Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

Thanks, Charles.

A lot of scholarship is still available only through subscription or 
per-article toll access. I recall considerable discussion a few years ago (in a 
prior position focused on licensing electronic resources for many libraries) 
about publishers refusing to allow massive downloading that is needed for text 
mining, viewing this as a breach of the license and cutting off access for the 
library, or setting up DRM to prevent automatic downloading. Over the years 
libraries began to add text mining to model license agreements.  Some 
publishers see this as a new use they have a right to charge more for, even 
publishers already making high profits. I think we can agree that this blocks 
progress in advancing our knowledge and this needs to change.

To avoid blocking advances we need researchers to be able to make working 
copies (cached or permanently stored on their hard drives but not for 
redistribution) of the entire corpus of scholarly works going back to the 
beginning of scholarship.

This requires changes in copyright law and publishing practice with respect to 
toll access works at the buying as well as selling end, in addition to 
dissemination of OA works in both repositories and publications that facilitate 
text mining.

This principle is necessary beyond research using scholarly materials, for 
example research in the social sciences, humanities and arts needs to be able 
to do this with news sources, works of art and literature, social media and so 
forth.

With respect to copyright, if publishers are seeking to expand their rights in 
the EU and may have legitimate reasons to protect their profits from other 
commercial entities (that is others who would take content and use it to sell 
advertising for a profit in competition with the original publisher etc, not 
researchers doing research in the context of a job), one option would be to 
push to carve out a broad-based exception for research. This would be 
beneficial for the EU where I understand fair dealing rights are not always in 
local copyright law and interpretations of user rights under Berne is 
conservative in some countries.

The reason research rights needs to be broad-based in because others need these 
rights, too. Journalists do research; newspaper publishers who are pushing for 
an expansion of rights may understand the benefits of research exceptions that 
include them.

For open access, permitting downloading, storage and manipulation of documents 
to facilitate creation of new knowledge is a basic that I would agree we should 
all be striving towards. This isn't just about text mining, individuals need to 
be able to add their own notes and comments to working copies, copy and paste 
text and easily maintain citation information to reorganize in preparation for 
writing, etc. Also ideally works should be in electronic forms that print 
disabled readers can easily convert to formats that work for them.

Getting there requires:

-  work on publication formats as the current popular ones are not designed for 
this

- user education about the potential starting at the reader end; it is easier 
to see why to allow this if you think about this as a reader

- education including in the Libre access camp about the reading needs and 
challenging for people with disabilities, eg that our tendency to move towards 
more visual presentation of data increases the challenges for them

- general education about plagiarism and legitimate copyright restrictions 
(copy and paste facilitates legitimate uses, but also plagiarism and violations 
of trademarks - logos are popular items for re-use, and other neighbouring 
rights)

- abandoning conflating of this potential with CC licenses which tie arguments 
for OA for research with non-research downstream use that has negative 
implications that have nothing to do with advancing knowledge such as selling 
works or advertising for a profit

- understanding that this will take time. People who completely agree with this 
are likely not at liberty to enforce every OA IR deposit to meet the licensing 
and formatting requirements for optimal downstream research use. PDF is a 
popular reading format. Libre OA for new and emerging research does not address 
back issues and the non-research works researchers use in conducting research.

My two bits. It would be helpful to hear about others' experiences and the 
latest in text mining provisions in subscriptions licenses.

Heather




 Original message 
From: CHARLES OPPENHEIM 
>
Date: 2017-01-26 4:39 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: pm...@cam.ac.uk, Heather Morrison 
>, 
goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to 
meet the definition of open access?

To do automated TDM, one needs to copy the entire table, 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Couture Marc]

Heather wrote : "An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under 
particular conditions [...] should [...] grant additional permissions [...] 
with a CC+ license."

First, note that CC+ it's not a CC license, but a CC protocol (or tool). The 
distinction is important because what's in the "+" doesn't involve Creative 
Commons at all: it only redirects users to where these permissions are 
described and(or) can be obtained.

But, if one believes that one of the goals of CC licenses was to simplify the 
life of users who need to understand the permissions granted to them, by 
limiting the number of permissions and normalizing their formulation, this goes 
exactly against this goal. Statements of supplementary permissions will raise 
new uncertainties, above those already present in the standard CC conditions 
(-NC, above all). For instance, I would like to see a definition of 
"appropriate professional translator" that wouldn't raise uncertainties, 
considering that translation will involve different countries, with their 
traditions, educational systems, professional organizations, etc.

A more appropriate use of CC+ in this specific example would be to (1) indicate 
that translations are welcomed and (2) provide the way to seek permission (for 
instance, giving the email of the person who can grant it, or confirming that 
it's the author, who is normally identified through attribution). A potential 
translator could then explain why he or she can do the job adequately.

By the way, although CC+ has been around for more than 9 years; does anyone 
know it it's widely used. A Google search didn't bring me much information. 
Creative Commons asks users of this protocol to let them know, but there seems 
to be only a handful of them, not related to the issues discussed here 
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Category:License_and_CCPlus 
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Category:CC%2B

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Heather Morrison
Envoyé : 24 janvier 2017 09:27
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?

hi Fiona,

It seems we have been thinking along the same lines - I have a similar proposal 
that tries to address the same issue.

An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under particular 
conditions, e.g. that the translation is done by an appropriately qualified 
translator and a disclaimer is used, should use a restrictive license (either 
All Rights Reserved but free-to-read, CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-ND) but grant 
additional permissions. In the case of CC licenses, this can be done with a CC+ 
license.

As explained on the Creative Commons page: "You have the option of granting 
permissions
 above and beyond what the license allows; for example, allowing licensees to 
translate ND-licensed material. If so, consider using 
CC+ to indicate the additional 
permissions offered."

The reason you need to start with the more restrictive license and then grant 
additional permissions is because you cannot use a more open license and then 
attach additional restrictions - this defeats the purpose of open licensing.

Here is a boilerplate approach to put on a terms and conditions website to 
explain these permissions:

Translations can be made without explicitly seeking permission under the 
following conditions:

Professional qualifications of translator: [insert definition of what you 
consider to be an appropriate professional]

A disclaimer must be prominently placed on the work as follows [insert 
disclaimer language and any other terms such as placement]

Certification by the original publisher - provide instructions for the 
translator in case they wish to have the translation certified.

If the author (or publisher) does not want to grant blanket commercial rights 
but is willing to grant some rights that others might consider commercial, this 
can also be specified here. For example, if the author or publisher of a book 
expects royalties if a downstream for-profit publisher actually makes money, 
details might be specified here so people know what to expect, e.g. after costs 
of producing the translation are covered, royalties of x are due to y.

I don't suggest that this is the final answer on how to handle translations but 
hope that this is a useful discussion.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 2017-01-24, at 8:37 AM, Fiona Bradley 
>
 wrote:


Hi Heather,

I think there's too much variation in copyright arrangements and agreements for 
me to comment on that but indeed should authors prefer and there's no other 
arrangements in place stating otherwise you could put authors in place 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

The statement:
"Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table
for inclusion in a publication"

is completely wrong.

The question of whether it is legal to point to another work depends on the
jurisdiction. It is Ancillary Copyright
see
http://www.communia-association.org/2016/08/25/eu-commission-yes-will-create-new-ancillary-copyright-news-publishers-please-stop-calling-link-tax/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers
where laws have been passed (e.g. in Spain) to copyright and tax
hyperlinks. There have been indications of  pressure from some scholarly
publishers to do the same for scholarly articles
http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-06-15/beware-neighbouring-right-publishers-ancillary-copyright-steroids-potential-consequences-general-nei
which could require scholars to pay publishers for the right to link to
their sites.

This is not hypothetical - it is being fought bitterly in Europe.



On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> hi Peter,
>
> On 2017-01-24, at 10:10 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>
>> Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge
>> PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to
>> works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many
>> different tables and analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own
>> work.
>>
>> This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and
>> writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations
>> to the works that you have read.
>>
>> Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table
>> for inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands
>> of tables it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to
>> copy is an insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing.
>> If the work is free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open
>> license, you can point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor
>> inconvenience.
>>
>
> This is completely wrong. The problem is that this is a legal issue and
> copyright law, by default, covers all aspects of copying. Copying material
> into a machine for the purpose of mining involves copyright. Whether it
> seems reasonable or fair is irrelevant. If you carry out mining then you
> should be prepared to answer in court.
>
>
> "This is completely wrong" is a rather broad statement. Can you explain
> how my statement "if the work is free to read…you can point readers to the
> original". Are you arguing that it is illegal to point people to a
> free-to-read work?
>
> As Marc Couture noted on the GOAL list yesterday, with respect to internet
> search engine's mining and reproduction of portions of work, Google has won
> a lawsuit:
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2017-January/004340.html
>
> From the Wikipedia entry: "*Field v. Google, Inc.*, 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106
> (D. Nev. 2006)  is
> a case where Google Inc. 
> successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement
> . Field argued that
> Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works
> when it "cached " his website
> and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised
> multiple defenses: fair use , implied
> license , estoppel
> , and Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act
>  safe
> harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment
>  and denied Field's
> motion for summary judgment."
>
> I myself am not familiar with this case. Is the Wikipedia entry wrong?
>
>
> The problem is compounded by:
> * it is jurisdiction-dependent. Fair-use only exists in certain domains.
> It is not the same as fair dealing which is generally weaker. What is
> permissible in the US may not be in UK and vice versa.
>
>
> Agreed. I argue that universal strong fair use / fair dealing is something
> we need to fight for, not something to take for granted.
>
> * It is extremely complex. Guessing the law will not be useful.
>
>
> I am aware. I teach and publish in the area of information policy and
> participate in government consultations.
>
> * Much of the law has not been tested in court. "Non-commercial" is not
> what you or I would like it to mean. It is what a court finds when I or
> others are summoned before it.
>
>
> I do not argue that "non-commercial" has 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

hi Peter,

On 2017-01-24, at 10:10 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
>
 wrote:



On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge PMR's 
contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to works that 
are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many different tables and 
analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own work.

This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and 
writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations to 
the works that you have read.

Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table for 
inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands of tables 
it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to copy is an 
insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing. If the work is 
free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open license, you can 
point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor inconvenience.

This is completely wrong. The problem is that this is a legal issue and 
copyright law, by default, covers all aspects of copying. Copying material into 
a machine for the purpose of mining involves copyright. Whether it seems 
reasonable or fair is irrelevant. If you carry out mining then you should be 
prepared to answer in court.

"This is completely wrong" is a rather broad statement. Can you explain how my 
statement "if the work is free to read…you can point readers to the original". 
Are you arguing that it is illegal to point people to a free-to-read work?

As Marc Couture noted on the GOAL list yesterday, with respect to internet 
search engine's mining and reproduction of portions of work, Google has won a 
lawsuit:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2017-January/004340.html

>From the Wikipedia entry: "Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 
>2006) is a case where 
>Google Inc. successfully defended a 
>lawsuit for copyright 
>infringement. Field 
>argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted 
>works when it "cached" his website 
>and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple 
>defenses: fair use, implied 
>license, 
>estoppel, and Digital Millennium 
>Copyright Act 
>safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary 
>judgment and denied Field's 
>motion for summary judgment."

I myself am not familiar with this case. Is the Wikipedia entry wrong?


The problem is compounded by:
* it is jurisdiction-dependent. Fair-use only exists in certain domains. It is 
not the same as fair dealing which is generally weaker. What is permissible in 
the US may not be in UK and vice versa.

Agreed. I argue that universal strong fair use / fair dealing is something we 
need to fight for, not something to take for granted.

* It is extremely complex. Guessing the law will not be useful.

I am aware. I teach and publish in the area of information policy and 
participate in government consultations.

* Much of the law has not been tested in court. "Non-commercial" is not what 
you or I would like it to mean. It is what a court finds when I or others are 
summoned before it.

I do not argue that "non-commercial" has a specific meaning. Your argument (if 
I understand correctly) is that non-commercial is overly broad and by not 
granting commercial rights we may be restricting uses that one might actually 
like to permit. I agree with this analysis, just not the solution. That is, I 
am comfortable with some vagueness in the terminology and consider it more 
important not to grant blanket commercial rights. In other words, I think we 
agree on the facts, just not what to do about them.


I have been involved in this for over 4 years in the UK and in Europe 
(Parliament and Commission). There is no consensus on what should be allowed 
and what will ultimately be decided by the Commission and Member States. I have 
taken legal opinion on some of this and consulted with other experts and the 
answers are often unclear.

The legality of Text and Data Mining is formally unrelated to whether the miner 
publishes the results or not.


If you prefer to limit your research to works that are CC-BY licensed, it is 
your right to make this choice. Many other researchers, myself included, work 
with a wide range of data and do not choose to 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge
> PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to
> works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many
> different tables and analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own
> work.
>
> This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and
> writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations
> to the works that you have read.
>
> Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table
> for inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands
> of tables it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to
> copy is an insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing.
> If the work is free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open
> license, you can point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor
> inconvenience.
>

This is completely wrong. The problem is that this is a legal issue and
copyright law, by default, covers all aspects of copying. Copying material
into a machine for the purpose of mining involves copyright. Whether it
seems reasonable or fair is irrelevant. If you carry out mining then you
should be prepared to answer in court.

The problem is compounded by:
* it is jurisdiction-dependent. Fair-use only exists in certain domains. It
is not the same as fair dealing which is generally weaker. What is
permissible in the US may not be in UK and vice versa.
* It is extremely complex. Guessing the law will not be useful.
* Much of the law has not been tested in court. "Non-commercial" is not
what you or I would like it to mean. It is what a court finds when I or
others are summoned before it.

I have been involved in this for over 4 years in the UK and in Europe
(Parliament and Commission). There is no consensus on what should be
allowed and what will ultimately be decided by the Commission and Member
States. I have taken legal opinion on some of this and consulted with other
experts and the answers are often unclear.

The legality of Text and Data Mining is formally unrelated to whether the
miner publishes the results or not.


> If you prefer to limit your research to works that are CC-BY licensed, it
> is your right to make this choice. Many other researchers, myself included,
> work with a wide range of data and do not choose to limit what we gather to
> works that are licensed CC-BY. One example from my own research: if a
> publisher has a table listing APCs, I screen scrape the table, pop the data
> into a spreadsheet, and work with it.
>

The primary issue for Text and data Mining is automated analysis of many
tables. This is an inconsistency in the law that we are trying to get
legislators to change.


> Even publishers that use CC-BY for articles usually have All Rights
> Reserved for pages that contain this type of information.
>

Do you have metrics for this. Because this is incompatible with the licence
and should be challenged - as I frequently do.


> If I limited myself to data sources that are CC-BY I could not do this
> kind of research.
>

I agree that this is limiting and that is why it would be useful for
scientific material to be licensed CC BY.

In summary this is a complex legal question and the answers have to be
based on law not guesswork.


>
>
>
-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge PMR's 
contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to works that 
are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many different tables and 
analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own work.

This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and 
writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations to 
the works that you have read.

Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table for 
inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands of tables 
it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to copy is an 
insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing. If the work is 
free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open license, you can 
point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor inconvenience.

If you prefer to limit your research to works that are CC-BY licensed, it is 
your right to make this choice. Many other researchers, myself included, work 
with a wide range of data and do not choose to limit what we gather to works 
that are licensed CC-BY. One example from my own research: if a publisher has a 
table listing APCs, I screen scrape the table, pop the data into a spreadsheet, 
and work with it. Even publishers that use CC-BY for articles usually have All 
Rights Reserved for pages that contain this type of information. If I limited 
myself to data sources that are CC-BY I could not do this kind of research.

best,

Heather Morrison

c 2017-01-24, at 4:17 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
> wrote:

There are many activities where CC BY or a more liberal licence (CC 0) is the 
only way that modern science can be done.

Many knowledge-based projects in science , technology, medicine, use thousands 
of documents a day to extract and publish science. (We started one yesterday at 
https://github.com/ContentMine/cm-ucl/ to extract data from tables in PDF. This 
will aim to analyse 1000 papers per day - and that limit is set by the licences 
- if we were allowed we could index 10,000 papers/day in all disciplines.

To do reproducible science it is critical that the raw data (in this case 
scientific articles) are made publicly available so that others can reproduce 
the work. Any friction such as writing to the author, reading a non-standard 
licence, etc. makes the project impossible. We are often limited to using the 
Open subset (CC BY) in EuropePMC. We cannot afford to put a single CC NC, CC 
ND, "unlicensed freely available" manuscript in the repository in case we are 
sent a take-down notice. That would destroy the whole experiment.

These experiments are part of the science of the future. If we had been allowed 
to use them it is liklely that the Ebola outbreak in Liberia would have been 
predicted (The Liberian government's assessment, not mine). Whether it would 
have been prevented we don't know, but at least it would not have been impeded 
by copyright and paywalls.

Put simply. Unless the scientific material is CC BY or CC 0 we cannot use it 
for knowledge-driven STM. I have estimated that the opportunity cost of this 
can run into billions of dollars.

Repositories do not work for science. They are fragmented, non-interoperable 
and covered with prohibitions on automatic re-use. I have not met scientists 
who are systematically using institutional repositories of data mining.

It seems that the desire of arts, humanities are in direct conflict with the 
needs of STM. I note that there are few scientists posting on this list. Maybe 
this division should be recognised and the STM community should continue with 
its own policies og CC BY and the rest use whatever commonality they can 
achieve.

There are no simple solutions where the law is concerned. Only CC BY gives 
certainty. CC NC and CC ND may be valuable for A+H but they are very difficult 
to operate in any area of endeavour.

I was told 12 years ago on this list that I should be patient and the Green 
program would deliver universal access and then I could start mining the 
literature. I have been patient but it hasn't happened. I am told that OpenAIRE 
still doesn't expose full-text.  We should recognize it and look for 
alternative solutions.




On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" 
spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.

For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay 
subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My 
perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate 
change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate change 
science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

hi Fiona,

It seems we have been thinking along the same lines - I have a similar proposal 
that tries to address the same issue.

An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under particular 
conditions, e.g. that the translation is done by an appropriately qualified 
translator and a disclaimer is used, should use a restrictive license (either 
All Rights Reserved but free-to-read, CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-ND) but grant 
additional permissions. In the case of CC licenses, this can be done with a CC+ 
license.

As explained on the Creative Commons page: "You have the option of granting 
permissions
 above and beyond what the license allows; for example, allowing licensees to 
translate ND-licensed material. If so, consider using 
CC+ to indicate the additional 
permissions offered."

The reason you need to start with the more restrictive license and then grant 
additional permissions is because you cannot use a more open license and then 
attach additional restrictions - this defeats the purpose of open licensing.

Here is a boilerplate approach to put on a terms and conditions website to 
explain these permissions:

Translations can be made without explicitly seeking permission under the 
following conditions:

Professional qualifications of translator: [insert definition of what you 
consider to be an appropriate professional]

A disclaimer must be prominently placed on the work as follows [insert 
disclaimer language and any other terms such as placement]

Certification by the original publisher - provide instructions for the 
translator in case they wish to have the translation certified.

If the author (or publisher) does not want to grant blanket commercial rights 
but is willing to grant some rights that others might consider commercial, this 
can also be specified here. For example, if the author or publisher of a book 
expects royalties if a downstream for-profit publisher actually makes money, 
details might be specified here so people know what to expect, e.g. after costs 
of producing the translation are covered, royalties of x are due to y.

I don't suggest that this is the final answer on how to handle translations but 
hope that this is a useful discussion.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 2017-01-24, at 8:37 AM, Fiona Bradley 
>
 wrote:

Hi Heather,

I think there’s too much variation in copyright arrangements and agreements for 
me to comment on that but indeed should authors prefer and there’s no other 
arrangements in place stating otherwise you could put authors in place of 
institution/publisher in my comment.

I think license choice and translation inform but shouldn’t necessarily drive 
eachother. Personally speaking, I tend to start with an assumption of best 
intentions (eg CC-BY) but make room for exceptions. Under CC-BY or another open 
license it can still be helpful to have some basic procedures as a professional 
courtesy for translation in place (as simple as emailing the author or as 
formal as a permissions procedure) as eg it avoids situations like doubled work 
- if more than one person decides to translate a paper into the same language, 
but they are unaware of each other – have had that happen before!

Fiona

From: > on behalf of 
Heather Morrison 
>
Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
>
Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 11:59 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?

Fiona,

Thank you for this information about professional translation services, and the 
importance of certification and disclaimers with translated works. If the 
original author wishes to ensure that translations are done by appropriately 
trained professionals, certified, etc., this is a reason to avoid using 
licenses granting blanket downstream rights to create derivatives, ie if using 
CC licenses the No Derivatives should be used.

I refer to "author" rather than "institution/publisher" as you did. If you 
support CC licensing it seems odd to me that you would assume the 
institution/publisher should make choices relating to copyright. Do you see 
authors as the copyright holders / CC licensors or do you assume copyright 
transfer to an institution / publisher who is then the CC-BY licensor (it 
appears this is similar to what Elsevier is currently doing)?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Fiona Bradley >
Date: 2017-01-24 6:43 AM (GMT-05:00)

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Fiona Bradley]

Hi Heather,

I think there’s too much variation in copyright arrangements and agreements for 
me to comment on that but indeed should authors prefer and there’s no other 
arrangements in place stating otherwise you could put authors in place of 
institution/publisher in my comment.

I think license choice and translation inform but shouldn’t necessarily drive 
eachother. Personally speaking, I tend to start with an assumption of best 
intentions (eg CC-BY) but make room for exceptions. Under CC-BY or another open 
license it can still be helpful to have some basic procedures as a professional 
courtesy for translation in place (as simple as emailing the author or as 
formal as a permissions procedure) as eg it avoids situations like doubled work 
- if more than one person decides to translate a paper into the same language, 
but they are unaware of each other – have had that happen before!

Fiona

From:  on behalf of Heather Morrison 

Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 11:59 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?

Fiona,

Thank you for this information about professional translation services, and the 
importance of certification and disclaimers with translated works. If the 
original author wishes to ensure that translations are done by appropriately 
trained professionals, certified, etc., this is a reason to avoid using 
licenses granting blanket downstream rights to create derivatives, ie if using 
CC licenses the No Derivatives should be used.

I refer to "author" rather than "institution/publisher" as you did. If you 
support CC licensing it seems odd to me that you would assume the 
institution/publisher should make choices relating to copyright. Do you see 
authors as the copyright holders / CC licensors or do you assume copyright 
transfer to an institution / publisher who is then the CC-BY licensor (it 
appears this is similar to what Elsevier is currently doing)?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Fiona Bradley 
Date: 2017-01-24 6:43 AM (GMT-05:00)
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?

Hi all,

For a similar approach in terms of data, the Open Data Institute has a data 
spectrum that also looks at closed -> open pathways: 
https://theodi.org/data-spectrum

Regarding translations, in my experience having managed these processes the 
most important policies aren’t those relating to how the original work is 
licensed but whether the originating institution/publisher makes agreements 
with translators, insists on certified translations, makes disclaimers about 
whether translations are considered official or not (in the case of legal 
texts, for instance), and provides for a notice and takedown procedure. This 
risk mitigation acknowledges that however a work is licensed, whether OA or in 
formal license by the publisher, there is always the potential for issues in 
translation to occur and there needs to be procedures in place in place to 
handle that and to address where liability resides. I wouldn’t see this as a 
risk inherent to OA or reason not to license CC-BY.

In the case of medical instructions, organisations such as 
http://translatorswithoutborders.org/ and many others work extensively in this 
area to provide professional and/or certified translation, whereas journal 
articles are often translated by researchers in the field who are fluent in 
both languages but not translators.

Kind regards,
Fiona

--
Fiona Bradley
Deputy Executive Director
RLUK
Office: 020 7862 8463 Mobile: +44 7432 768 566
www.rluk.ac.uk
RLUK Twitter feed: @RL_UK
Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London 
WC1E 7HU
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543




From:  on behalf of Heather Morrison 

Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Date: Monday, 23 January 2017 at 7:55 pm
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?

With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" 
spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.

For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay 
subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My 
perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate 
change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> hi Peter,
>
> If many knowledge projects are advancing our knowledge through the means
> that you have described, surely there are others than the one you started
> yesterday? Can you provide a list or literature review of such studies?
>

There are literally thousands. In biomedicine alone there are many
conferences and competitions. An overview is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_text_mining .


>
> My OA APC study uses data from different sources that do not have a common
> set of terms:
> dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse
>
> I would like to note some methodological concerns with such the approach
> described by PMC
>

I assume you mean me, PMR, Not (Europe)PubMedCentral.


> (automatically gathering data from tables).Taking data from different
> studies without fully accounting for difference in methods (eg definition
> or measurement) could easily lead to false conclusions. Worse, such false
> conclusions would be highly replicable leading to false confidence in
> results, ie anyone could repeat the same mistakes and come to the same
> conclusion of unknown external validity.
>

It is very sad to be severely criticised by a scholar who has not read my
work, proposal, and website and does not understand what I am doing. There
are many cases where the data format I extract from allows precise metrics
on recall and precision of the character stream (in the current case I
expect >> 99%). You do not know my purpose - which you describe as "false
conclusions". In fact the output will be routed to expert human reviewers
and will save 90% of their time.

>
> For the 2016/17 OA APC dataset I am adding a "providence"
>

I assume you mean "provenance"


> column because the data in the 2016 APC column comes from different
> researchers with some differences in data collection. Even in a single
> dataset, to analyze one needs to understand when you are comparing apples
> with apples or macintoshes with Spartans. Automating data analysis without
> full comprehension of the data strikes me as problematic.
>

This assertion that I do not have full comprehension and that my work is
problematic is unworthy. I have pioneered automatic extraction of chemistry
and of crystallography over 40 years and have been honoured by scientific
societies for doing so. I have defined the data extraction process, shown
how it can be aggregated, provided metrics and pioneered technology that
has led to several thousand papers (by people who have built on my work).

Peter



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

hi Peter,

If many knowledge projects are advancing our knowledge through the means that 
you have described, surely there are others than the one you started yesterday? 
Can you provide a list or literature review of such studies?

My OA APC study uses data from different sources that do not have a common set 
of terms:
dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse

If we had to restrict data collection to CC-BY licensed works this research 
could not be done, and to the extent it could be done, publishers who do not 
want us to study them could easily opt out by not using CC-BY licenses on the 
pages where this information is found. In other words CC-BY licenses raise 
issues for data collection analysis.

I would like to note some methodological concerns with such the approach 
described by PMC (automatically gathering data from tables).Taking data from 
different studies without fully accounting for difference in methods (eg 
definition or measurement) could easily lead to false conclusions. Worse, such 
false conclusions would be highly replicable leading to false confidence in 
results, ie anyone could repeat the same mistakes and come to the same 
conclusion of unknown external validity.

