Sandy Moral rights (the right to attribution; the right to object to derogatory treatment; the right to object to false attribution; and, now, the right to privacy over certain types of photograph and film) are in fact very much recognised under UK law.
Best wishes Chris From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher Sent: 03 March 2016 13:46 To: Danny Kingsley; lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk; lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk; goal@eprints.org; ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk; scholc...@lists.ala.org Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first issue of the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication back in 2012: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint_Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License I was particularly concerned about translations. It should be noted, by the way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote this article contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., as part of the license terms. That part was dropped in later iterations, and the only reference now is this: "Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." In other words, licensors do not give up their moral rights by offering this license to users, but since moral rights are not recognized under British or US law (with a very limited exception under US law to works of fine art), that clause is of little comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize that translations may be a problem for HSS authors. There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be addressed: "Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the originator of a work that is subsequently sold on is not personally losing a revenue stream." Just because an academic author may not be motivated by personal monetary gain does not mean that a personal revenue stream is not, in fact, lost in some circumstances. As former director of Penn State University Press, I can cite examples of authors who benefited to the tune of thousands of dollars from the reprinting of their articles from some of the journals we published. There is a general problem also with the definition of what is "commercial." When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several years ago as to what people understand to be the meaning of this word in the context of publishing, there was little consensus beyond a very small core of shared understanding of what the term means. Sandy Thatcher At 12:11 PM +0000 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote: <Apologies for cross posting> Dear all, You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons Attribution licences. Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555 A taster: *********************************** Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic community. However, in conversation with some legal people and contemporaries at other institutions one of the observations was that generally academics are not necessarily cognizant with what the licences offer and indeed what protections are available under regular copyright. To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners. In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences do not encourage plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is a broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences could pose problems for the moral integrity of the work and cause issues with translations. CC-BY licenses do create challenges for works containing sensitive information and for works containing third party copyright. ************************************** Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam problem with the blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried (we are working on this). Thanks Danny -- Dr Danny Kingsley Head of Scholarly Communications Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB39DR P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 E: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> T: @dannykay68 ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939 -- Sanford G. Thatcher Frisco, TX 75034-5514 https://scholarsphere.psu.edu "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
