[GOAL] Open access copyright and licensing basics for OA publishers
This editorial published recently explaining the basics of copyright and licensing for OA journal publishers may be of interest to list readers. In brief, because one must have copyright to waive rights under copyright, it is important to clarify rights sharing between authors and journals in order to use CC licenses. Many scholarly authors include works involving third parties, which limits the rights authors are able to grant. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the CC elements. It is not clear that there is a single licence optimal for every scholarly work. Finally we ask whether a clearer copy left license outside of Creative Commons could be a better fit for scholarly works. Creative Commons has done amazing work and produced some very useful tools, however the licenses cover any type of work under copyright and may never be optimal for every type of scholarly work. Morrison, H. and Desautels, L. (2016). Open access, copyright and licensing: basics for open access publishers. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports 6:1. http://www.jocr.co.in/wp/2016/01/02/2250-0685-360-fulltext/ I would like to thank list readers in advance for any feedback but note that I will need to set this aside for review over the summer. best, Heather Morrison ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?
> > The copyleft or "share-alike" principle does not prevent enclosing > > something in a paywall, > > By this fact, it becomes clear that CC-BY-SA is not the "correct" license for > academic work. Quoting a single line of a longer piece out of context is both mis-leading and rude. If you'd bothered to read past this one line and see the whole argument you might have understood that while it doesn't prevent it directly it undercuts any attempt to "proprietise" by first denying an exclusive right, provided someone, anyone, else has the original piece and makes it available - the original author, their institution, the Internet Archive... It also further udnercuts the incentive to even try because the organisation putting it behind a paywall is not permitted to prevent further dissemination for anyoine who has accessed it through the paywall. We have large numbers of clear examples of how copleft/share-alike works in Free Software. There is very little Libre Software that is not also available gratis. Even where ther are organisations charging for access to derivative versions, the share-alike principle generally prevents them from doing more than charging for their real value-added changes because anyone who pays then gains the right to re-distribute the derivative version. Besides which, my response was about a discussion which concluded that CC-BY was the correcct license. I disagree and argued for CC-BY-SA or in a few cases CC-BY-ND. I explained why CC-BY-NC is not a good license because of its utter lack of clarity in what it means. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?
> The copyleft or "share-alike" principle does not prevent enclosing something > in a paywall, By this fact, it becomes clear that CC-BY-SA is not the "correct" license for academic work. -- Stephen -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: March 3, 2016 6:06 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Danny Kingsley Cc: scholc...@lists.ala.org; lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk; lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk; ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? Danny, My opinion is that CC-BY-SA is the correct license for academic works. All the claims I have seen for people wanting to use "NC" terms (NC is a controversial element whose meaning is not properly clear) are generally fixed by using SA instead. The copyleft or "share-alike" principle does not prevent enclosing something in a paywall, but ddoes require that there are no restrictions placed on anyone who then does have access, and for anything reasonably deemed a derivative work, it means that it must also be a CC-BY-SA licensed work, which generally discourages exploitive terms since then any consortium can club together, purchase access and then re-distribute. For a small class of works there is a justification for CC-BY-ND which prevents derivatives beyond fair use/fair dealing (which are the basis on which m,ost academic quoting works anyway under "all rights reserved" licenses) for material which is controversial or sensitive. However, these cases are rare and should be used very sparingly. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ 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