For the 2016/17 OA APC dataset I am adding a "providence" column because the 
data in the 2016 APC column comes from different researchers with some 
differences in data collection. Even in a single dataset, to analyze one needs 
to understand when you are comparing apples with apples or macintoshes with 
Spartans. Automating data analysis without full comprehension of the data 
strikes me as problematic.

best,

Heather Morrison



 Original message 
From: Peter Murray-Rust 
Date: 2017-01-24 4:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
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?

There are many activities where CC BY or a more liberal licence (CC 0) is the 
only way that modern science can be done.

Many knowledge-based projects in science , technology, medicine, use thousands 
of documents a day to extract and publish science. (We started one yesterday at 
https://github.com/ContentMine/cm-ucl/ to extract data from tables in PDF. This 
will aim to analyse 1000 papers per day - and that limit is set by the licences 
- if we were allowed we could index 10,000 papers/day in all disciplines.

To do reproducible science it is critical that the raw data (in this case 
scientific articles) are made publicly available so that others can reproduce 
the work. Any friction such as writing to the author, reading a non-standard 
licence, etc. makes the project impossible. We are often limited to using the 
Open subset (CC BY) in EuropePMC. We cannot afford to put a single CC NC, CC 
ND, "unlicensed freely available" manuscript in the repository in case we are 
sent a take-down notice. That would destroy the whole experiment.

These experiments are part of the science of the future. If we had been allowed 
to use them it is liklely that the Ebola outbreak in Liberia would have been 
predicted (The Liberian government's assessment, not mine). Whether it would 
have been prevented we don't know, but at least it would not have been impeded 
by copyright and paywalls.

Put simply. Unless the scientific material is CC BY or CC 0 we cannot use it 
for knowledge-driven STM. I have estimated that the opportunity cost of this 
can run into billions of dollars.

Repositories do not work for science. They are fragmented, non-interoperable 
and covered with prohibitions on automatic re-use. I have not met scientists 
who are systematically using institutional repositories of data mining.

It seems that the desire of arts, humanities are in direct conflict with the 
needs of STM. I note that there are few scientists posting on this list. Maybe 
this division should be recognised and the STM community should continue with 
its own policies og CC BY and the rest use whatever commonality they can 
achieve.

There are no simple solutions where the law is concerned. Only CC BY gives 
certainty. CC NC and CC ND may be valuable for A+H but they are very difficult 
to operate in any area of endeavour.

I was told 12 years ago on this list that I should be patient and the Green 
program would deliver universal access and then I could start mining the 
literature. I have been patient but it hasn't happened. I am told that OpenAIRE 
still doesn't expose full-text.  We should recognize it and look for 
alternative solutions.




On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" 
spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.

For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay 
subscriptions, membership, pay per view 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

There are many activities where CC BY or a more liberal licence (CC 0) is
the only way that modern science can be done.

Many knowledge-based projects in science , technology, medicine, use
thousands of documents a day to extract and publish science. (We started
one yesterday at https://github.com/ContentMine/cm-ucl/ to extract data
from tables in PDF. This will aim to analyse 1000 papers per day - and that
limit is set by the licences - if we were allowed we could index 10,000
papers/day in all disciplines.

To do reproducible science it is critical that the raw data (in this case
scientific articles) are made publicly available so that others can
reproduce the work. Any friction such as writing to the author, reading a
non-standard licence, etc. makes the project impossible. We are often
limited to using the Open subset (CC BY) in EuropePMC. We cannot afford to
put a single CC NC, CC ND, "unlicensed freely available" manuscript in the
repository in case we are sent a take-down notice. That would destroy the
whole experiment.

These experiments are part of the science of the future. If we had been
allowed to use them it is liklely that the Ebola outbreak in Liberia would
have been predicted (The Liberian government's assessment, not mine).
Whether it would have been prevented we don't know, but at least it would
not have been impeded by copyright and paywalls.

Put simply. Unless the scientific material is CC BY or CC 0 we cannot use
it for knowledge-driven STM. I have estimated that the opportunity cost of
this can run into billions of dollars.

Repositories do not work for science. They are fragmented,
non-interoperable and covered with prohibitions on automatic re-use. I have
not met scientists who are systematically using institutional repositories
of data mining.

It seems that the desire of arts, humanities are in direct conflict with
the needs of STM. I note that there are few scientists posting on this
list. Maybe this division should be recognised and the STM community should
continue with its own policies og CC BY and the rest use whatever
commonality they can achieve.

There are no simple solutions where the law is concerned. Only CC BY gives
certainty. CC NC and CC ND may be valuable for A+H but they are very
difficult to operate in any area of endeavour.

I was told 12 years ago on this list that I should be patient and the Green
program would deliver universal access and then I could start mining the
literature. I have been patient but it hasn't happened. I am told that
OpenAIRE still doesn't expose full-text.  We should recognize it and look
for alternative solutions.




