

?CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms
only.?

http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|Start
Topic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD



and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: ?Public posting on
commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net>, 
www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu>
<http://www.academia.edu> )? :not allowed



I?ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that
position. She replied:

?Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<http://academia.edu> use content commercially 
to sell
advertising & services around the content they disseminate? and ?Both
ResearchGate &  <https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> academia.edu<http://academia.edu> are 
problems in
Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available?
( <https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609>
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )



My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article
by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don?t sell the articles (which
they don?t do).

But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not
prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.



What do you think?



Kind regards

Bernhard

###



Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier

Forschungszentrum J?lich GmbH

Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library

52425 J?lich

Tel  ++49-2461-613013

Fax ++49-2461-616103



Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Richard Poynder]

On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:


*Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert
Embargo*


"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from
12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while
permitting immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the
same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.


"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many
in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and
unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for
subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of
the author's accepted manuscript.


"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their
personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not
through the license granted in the publication agreement, but through the
CC license on the author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This
poster will outline this issue, our experimentation with application, and
engage viewers in questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and
workflows."



https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard  wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:
>
>
>
> “Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
>
> Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by
> any means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
> file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
> compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other
> items of value is not permitted.”
>
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-
> material-on-file-sharing-networks
>
>
>
> The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
>
> “CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms
> only.”
>
> http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=
> password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD
> 
>
>
>
> and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on
> commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net, www.academia.edu)” :not
> allowed
>
>
>
> I’ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that
> position. She replied:
>
> „Both ResearchGate & academia.edu use content commercially to sell
> advertising & services around the content they disseminate” and “Both
> ResearchGate & academia.edu  are problems in
> Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly
> available” (https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and
> https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )
>
>
>
> My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article
> by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles
> (which they don’t do).
>
> But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not
> prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> ###
>
>
>
> Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier
>
> Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
>
> Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library
>
> 52425 Jülich
>
> Tel  ++49-2461-613013 <+49%202461%20613013>
>
> Fax ++49-2461-616103 <+49%202461%20616103>
>
>
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),
> Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
> Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Mittermaier, Bernhard]

Dear colleagues,

 

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain: 

 

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?

Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other
items of value is not permitted.”

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sh
aring-networks 

 

The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say

“CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms
only.”

http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|Start
Topic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD

 

and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on
commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net, www.academia.edu
 )” :not allowed

 

I’ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that
position. She replied: 

„Both ResearchGate & academia.edu use content commercially to sell
advertising & services around the content they disseminate” and “Both
ResearchGate &   academia.edu are problems in
Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available”
( 
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )

 

My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article
by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which
they don’t do). 

But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not
prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.

 

What do you think?

 

Kind regards

Bernhard

###

 

Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier

Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH

Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library

52425 Jülich

Tel  ++49-2461-613013

Fax ++49-2461-616103

 

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal