It's important to note that, at least in the US, facts, data and ideas are not copyrightable. > http://www.lib.umich.edu/copyright/facts-and-data Lee On 3/3/16 10:40 AM, Pippa Smart wrote: > I believe moral rights (attribution and integrity) are upheld in UK law ( > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/IV) > > My own issue with CC BY is that its simplicity results in a clumsy catchall > - for example, few authors would object to figures from their work being > used in another work (=derivative work), but might be unhappy about a > translation being produced without their knowledge (=derivative work). > > Your point about commercial use is well made since this is the area where I > hear most complaints from authors - the fact that their publisher can make > money is accepted in many cases, but the idea that a third party can > "freeload" and make money out of their work is often considered > unacceptable. > > Pippa > > ***** > Pippa Smart > Research Communication and Publishing Consultant > PSP Consulting > Oxford, UK > Tel: +44 1865 864255 or +44 7775 627688 > email: pippa.sm...@gmail.com > Web: www.pspconsulting.org > @LearnedPublish > **** > Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing: > http://www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing > Editor of the ALPSP Alert: http://www.alpsp.org/ALPSP-Alert > **** > > On 3 March 2016 at 13:46, Sandy Thatcher <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > >> 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 >> 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) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