On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is
> it" spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be
> problematic.
>
> For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay
> subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My
> perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate
> change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate
> change science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, deliberate
> spread of misinformation.
>
> This is not a moot point. This end of the spectrum is a reality today, one
> that is far more concerning for many researchers than pay walls (not that I
> support paywalls).
>
> Fair use in listed in a row named closed access. I argue that fair use /
> fair dealing is essential to academic work and journalism, and must apply
> to all works, not just those that can be subject to academic OA policy.
>
> There is an underlying assumption about the importance and value of re-use
> / remix that omits any discussion of the pros, cons, or desirability of
> re-use / remix that I argue we should be having. Earlier today I mentioned
> some of the potential pitfalls. Now I would like to two potential pitfalls:
> mistranslation and errors in instructions for dangerous procedures.
>
> There are dangers of poor published translations to knowledge per se (ie
> introduce errors) and to the author's reputation, ie an author could easily
> be indirectly misquoted due to a poor translation. There are good reasons
> why some authors and journals hesitate to grant  downstream translations
> permissions.  Reader side translations (eg automated translation tools) are
> not the same as downstream published translations, although readers should
> be made aware of the current limitations of automated translation.
>
> If people are copying instructions for potentially dangerous procedures
>  (surgery, chemicals, engineering techniques), and they are not at least as
> expert as the original author, it might be in everyone's best interests if
> downstream readers are not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text,
> images, etc.
>
> In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this
> 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" 
spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.

For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay 
subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My 
perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate 
change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate change 
science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, deliberate spread of 
misinformation.

This is not a moot point. This end of the spectrum is a reality today, one that 
is far more concerning for many researchers than pay walls (not that I support 
paywalls).

Fair use in listed in a row named closed access. I argue that fair use / fair 
dealing is essential to academic work and journalism, and must apply to all 
works, not just those that can be subject to academic OA policy.

There is an underlying assumption about the importance and value of re-use / 
remix that omits any discussion of the pros, cons, or desirability of re-use / 
remix that I argue we should be having. Earlier today I mentioned some of the 
potential pitfalls. Now I would like to two potential pitfalls: mistranslation 
and errors in instructions for dangerous procedures.

There are dangers of poor published translations to knowledge per se (ie 
introduce errors) and to the author's reputation, ie an author could easily be 
indirectly misquoted due to a poor translation. There are good reasons why some 
authors and journals hesitate to grant  downstream translations permissions.  
Reader side translations (eg automated translation tools) are not the same as 
downstream published translations, although readers should be made aware of the 
current limitations of automated translation.

If people are copying instructions for potentially dangerous procedures  
(surgery, chemicals, engineering techniques), and they are not at least as 
expert as the original author, it might be in everyone's best interests if 
downstream readers are not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text, 
images, etc.

In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this and 
that, mix it together and create something new and intriguing. I am not 
convinced that the same arguments ought to apply to works that might guide 
procedures in a real hospital operating room.

I suggest the "how open is it" spectrum is a useful exercise that has served a 
purpose for some but not a canon for all to adhere to.

best,

Heather Morrison



 Original message 
From: David Prosser 
Date: 2017-01-23 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
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?

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum:

http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/


I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum 
a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more 
open is better than less open.

If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because 
they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been 
convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open 
access.

David



On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not 
you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research 
funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates 
Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are 
important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc 
> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what “being OA” means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than 
those about the advantages of unrestricted 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[David Prosser]

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum:

http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/


I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum 
a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more 
open is better than less open.

If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because 
they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been 
convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open 
access.

David



On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not 
you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research 
funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates 
Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are 
important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc 
> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what “being OA” means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than 
those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of 
restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance.

Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would 
bother me.

Marc Couture



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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Timothy Vollmer]

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 
> Date: 2017-01-23 12:12 PM (GMT-05:00)
> 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?
>
> 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
> ] *On Behalf Of *Couture Marc
> *Sent:* January 23, 2017 10:46 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?
>
>
>
> 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 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps
not you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of
research funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett
Foundation, Gates Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form
of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there
are important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.
>
>
>
> I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :
>
>
>
> - I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little
> bit tired of discussions about what “being OA” means.
>
>
>
> - I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.
>
>
>
> - I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to
> disseminate scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.
>
>
>
> I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find
> the arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less
> compelling than those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the
> drawbacks of restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at
> first glance.
>
>
>
> Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would
> bother me.
>
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

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. 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 
Date: 2017-01-23 12:12 PM (GMT-05:00)
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?

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] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 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?

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 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Couture Marc]

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] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 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?

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] 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 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

Thank you for raising the question of educational use, Marc.

One reason authors and funders may prefer licenses with non-commercial terms is 
specifically to avoid giving rights to for-profit firms in the educational 
sector, such as for-profit colleges, universities, and vendors of for-profit 
resources and services for the educational market.

Some of us support public education and/ or private not-for-profit education. 
(Neither Harvard nor the former Trump University were public, but they were 
never the same kind of institution).

best,

Heather Morrison




 Original message 
From: Couture Marc 
Date: 2017-01-23 10:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
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?

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] 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  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto: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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

To state the obvious: Google searches are not limited to Creative Commons 
licensed works.

If people could prevent search engines from searching things simply by not 
applying a CC license allowing for commercial terms, that would create a new 
set of problems that could not be solved by people using CC licenses.

best,

Heather Morrison




 Original message 
From: Éric Archambault 
Date: 2017-01-23 11:21 AM (GMT-05:00)
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?

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] On Behalf Of 
Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 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?

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] 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  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto: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 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit 
tired of discussions about what "being OA" means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than 
those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of 
restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance.

Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would 
bother me.

Marc Couture


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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Éric Archambault]

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] On Behalf Of 
Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 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?

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] 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  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto: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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Couture Marc]

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] 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  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto: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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Downes, Stephen]

> 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  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto: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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

Personally,  yes I do Paul. Indeed, I also agree with Heather Morrison that
insisting on the use of  CC BY is a strategic error on the part of the OA
movement, and I hope to publish a somewhat longer piece arguing as much in
the near future.

Richard Poynder

On 23 Jan 2017 12:21, "Paul THIRION"  wrote:

But don't you think the most important and the most urgent is free access ?

