On 13/04/2015 14:09:02, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under
copyright.
That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights that you
grant to end users, and the conditions attached to that licence. Rather than a
waiver, it is pre-authorisation to exercise rights that are normally reserved
under copyright, without seeking express permission.
It's a really important difference when you consider that the licence also
contains conditions under which invalidates the licence for an end user. Say,
for example, you completely misrepresented someone through re-use of their work
- that would invalidate the licence as it applies to you. Not only would you be
unable to re-use the work in that way, you would not be allowed any future
re-use of the original work under a CC-BY licence, without express permission.
In those circumstances, the full extent of copyright restrictions can be
applied against you, as someone without access to the CC-BY licence.
However, that does raise an interesting question about licensor vs copyright
holder - if an end user invalidated the CC-BY licence as granted to them, who
would be able to authorise any future use: PLoS, or the author(s)?
G
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
