Thanks for that Robert. Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is Copyright Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors (which is only clear when you download the PDF).
That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use rights to be purchased, the page is making false and misleading statements about the item in question. I would say that is breaking UK law, and presumably other regions too. I would suggest that Elsevier needs to urgently review how this is advertised and/or it's relationship with CCC on the basis of that evidence. Although I suspect a lot of this comes from blanket rules in place for an entire serial with CCC, and a lot of these problems could at least be mitigated by ScienceDirect: a) being clear about copyright and licencing in the HTML page, as well as the PDF b) not providing links to Rightslink for CC-BY articles, where this is clearly unnecessary. G On 17 December 2013 16:30, Kiley, Robert <r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk> wrote: > Laura > > > > It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) > quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles. > > > > Let me give you an example. > > > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002489 is an > article funded by Wellcome, and made available under a CC-BY licence. This > is made clear at ScienceDirect (albeit in a footnote). > > > > However, if you follow the link to “Gets rights and content” you get > redirected to the Rightslink site where there is a form you can complete to > get a quick quote for re-use. So, for arguments sake I selected that I > wanted to use this single article: > > > > · In a CD-ROM/DVD > > · I was a pharmaceutical company > > · I wanted to make 12000 copies > > · And translate it into two languages > > > > ..and RightsLink gave me a “quick price” of 375,438.35 GBP [I love the > accuracy of this price.] > > > > Of course for a CC-BY article, there is no need for anyone to pay anything > to use this content. Attribution is all that is required. > > > > I don’t know what would have happened if I had continued with the > transaction, but I hope that a user would not really end up getting charged. > > > > As the CC-BY licence information is in the ScienceDirect metadata I’m not > sure why RightsLink can’t “read “ this and for whatever use the user > selects, the fee is calculated to be £0.00. Better still would be for > CC-BY articles NOT to contain a link to RightsLink. > > > > Regards > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Laura Quilter > *Sent:* 17 December 2013 14:53 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access > > > > Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments > for OA reuse? I'd really like to know details. > > > ---------------------------------- > Laura Markstein Quilter / lquil...@lquilter.net > > *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher * > Copyright and Information Policy Librarian > University of Massachusetts, Amherst > lquil...@library.umass.edu > > Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS > laura.quil...@simmons.edu > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > Moving the discussion to a new title... > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which > I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: > > > > 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. > It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for > born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue > from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then > it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate > for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get > published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go > to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. > > > > 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription > prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is > almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very > difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a > multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. > > > > > There are several other concerns about "hybrid": > > * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many > hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled > with confusing words "Free content". Many do not have licences, some have > incompatible rights. > > * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for Open > Access reuse > > * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me > today and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it > protected authors from exploitation. > > * they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal > Access at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she > couldn't give it to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have > no idea how reliable that was. > > Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access > then it should be: > > * clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs. > > * the XML should be available > > * there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher. > > Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a > daily basis. Each of these does exactly what I need: > > * lists all new articles every day > > * has a complete list of all articles ever published > > * collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over all > the content. > > It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about these > issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it properly - an honest product. > > Any publisher who wishes to be respected for their OA offerings has to do > the minimum of what I list here: > > * CC-BY > > * list of all articles > > * easy machine iteration and retrieval. > > Anything else is holding back progress > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. 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 > > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider > MailControl<http://www.blackspider.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
