hi Fiona, It seems we have been thinking along the same lines - I have a similar proposal that tries to address the same issue.
An author wishing to pre-authorize translations but only under particular conditions, e.g. that the translation is done by an appropriately qualified translator and a disclaimer is used, should use a restrictive license (either All Rights Reserved but free-to-read, CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-ND) but grant additional permissions. In the case of CC licenses, this can be done with a CC+ license. As explained on the Creative Commons page: "You have the option of granting permissions<https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_waive_license_terms_or_conditions.3F> above and beyond what the license allows; for example, allowing licensees to translate ND-licensed material. If so, consider using CC+<https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CCPlus> to indicate the additional permissions offered." The reason you need to start with the more restrictive license and then grant additional permissions is because you cannot use a more open license and then attach additional restrictions - this defeats the purpose of open licensing. Here is a boilerplate approach to put on a terms and conditions website to explain these permissions: Translations can be made without explicitly seeking permission under the following conditions: Professional qualifications of translator: [insert definition of what you consider to be an appropriate professional] A disclaimer must be prominently placed on the work as follows [insert disclaimer language and any other terms such as placement] Certification by the original publisher - provide instructions for the translator in case they wish to have the translation certified. If the author (or publisher) does not want to grant blanket commercial rights but is willing to grant some rights that others might consider commercial, this can also be specified here. For example, if the author or publisher of a book expects royalties if a downstream for-profit publisher actually makes money, details might be specified here so people know what to expect, e.g. after costs of producing the translation are covered, royalties of x are due to y. I don't suggest that this is the final answer on how to handle translations but hope that this is a useful discussion. best, Heather Morrison On 2017-01-24, at 8:37 AM, Fiona Bradley <fiona.brad...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:fiona.brad...@rluk.ac.uk>> wrote: Hi Heather, I think there’s too much variation in copyright arrangements and agreements for me to comment on that but indeed should authors prefer and there’s no other arrangements in place stating otherwise you could put authors in place of institution/publisher in my comment. I think license choice and translation inform but shouldn’t necessarily drive eachother. Personally speaking, I tend to start with an assumption of best intentions (eg CC-BY) but make room for exceptions. Under CC-BY or another open license it can still be helpful to have some basic procedures as a professional courtesy for translation in place (as simple as emailing the author or as formal as a permissions procedure) as eg it avoids situations like doubled work - if more than one person decides to translate a paper into the same language, but they are unaware of each other – have had that happen before! Fiona From: <goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 11:59 am To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access? Fiona, Thank you for this information about professional translation services, and the importance of certification and disclaimers with translated works. If the original author wishes to ensure that translations are done by appropriately trained professionals, certified, etc., this is a reason to avoid using licenses granting blanket downstream rights to create derivatives, ie if using CC licenses the No Derivatives should be used. I refer to "author" rather than "institution/publisher" as you did. If you support CC licensing it seems odd to me that you would assume the institution/publisher should make choices relating to copyright. Do you see authors as the copyright holders / CC licensors or do you assume copyright transfer to an institution / publisher who is then the CC-BY licensor (it appears this is similar to what Elsevier is currently doing)? best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: Fiona Bradley <fiona.brad...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:fiona.brad...@rluk.ac.uk>> Date: 2017-01-24 6:43 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access? Hi all, For a similar approach in terms of data, the Open Data Institute has a data spectrum that also looks at closed -> open pathways: https://theodi.org/data-spectrum Regarding translations, in my experience having managed these processes the most important policies aren’t those relating to how the original work is licensed but whether the originating institution/publisher makes agreements with translators, insists on certified translations, makes disclaimers about whether translations are considered official or not (in the case of legal texts, for instance), and provides for a notice and takedown procedure. This risk mitigation acknowledges that however a work is licensed, whether OA or in formal license by the publisher, there is always the potential for issues in translation to occur and there needs to be procedures in place in place to handle that and to address where liability resides. I wouldn’t see this as a risk inherent to OA or reason not to license CC-BY. In the case of medical instructions, organisations such as http://translatorswithoutborders.org/ and many others work extensively in this area to provide professional and/or certified translation, whereas journal articles are often translated by researchers in the field who are fluent in both languages but not translators. Kind regards, Fiona -- Fiona Bradley Deputy Executive Director RLUK Office: 020 7862 8463 Mobile: +44 7432 768 566 www.rluk.ac.uk<http://www.rluk.ac.uk/> RLUK Twitter feed: @RL_UK Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU Registered Company no: 2733294 Registered Charity no: 1026543 From: <goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Date: Monday, 23 January 2017 at 7:55 pm To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access? With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic. For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate change science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, deliberate spread of misinformation. This is not a moot point. This end of the spectrum is a reality today, one that is far more concerning for many researchers than pay walls (not that I support paywalls). Fair use in listed in a row named closed access. I argue that fair use / fair dealing is essential to academic work and journalism, and must apply to all works, not just those that can be subject to academic OA policy. There is an underlying assumption about the importance and value of re-use / remix that omits any discussion of the pros, cons, or desirability of re-use / remix that I argue we should be having. Earlier today I mentioned some of the potential pitfalls. Now I would like to two potential pitfalls: mistranslation and errors in instructions for dangerous procedures. There are dangers of poor published translations to knowledge per se (ie introduce errors) and to the author's reputation, ie an author could easily be indirectly misquoted due to a poor translation. There are good reasons why some authors and journals hesitate to grant downstream translations permissions. Reader side translations (eg automated translation tools) are not the same as downstream published translations, although readers should be made aware of the current limitations of automated translation. If people are copying instructions for potentially dangerous procedures (surgery, chemicals, engineering techniques), and they are not at least as expert as the original author, it might be in everyone's best interests if downstream readers are not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text, images, etc. In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this and that, mix it together and create something new and intriguing. I am not convinced that the same arguments ought to apply to works that might guide procedures in a real hospital operating room. I suggest the "how open is it" spectrum is a useful exercise that has served a purpose for some but not a canon for all to adhere to. best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>> Date: 2017-01-23 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access? I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum: http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/ I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more open is better than less open. If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open access. David On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Marc, You say: "I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such: I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means." I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access. So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are important implications and consequences flowing from that. Richard Poynder On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca<mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: Hi all, Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here. I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such : - I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what “being OA” means. - I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low. - I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate scientific/scholarly works and make them useful. I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance. Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would bother me. Marc Couture _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/> _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
