Allowing unrestricted downstream use of scholarly works, like anything else, has both benefits and downsides. In OA discussions, there has been a tendency to focus exclusively on the positives. Following are two examples of downstream derivatives that many scholars, if they thought about it, would not wish to invite.
The downstream volunteer co-author who creates a derivative of an article, updating and/or modifying it, and publishing it with attribution (co-authorship?) of the original author without their knowledge or permission. This kind of derivative could have an impact on the reputation of the original author. If the author objected to the modifications, this would be a violation of the author's moral rights under Berne or CC, and there are remedies available to the author. However, authors might prefer to reduce the risk by not inviting blanket downstream derivatives through open licensing. As an author, that is what I want. Also note that access to legal remedies is not equitable. A wealthy author or publisher is in a strong position to pursue a third world author or publisher, but not vice versa. Sandy Thatcher pointed out that some students want an embargo on their thesis while they seek a publisher. This understates the potential disadvantage to the new doctorate from open licensing. A book emerging from a thesis is generally modified, a derivative. Open licensing means that anyone can write and publish the book or a translation of it. Under Berne 1 (3), translations and adaptations are protected under copyright as original works. In other words, if the author is required to make their work available under an open license, it is possible that someone else will have a version of their work under copyright protection while the original author has no such protection. This could have a negative impact on the new scholar's ability to obtain a position and/or tenure and their right to exploit their own work at the same time. Please note that I am for free access to theses, with minimal or no embargo, but opposed to requirements for open licensing. I acknowledge that open licensing has benefits as well; my focus is on the downsides that I see as being overlooked to date. best, Heather Morrison
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
