Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather, others,

let's not mix things up. Copyright is not intended and useful to make 
provenance chains in scholarly communication reliable, complete and efficient. 
The norms of attribution in science and scholarship are separate from copyright 
or public domain status. There are created, maintained and changed through 
disciplinary cultures, not laws. Intellectual property laws are different in 
different parts of the world. If what you say is true we would have witnessed a 
huge problem with scholars using but not citing e.g. government documents, out- 
of copyright works, public domain dedicated works etc., which is not the case 
as far as I know. Copyright and licenses given by the holders of copyright tell 
us what the copyright holders and the law allow you and what not. They do NOT 
tell you what is expected or accepted in academia or science and scholarship in 
general.

The choice to allow or prohibit use with a commercial intent is for every 
rights holder or author him/herself to make. But please note that choices made 
on the basis of your dislike of Elsevier have the effect of disallowing (re)use 
of your output by e.g. any self-employed or retired scholar giving lectures for 
money and using e.g. images created by you. They can also have the effect of 
university teachers of commercial summer school courses of those universities 
to reuse of distribute your work among 5 students in their class. With the 
increasing abundance of publications, data, images, code etc this will often 
mean they will use other material that fits their needs 95% instead of your 
material that would fit their need 100%. They will not contact you to offer 
payment for that image created by you. Thus, choosing limited licenses would 
mean a disservice to science, scholarship and teaching and also a disservice to 
your self. In the internet age allowing liberal use of your output will quite 
likely bring you more opportunities and better helps building a reputation than 
limiting it.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:02 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Public domain is not consistent with the attribution requirements of 
scholarship, regardless of length of the term. Two conundra:

1) If we use Plato's ideas we are obliged to cite them. This is important not 
just for author moral rights, but to establish a chain of evidence. If I quote 
Plato then someone else goes to the original, finds that I have misquoted, and 
critiques my work, this is a service to scholarship. Professors need to teach 
good citation practices; public domain for recent works sends the wrong 
message. Taking the work of another author, modifying it and submitting as your 
own work is legal if the work is public domain, but it is plagiarism.

2) Building a reputation for our research is critical to the success of a 
scholar's career. For this reason public domain is problematic.

Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by 
academics are not consistent with academic freedom. If I am required to publish 
my work as CC-BY, Elsevier is free to profit from my work, even though I have 
chosen to participate in the Elsevier boycott. This is a violation of my 
academic freedom.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: David Wojick 
Date: 2018-03-23 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: SANFORD G THATCHER 
Cc: "Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci)" , Schoolcom 
listserv 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow
limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may
limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but
most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are
claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors
might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.

David Wojick

At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick  wrote:
> >
> >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are
> >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[David Wojick]

In particular, the fact that present copyright law enables one to make money 
from one's journal articles is not part of academic freedom. 

Also note that Willinsky's copyright reform proposal does not create a journal 
selection limitation, because it applies to all journals. The proposal is to 
shorten the term of the copyright granted to the author. This copyright 
transfers to any publisher that requires it as a condition of publication.

David

Dr. David Wojick
http://insidepublicaccess.com/ 

On Mar 24, 2018, at 4:07 AM, Danny Kingsley  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with 
> this being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It 
> is akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the 
> University’s requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis 
> in addition to the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel 
> the academic freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
> 
> I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have 
> seen a few https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1905 (relevant 
> bits below)
> 
> Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to 
> choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion 
> about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into 
> the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement 
> that: “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by 
> academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright ownership 
> (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the 
> place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
> 
>  
> 
> Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing requirements. 
> This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real 
> threat to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and 
> academia. As the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country 
> have had enough of experts” 
> https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not 
> even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars.
> 
>  
> 
> Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
> 
>  
> 
> Danny
> 
>  
> 
> *
> 
> The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’
> 
> The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open 
> access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*, one 
> of my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this comment:
> 
> “Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
> “I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” 
> (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)
> 
> In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the 
> comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).
> 
> Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher Education is  
> primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members and students 
> can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”.
> 
> This definition was based on the American Association of University 
> Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom which includes, quite 
> specifically, “full freedom in research and in the publication of results”.
> 
> Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, not 
> that they have full freedom in choosing where.
> 
> Rick has since contacted the AAUP to ask for clarification on this topic. 
> Last Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 
> statement to clarify the ‘freedom in publication’ statement in light of 
> evolution of scholarly communication since 1940.
> 
> The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ 
> threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. 
> In the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets 
> because colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications 
> were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with online publication 
> and search engines this argument no longer holds.
> 
> What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is necessary 
> because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem is not open 
> access, the problem is the reward system to which we are beholden. And the 
> commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this.
> 
> So let’s be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression rather 
> than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert Merton’s 1942 norms 
> of science which are:
> 
> §  “communalism”: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific 
> goods (intellectua

[GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Heather Morrison]

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Downes, Stephen]

To add to Heather's point, many academics (including myself) opt to publish 
under a CC NC (non-commercial) license in order to preserve free access to our 
materials.


