Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a
difference between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that
it appears to be a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems
"arguing" with Elsevier about text-and-datamining "licences" where the
licences apparently give rights to Elsevier.

I will try to get an informal opinion.


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright
> transfer combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice;
> I see this quite frequently while looking for APCS.
>
> The Elsevier copyright page:
> https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
>
> States under "for open access articles":
> "Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright
> but license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case
> authors have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted
> to third parties..."
>
> This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses,
> Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder,
> even when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds
> copyright.
>
> I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination
> copyright.
>
> This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for
> licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no
> obligation to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms
> in perpetuity (unless there is a separate contract).
>
> To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author
> contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is
> licensed CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may
> actually be the publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. 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

[GOAL] [EIFL-all] EIFL Annual Report 2015

[Andrius Krisciunas]

Having problems reading EIFL Annual Report? Please click here


Annual
ReportLearn how EIFL made a difference in 2015
Dear friends of EIFL,

I am pleased to share with you that the 2015 edition of our Annual Report
is now online.

This report celebrates our programmes and projects and we share with you
stories from some of the many people who have benefited from our work.

Thank you to everyone who worked with EIFL in 2015 and for your continued
support.

Kind regards,

Rima Kupryte, Director of EIFL



We hope you will enjoy reading our
*Annual Report*

low-resolution

 | high-resolution


Facebook 

Twitter 

Website


DONATE


Email: i...@eifl.net

Unsubscribe

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

I also agree that this is an important, but badly treated/understood issue.

For instance, in SPARC’s “How open is it” scale, author copyright ownership 
gives a minimum of 4 (over 5) for the “Copyrights” criterion, irrespective of 
possible restrictions that, as one sees, may amount in practice to no more 
rights than publisher ownership. Thus Elsevier’s exclusive licence gives them 
4/5 for this criterion.

http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf

In 2012, in my response to SPARC’s Request for Comments on a preliminary 
version of this guide, I had stressed this exact problem, explaining that the 
real issue was author control over usage, not copyright ownership per se. I 
don’t know if I was the only one to do so, but nothing was changed in the final 
version. This is the kind of situation that makes me believe that the issue is 
all but well understood.

Marc Couture



De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Peter Murray-Rust
Envoyé : 24 mai 2016 04:38
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a difference 
between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that it appears to be 
a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems "arguing" with Elsevier about 
text-and-datamining "licences" where the licences apparently give rights to 
Elsevier.

I will try to get an informal opinion.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright transfer 
combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; I see this 
quite frequently while looking for APCS.

The Elsevier copyright page:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright

States under "for open access articles":
"Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright but 
license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case authors 
have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted to third 
parties..."

This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, 
Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder, even 
when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds copyright.

I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination 
copyright.

This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for 
licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no obligation 
to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms in perpetuity 
(unless there is a separate contract).

To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author 
contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is licensed 
CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may actually be the 
publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.

best,

Heather Morrison




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. 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

Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

[Laura Quilter]

While the language may be confusing, the US Copyright Act makes it clear
that
an exclusive license *is* a transfer of copyright.

17 USC 101: *A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,*
 mortgage,
*exclusive license, *or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation
of a
copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright,
whether or
not it is limited in time or place of effect, *but not including a
nonexclusive license.*

This line in Elsevier's agreement creates this confusion:  "Authors sign an
exclusive
license agreement, where authors have copyright but license exclusive
rights in the
article to the publisher. In this case authors have the right to share
their articles in the
same ways permitted to third parties..."

If *all* rights are exclusively assigned, then the author is *not *the
copyright holder.
The copyright may be registered in their name, but they are not the
copyright holder.
If *some* rights are exclusively assigned, then the author *and *the
publisher are each
copyright holders of whatever rights were allocated in the contract.

As to the SPARC "How open is it" scale, Elsevier might try to argue that it
should
get a 4 out of 5 because the author "owns" the copyright, but by plain text
of the
statute, it does not.  So they are properly placed in the middle of the
"Copyrights"
scale: "Publisher holds copyright, with some allowances for author and
reader
reuse of published version"

Elsevier is not alone in this practice, by the way; it's unfortunately
common.  And
it's very confusing to authors and editors alike.  Heather Morrison is
correct to call
out as confusing and problematic Elsevier's practice of requiring authors
to
transfer their copyright to be licensed CC by Elsevier.  I'd also like to
call out as
deceptive this practice of telling authors they are the "copyright holders"
when,
by the terms of their contract and the statute, *they are not*.

Laura Quilter


Laura Markstein Quilter / lquil...@lquilter.net
Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Couture Marc 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I also agree that this is an important, but badly treated/understood issue.
>
>
>
> For instance, in SPARC’s “How open is it” scale, author copyright
> ownership gives a minimum of 4 (over 5) for the “Copyrights” criterion,
> irrespective of possible restrictions that, as one sees, may amount in
> practice to no more rights than publisher ownership. Thus Elsevier’s
> exclusive licence gives them 4/5 for this criterion.
>
>
>
> http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf
>
>
>
> In 2012, in my response to SPARC’s Request for Comments on a preliminary
> version of this guide, I had stressed this exact problem, explaining that
> the real issue was author control over usage, not copyright ownership per
> se. I don’t know if I was the only one to do so, but nothing was changed in
> the final version. This is the kind of situation that makes me believe that
> the issue is all but well understood.
>
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la
> part de* Peter Murray-Rust
> *Envoyé :* 24 mai 2016 04:38
> *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Objet :* Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer
>
>
>
> I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a
> difference between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that
> it appears to be a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems
> "arguing" with Elsevier about text-and-datamining "licences" where the
> licences apparently give rights to Elsevier.
>
> I will try to get an informal opinion.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>
> Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright
> transfer combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice;
> I see this quite frequently while looking for APCS.
>
>
>
> The Elsevier copyright page:
>
> https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
>
>
>
> States under "for open access articles":
>
> "Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright
> but license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case
> authors have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted
> to third parties..."
>
>
>
> This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses,
> Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder,
> even when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds
> copyright.
>
>
>
> I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination
> copyright.
>
>
>
> This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for
> licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no
> obligation to continue to provide a copy of the