[Apologies for cross-posting]
Â
On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:
Â
>
> It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.
>Â
Â
quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:
Â
"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights
granted to that recipient under the terms of the License"
Â
Well, without delving too much into legal intricacies, let's just say that even
if it may seem so at first glance, this doesn't mean that giving access to the
Work (or to a derivative work based upon the work) through a paywall is
forbidden.
Â
If it were, then what would be the purpose of the licenses CC-BY-NC-ND (for the
Work) and CC-BY-NC (for derivative works)?
Instead, the excerpt above may be interpreted, without disrupting the whole CC
logic, as meaning: If "You" give access to a copy of the Work (behind a paywall
or not), "You" can't apply to it any DRM technology that would forbid the
recipient to reproduce, etc. (all the rights included in the license, see part 3
of legal code) the Work.
Â
I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly
dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow hide
the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are different for a
derivative work, which may offer enough added value to justify a fee. And such a
work is not bound by the Workâs license conditions (unless SA is added). It's
here that the NC option plays its intended role: an author decides if others can
make money (by adding a paywall, say) or not from derivative works based upon
his or her work.
Â
Marc Couture
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