-- Stephen



Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Heather 
Morrison 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Downes, Stephen]

Jeroen Bosman wrote, "Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of 
charges, as is any publication in the public domain. Period."


This is simply not true.


Thomas Hardy's book 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' is public domain, having been 
published in 1886. However, if you go to a book store and try to take a copy 
without paying, you will be arrested and charged with theft.


If you search for it online, you can find it for sale on Amazon and other 
sites. You will have to pay money before they give you a copy.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56759.The_Mayor_of_Casterbridge


It is true that you can find it for free on sites like Project Gutenberg.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/143/143-h/143-h.htm


But it's availability for free is not guaranteed by the license. Someone like 
Project Gutenberg must make it available for download. If this doesn't happen, 
then the only way to get a copy to pay money. Even if it's CC or public domain.


-- Stephen



Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:08 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

Heather Morrison
_

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Heather Morrison]

Jeroen,

For clarification, can you confirm that you are arguing:

1. The "royalty free" clause in CC-BY means that works licensed CC-BY means a) 
the copyright holder is obliged to make the work available for free and b) no 
one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access 
services?

2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" 
Date: 2018-03-24 12:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument
> at a time.
>
> Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll
> access, both by the original publisher and downstream.
>
> To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for
> commercial profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works
> into their toll access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no
> cost to Elsevier, and Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for
> TA image bank (few years ago).
>

Assuming ths was the collection of images into "Springer Images" in 2012
this is not a correct record. I have documented this in considerable detail
in my blog - there are many entries (e.g.
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/06/springergate-springerimages-for-today/
and entries on both sides).

Springer collected [all the?]  images in the articles thay had published
over several years. They did this without regard to the licences or
ownership or authorship. They stamped this "Copyright Springer". In
thousands of case this was a direct violation of copyright. I challenged
this and BiomedCentral (an open access publisher then recently acquired by
Springer) had to sort the mess out.


>
> US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well
> in areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free
> access. Published works that are public domain are often included in toll
> access packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created
> by its own employees.
>
> Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge".
> Hence if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access,
> neither public domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.
>

Material that is PD or CC BY (or CC BY-SA) can be copied without permission
from the licensor and without charge. (There may be a charge for the
materials involved in copying). Once someone has a copy of a PD or CC BY
work they can copy it indefinitely without payment to the copyright holder.
The only way that a licensor could prevent this free copying is not to make
any copies available, ever.

The price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at least one
copy of the original. If all copies happen to be lost (as may happen) then
the work may effectively become "closed" .It is important, therefore, that
copies are kept of all CC0/CC BY. If this is done then the work can never
become closed (unless there is a retrospective change in the law or
copyright, which we should fight).

CC BY gives the following rights. (from
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

You are free to:

   - *Share* — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
   - *Adapt* — remix, transform, and build upon the material
   - for any purpose, even commercially.
   -




   - The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
   license terms.

An added request: when referring to CC licences please specify which. I
frequently see "published under a CC licence". Some CC licences are very
liberal and others very restrictive. See
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/


P.





> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Heather Morrison]

Thank you for the clarification. Regardless of what Springer was doing a few 
years ago, CC-BY does grant blanket commercial rights to harvest and sell 
works, or portions of works such as images

Re: "the price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at least 
one copy of the original": this is an important point, but you need to add 
"free of charge", otherwise this could become a toll access service.

I argue that this is one of the reasons OA repositories are necessary to 
sustain OA. Publishers have no obligation to continue to exist or continue 
publishing, never mind an ongoing obligation to make works freely available on 
a perpetual basis.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Peter Murray-Rust 
Date: 2018-03-24 1:12 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access



On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

Assuming ths was the collection of images into "Springer Images" in 2012 this 
is not a correct record. I have documented this in considerable detail in my 
blog - there are many entries (e.g. 
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/06/springergate-springerimages-for-today/
 and entries on both sides).

