On 2015-05-01, at 2:45 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtri...@gmail.com<mailto:grahamtri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Friday, 1 May 2015, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote: Question: does the GOAL of open access include making works freely available for use in promotional material? I argue that this kind of re-use is highly problematic from legal and author moral rights perspectives. Please, this is another straw man argument. Consider: 1) if the reuse misinterprets and misuses the research, it is a breach of CC licensing Here is the full brief definition of CC-BY from the Creative Commons website: "This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials". I did a search of the more detailed versions (license deed, legal code) for the words "misinterpret" and "misuse" and found no results. Please explain how you have determined that misinterpretation / misuse is a breach of CC licensing. 2) advertisers are free to cite publications in any case True, however citation of a publication and actually using a work or elements of a work are very different things. 3) a restricted licence only means that the advertiser pays the publisher a fee to use the material, the author isn't asked There are many users of Creative Commons licenses. The licenses are not limited to publishers. As for publishers, there are a very great many publishers of different types around the world, and not all publishers have the same policies and procedures. There are no doubt publishers for whom this is strictly a financial transaction. I do not condone this practice. In relation to this argument, there is no practical benefit to not using CC-BY. As Lessig points out, a noncommercial license would have been a better fit and would almost certainly have avoided this situation. That only works so long as the advertiser would have to seek the permission of the photographer to use the material. If the photo had been licensed NC, this would have signalled to Virgin Mobile that they needed to seek permission to use the material. Perhaps the girl and her family (privacy rights here as well because the girl was a minor), and the photographer would have been amenable to this commercial use of the photo with appropriate payment. If Flickr's T&Cs give it the right to resell material that the photographer uploads as CC-BY-NC then the advertiser just pays Flickr without asking the photographer. It seems hard to believe that an intelligent advertiser would see a license specifying "no commercial use" and assume they have a right to use the work in advertising. There are terms and conditions in various social media outlets that are interesting, objectionable and I would argue unconscionable. This is an important, but completely separate, topic of discussion. respectfully, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa Desmarais 111-02 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