Le 23/01/17 à 10:41, Richard Poynder a écrit :

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed
at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that
only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access.
And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC
BY licence.



Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
content cannot be described as open access.



The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition.



More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-
policy-triumph-of.html



Richard Poynder


___
GOAL mailing 
listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


-- 

*Paul THIRION*

Directeur ULg Library

*Quartier des Urbanistes 1*

*Traverse des architectes, 5D *

B-4000 LIEGE

BELGIQUE


+32 (0)4 366 20 22 <+32%204%20366%2020%2022>

paul.thir...@ulg.ac.be (secrétariat bib.direct...@ulg.ac.be)

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/ph-search?uid=U013783

http://lib.ulg.ac.be



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
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] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Richard Poynder  wrote:

> OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed
> at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that
> only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access.
> And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC
> BY licence.
>

OA advocates are a plurality, not a monolith.

No, OA advocates do not agree that only CC-BY = OA.

There are two "shades" of OA:

"Gratis OA" = free access
"Libre OA" = CC-BY

 Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
> documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
> non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
> content cannot be described as open access.
>

The right measure of proportion OA for PMC (or any repository) is the
percent that is Gratis *or* Libre OA, not just the percent that is CC-BY.
(It also matter *when* it is deposited: immediately or a year or more after
publication.)


>  The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
> Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
> Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
> has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition.
>

The figures are insufficient. Percent OA in PMC does not even represent
percent OA in biomedicine, in the US or globally, let alone in all fields.
And PMC, as Richard notes, is largely publisher-deposited, which means it's
For-Fee Fool's Gold OA rather than author-deposited For-Free Green OA.

That the percentage OA is growing globally with time  is inevitable, as the
old researchers are retiring with time, and the young researchers have more
sense.

The goal, however, is OA, not "living up to the BOAI definition."

And the growth rate is still absurdly slow, compared to what it could and
ought to be (and have been).

S.H.

 More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-
> policy-triumph-of.html
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> 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] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Heather Morrison]

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):

Actual anonymous example reported to me: book publisher pushed by funder with 
policy to use CC-BY license. Downstream commercial re-use: take the book, strip 
third-party Non-CC-BY content, sell book on Amazon. This competes with the 
publisher's freemium model (threat to needed revenue source for OA) and impacts 
publisher reputation  (lawsuit on basis of moral rights an option but outcome 
not clear and some of us would prefer not to invite such re-use rather than 
suing). Is this the GOAL of open access?

Blanket CC-BY rights for works are problematic. Many scholarly authors and 
journals include third party works which may not be available for CC-BY 
licensing. These works do not always come from academia, and those that do are 
not necessarily restricted to works published after CC-BY licenses were 
developed, so a 100% academic CC-BY scenario would not address this issue. This 
means that even if you think ubiquitous CC-BY is a great idea, the most 
optimistic possibility is a mixed licensing environment, with non-CC-BY works 
mixed in. These third party works that the original author thought worthy of 
seeking permission to publish may be exactly the bits that the downstream users 
wants to use. In my opinion this warrants research.

A related problem is that strong CC-BY requirements may make it more difficult 
to publish works including bits where authors need to use academic freedom to 
include portions of works for purposes of academic critique. That is, sometimes 
we must re-use bits of works to make a point where there is strong possibility 
that the copyright holder would object to re-use. This is an academic freedom 
issue.

Another academic freedom issue is that pushing authors to re-use of CC-BY works 
is an intellectual limitation with respect to intellectual work. Nothing was CC 
licensed before CC licenses were invented about 15 years ago. My works are not 
CC-BY licensed so OA authors who must publish CC-BY have an incentive to simply 
ignore my work.

Ethics: where human subjects are involved, informed consent to publish their 
material (stories, pictures, etc.) as CC-BY would require explaining to them 
the potential consequences. The use of a CC-BY licensed photo of a young girl 
by Virgin Mobile in an advertising campaign would be a good example to point to 
as a potential consequence: 
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html

Without such informed consent, downstream problematic re-use is a potential 
legal risk for author, publisher, and research funder with a CC-BY requirement. 
The latter might make a particularly attractive target for a lawsuit (obviously 
has funding, fixed address). A single case of this nature, from my perspective, 
would be a major reputation all risk for the entire OA movement. It is in the 
best interests of OA to acknowledge that downstream re-use has potential risks 
as well as benefits.

Worst case scenario for an all-CC-BY PMC: a commercial company copies the whole 
thing regularly to resell for their own profit (why not, when a blanket 
invitation for commercial re-use is extended?), and successfully lobbies 
government supporters of PMC to drop funding for the original as inappropriate 
competition with the public sector (why not? Many governments are privatizing 
things like health care, education, public infrastructure?). That is, 
broad-based CC-BY success risks reversion of the entire system to downstream 
toll access.

I comment on this topic as issues arise in this blog series:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html?m=1

best,

Heather Morrison
OA advocate, CC-BY sceptic and CC-BY requirement opponent


 Original message 
From: Richard Poynder 
Date: 2017-01-23 4:48 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet 
the definition of open access?

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at 
the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only 
papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And yet 
millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC BY licence.

Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million documents 
deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the non-historical 
documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the content cannot be 
described as open access.

The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time. 
Nevertheless, that it has still only 

[GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at
the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only
papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And
yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC BY
licence.

 

Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
content cannot be described as open access. 

 

The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition. 

 

More here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-policy-triumph-o
f.html

 

Richard Poynder 

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