An entire shoal of red herrings, here. Much FUD. The situation is actually quite simple: The © licence of an article can only be changed retrospectively by the © holder If the author/s is/are the © holder/s, the publisher cannot change the © licence Whether the © is vested in the author or publisher, a © licence can only ever be changed from less open/less liberal to more open/more liberal; otherwise the user/reader can always claim to have read/used/distributed under the previous licence or not being aware of the new licence. If a publishers changes the default © licence covering articles in a given journal, he can only do that going forward Impecunious authors who cannot afford the services of a publisher can always deposit their articles – with a CC-BY licence – in an open repository and invite peers to review and comment etc etc Jan Velterop
On 21 Aug 2012, at 19:29, Heather Morrison wrote: > These are excellent points, Wilhelmina. I'd like to add that these other > negotiations may make publisher transitions TO CC-BY from non-CC or other CC > licenses problematic as well. For example, if a journal has published an > article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license with the author understanding that a) > they retain copyright and b) this will be the license, and the journal > subsequently transitions all of its articles to CC-BY, then the journal has > violated its contract (implicit or explicit) with the author. Note that many > journal articles have multiple authors, so this is an oversimplification. > > This is not a hypothetical situation, but I'd prefer not to name names. The > journals that are doing this may be doing so under pressure from OA advocates > with a strong belief in CC-BY. > > It has happened to me in a group writing situation that someone else decided > to change the group license to CC-BY without checking in with others. I had > contributed considerable original writing, and would not have chosen this > license. I was not happy, to put it mildly. It may be fortunate that I > noticed early on and changed the license for my own work back to my preferred > license. It may happen that someone else in a similar situation will find out > that someone has used their work someone else decided to release as CC-BY by > seeing a paywall on their work, someone else earning royalties on a book they > wrote, for example. Given that an increasing portion of academics are working > in precarious positions that in some countries may involve pay at below > poverty levels, this would be not just legally but also morally wrong. > > In my opinion, universities and government funding agencies should subsidize > reasonable salaries for scholars and lower or free tuition for students > before giving a second's thought to subsidizing for-profit commercial > publishers. > > my two bits, > > Heather Morrison > > > On 2012-08-21, at 10:09 AM, Wilhelmina Randtke wrote: > >> Something that hasn't come up yet: The open access model has, usually, an >> author as an individual, then a separate publisher. A different, >> non-standard, non-CC negotiation goes on between the author and publisher >> before the article gets released. Depending on what promises were made to >> the author, that negotiation might prevent the publisher later changing the >> license under which it makes the work available. The author might later be >> able to challenge the changed license terms. A random person probably >> wouldn't have any way to challenge that. Any challenge would be based on >> promises made to the author to affect which venue to publish in, and not >> based on the CC license. >> >> If CC-BY needs to be assigned to meet a regulatory requirement, the CC-BY >> license doesn't make that regulatory requirement drop out of the picture. >> The regulation will give the terms by which it's met. >> >> So, that's two things that might later prevent a publisher from releasing >> under CC-BY and then later changing and only making the material available >> on different terms. Neither of those is in CC-BY, though. Those are >> related to circumstances surrounding the publication and any requirement not >> to change would come from that. >> >> -Wilhelmina Randtke >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmor...@sfu.ca> wrote: >> Possible solution? >> >> IF a funding agency were to require that any open access article processing >> fees covered by their funding require both CC-BY AND active deposit in a >> trusted digital open access archive (OpenDOAR lists thousands), this might >> be a solution to the problem that I raise below. >> OpenDOAR: http://www.opendoar.org/' >> >> The controlled LOCKSS or CLOCKSS network provides a useful model to look at, >> based on the scenario of a journal ceasing publication) - details about >> CLOCKSS can be found here: >> http://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home >> >> Comment: in my opinion, this to me is just one illustration that an open >> access future that involves both open access archives and open access >> publishing is more sustainable for scholarly communication than either >> approach alone. >> >> Original question follows. >> >> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of >> the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights >> to one's work, including commercial rights, for open access. My own take on >> this is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool for those fully engaged >> in the open access spirit, the license is problematic for open access. This >> is important now that funding agencies in the U.K. are beginning to require >> CC-BY licenses when they fund open access article processing fees. That is >> to say, we are now looking at a situation where organizations that do not >> have any commitment to (or even liking for) open access, may be required to >> use this license. >> >> Some questions that I think should be raised at this point: >> >> The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor is >> there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to works >> that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code: >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode >> >> Questions: >> >> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere >> that this license is only for open access works? >> >> 2. Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license on >> toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a >> licensee). >> >> 3. Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from changing >> their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is the >> publisher's, not the author's). >> >> 4. Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing an >> open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the >> formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the >> open access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do this, >> but what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to another >> publisher. >> >> To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to be >> the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with significant >> loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it is >> recommended as a standard for open access. >> >> best, >> >> Heather Morrison, MLIS >> Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication >> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ >> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics >> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
