Thank you Peter. I respectfully disagree. If Elsevier is retaining copyright and using an NC license, they have a right to sell the work and CCC has a right to coordinate. Elsevier practice is copyright in the name of the author with exclusive rights granted to Elsevier.
If articles are CC licensed without NC, anyone can sell them. This is the most common meaning of commercial rights in copyright; selling the work or rights to read or use the work. Author copyright retention means that authors retain all rights. My solo authored blog IJPE under ARR is a clear-cut example. It is not clear that full author copyright retention is compatible with OA journal and book licensing. Do we want authors to have a right that their work be removed from a journal or book? If not, the publishers of journals and books need to have some rights. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org heather.morri...@uottawa.ca https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 4:38:48 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group Attention : courriel externe | external email Here's another example of the appalling misuse of CC-NC. Same article (copyright owned by the authors). I put in for a product description for a device company: >>Permission Not Allowed >>According to the policies of Elsevier, use of this content in the manner you >>are requesting is not allowed. PMR> Elsevier are acting as if they are the owners of the copyright, they are soaking the world for thousands of dollars and creatin a monopoly. If anyone should be controlling the re-use it's the author. It's absolutely certain that the author has no idea what Elsevier and CCC are doing with the authors' content. IMO this is close to theft. It's not Elseviers content and CCC has no rights to exact ths rent. CCC+publishers are a major cause of the destruction of science and medicine. Closed access is bad enough but uncontrolled faux "open access" is worse. Elsevier asserts complete control over the re-use and sale of this material and yet the world goes along with the fiction it's "open access". Remember the authors have paid Elsevier or "open access" and what Elsevier is actually creating is the total opposite. It's greed and theft. A necessary but not sufficient condition is that there is formal regulation. I have been banging on for 10 years and it's about time the world woke up and asserted its right. On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:46 AM Guédon Jean-Claude <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca<mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote: It seems to me, Rob, that if you were aware that it "might be contentious" (!!!!), you might have also considered mentioning the fact, if only for the sake of honest transparency... Practising some analog of the caveat emptor philosophy in the field of copyright is not a good starting point. Jean-Claude Guédon On 2019-09-12 2:20 p.m., Rob Johnson wrote: Dear Jean-Claude, Heather, In haste, but thanks for flagging the concern on the NDA clause, I was aware this might be contentious, and will feed this back. Certainly there are similar transparency requirements in the UK to those you describe in Ontario, including freedom of information requests and disclosure of salary information on high earners. These tend to apply to public bodies and charities, including higher education institutions, but the extent to which these are cascaded down to commercial entities is variable, and generally a matter of contract law rather statute or regulation. That said, expectations of greater transparency are well-established in other sectors where commercial actors provide public services, and/or where there is not a well-functioning market. As far as I’m aware there’s no fundamental reason why this couldn’t be extended to academic publishing if it’s deemed to be in the public interest to do so, it just hasn’t happened to date. Best wishes, Rob From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> <goal-boun...@eprints.org><mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: 12 September 2019 18:09 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org><mailto:goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group Thank you for pointing out the NDA clause, Jean-Claude. Copyright collectives such as CCC lobby for legislation that in effect directs $ to their members. At least this is the case in Canada where local copyright collectives believe they should have a legal right to demand that blanket licensing be a legal requirement for all educational institutions and to unilaterally set the price and conditions. Transparency should be (and generally is) a requirement for any organization that wishes to benefit from public funding. In Ontario, this even applies to individuals. By law, the salary of anyone earning more than $100,000 in a public institution is publicly disclosed on an annual basis. Universities and government in Canada operate under Access to Information / Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation. Information is open by default, whether published or available by request; non-disclosure is an option only under very specific, limited circumstances such as when it is necessary to protect the legitimate privacy rights of individuals. It would be interesting to hear about laws and expectations in other countries if list members have time and knowledge to report. Are organizations in your area allowed to accept $ that comes from public funding and keep this a secret? If CCC would like to interact with the open access movement, removing the NDA clause would be a good start. If there are good reasons for using CCC to transfer $ to certain publishers then it would be helpful to understand what they are. It would be appropriate to publish the details. If publishers do not wish to disclose this kind of information, refraining from participation in copyright collectives like CCC and their lobbying efforts is a choice that is available to them, and one that I recommend. I can think of one good reason for discussing the use of a collective to transfer $ to open access publishers. Commercial downstream users such as Elsevier (Scopus) and other aggregators (e.g. EBSCO) could be required to transfer $ to journals that do not choose to grant blanket downstream commercial rights. I am not advocating that this happen, rather stating that this should be up for discussion so that everyone involved can have a better understanding of the underlying issues and perhaps come up with better solutions. This discussion would be most likely to be fruitful if held in public where all parties can follow and participate. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> <goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of Guédon Jean-Claude <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca<mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:34 AM To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group Attention : courriel externe | external email I just would like to attract the attention of the readers of this group to the last line of the first screen of the application form (https://www.surveygizmo.eu/s3/90158934/OA-Advisory-Panel). It simply says: Some of the work carried out as part of this Group will be confidential. Therefore, you would be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) should you be selected to participate. My!!! my!!!! Jean-Claude Guédon On 2019-09-11 2:59 a.m., Rob Johnson wrote: Dear all (with apologies for cross-posting), Copyright Clearance Centre<http://www.copyright.com/> (CCC) is seeking research professionals, including researchers, librarians and research funders, with experience in defining, using or implementing OA publication and science policy to participate in a new, volunteer international Advisory Group that will work with CCC staff to identify pragmatic solutions to the pressing and evolving issues facing the research community today. This Advisory Group is one of the many ways CCC is looking to gain input from different stakeholders in the scholarly communications ecosystem. Advisory Group participants will advise on themes and concepts central to the open scholarly communication debates. The Group’s work will give participants an opportunity to establish and grow their network and engage in regular discussion with emerging leaders in the research and publishing communities. Participation in this Advisory Group will offer participants the opportunity to demonstrate thought leadership within their respective institution or organization. For further information please see the press release at: http://www.copyright.com/publishers/international-open-access-research-advisory-group/. We’re working with CCC to put the group together and ensure it represents a diverse mix of viewpoints from across the research community. Please do consider applying, and feel free to drop me a line with any questions you may have. The deadline for applications is Monday 30th September 2019, and the application form can be found here: https://www.surveygizmo.eu/s3/90158934/OA-Advisory-Panel. Best wishes, Rob Rob Johnson Director [cid:16d29bdf6ca4cff311] Follow us on Twitter @rschconsulting<https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fabout%2Fresources%2Fbuttons®ion=follow_link&screen_name=rschconsulting&tw_p=followbutton&variant=2.0> T: +44(0)115 896 7567 M: +44(0)779 511 7737 E: rob.john...@research-consulting.com<mailto:rob.john...@research-consulting.com> W: www.research-consulting.com<http://www.research-consulting.com/> Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg No. 8376797 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal. _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