Springer collected [all the?]  images in the articles thay had published over 
several years. They did this without regard to the licences or ownership or 
authorship. They stamped this "Copyright Springer". In thousands of case this 
was a direct violation of copyright. I challenged this and BiomedCentral (an 
open access publisher then recently acquired by Springer) had to sort the mess 
out.


US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

Material that is PD or CC BY (or CC BY-SA) can be copied without permission 
from the licensor and without charge. (There may be a charge for the materials 
involved in copying). Once someone has a copy of a PD or CC BY work they can 
copy it indefinitely without payment to the copyright holder. The only way that 
a licensor could prevent this free copying is not to make any copies available, 
ever.

The price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at least one 
copy of the original. If all copies happen to be lost (as may happen) then the 
work may effectively become "closed" .It is important, therefore, that copies 
are kept of all CC0/CC BY. If this is done then the work can never become 
closed (unless there is a retrospective change in the law or copyright, which 
we should fight).

CC BY gives the following rights. (from 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

You are free to:

  *   Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  *   Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
  *   for any purpose, even commercially.
  *




  *   The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the 
license terms.

An added request: when referring to CC licences please specify which. I 
frequently see "published under a CC licence". Some CC licences are very 
liberal and others very restrictive. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/


P.



best,

Heather Morrison

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




--
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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> CC-BY does grant blanket commercial rights to harvest and sell works, or
> portions of works such as images
>

Agreed. and also derivative works. However with CC BY the re-user must
(normally) acknowledge original ownership or authorship and may be required
to attach a copy of the original licence.

>
> Re: "the price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at
> least one copy of the original": this is an important point, but you need
> to add "free of charge", otherwise this could become a toll access service.
>

It's a slightly fluid point. I might make works available on a physical
device such as a SSD.  I reserve the right to charge for the memory stick
and possibly the labour involved.

The OKF (sic) anticipated this in the Open Definition (in which I
participated) which states (http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/ )
>>1.2 Access

The *work* *must* be provided as a whole and at no more than a reasonable
one-time reproduction cost, and *should* be downloadable via the Internet
without charge. Any additional information necessary for license compliance
(such as names of contributors required for compliance with attribution
requirements) *must* also accompany the work.
>>1.3 Machine Readability

The *work* *must* be provided in a form readily processable by a computer
and where the individual elements of the work can be easily accessed and
modified.
>>1.4 Open Format

The *work* *must* be provided in an open format. An open format is one
which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can
be fully processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool.

<<
Note the use of "a reasonable one-time reproduction cost". This means that
I might ask a re-user for (say) 20 USD for media. But the re-user can then
re-copy at their own expense without permission and could offer it to
others without charge.


HM>I argue that this is one of the reasons OA repositories are necessary to
sustain OA. Publishers have no obligation to continue to exist or continue
publishing, never mind an ongoing obligation to make works freely available
on a perpetual basis.

PMR> I completely agree. Open repositories and maybe national libraries are
the primary guarantee of indefinite Openness. There have (I believe) been
examples of Open Access journals being purchased and then disappearing.
There is also the problem of "hybrid" open access becoming closed by
"mistake". I have certainly highlighted this in the past. IMO Libraries
should be assiduousy ingesting "hybrid" and publicising the contents and
location and adding search engines.

P

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069>

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


-- 
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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to publish
under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have
input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where their
works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's meaning
and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds
abhorrent)?

Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.

The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA posting
of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem?
That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?

Sandy thatcher



On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with this
being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the University’s
requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to
the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic
freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
>I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have
seen a few
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below)
>Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to
choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into
the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement that:
“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright ownership
(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the
place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
>
>Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing requirements.
This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real threat
to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and academia. As
the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had
enough of experts”
https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not
even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars.
>
>Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
>
>Danny
>
>*
>The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’
>
>The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open
access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*, one of
my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this
comment:
>
>“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
>“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.”
(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)
>
>In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the
comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).
>
>Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher
Education
 is  primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members and 
students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or 
retaliation”.
>
>This definition was based on the American Association of University 
>Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic 
>Freedom
> which includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in the 
>publication of results”.
>
>Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, not 
>that they have full freedom in choosing where.
>
>Rick has since contacted the 
>AAUP
> to ask for clarification on this topic. Last Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP 
>has declined to revisit the 1940 statement to clarify the ‘freedom in 
>publication’ statement in light of evolution of scholarly communication since 
>1940.
>
>The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ 
>threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. In 
>the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets because 
>colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications were 
>effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Klaus Graf]

Repeating wrong answers makes them not right. We have discussed this
several times and I cannot see the sense to do this once again.

I have made my point clear in 2012:

https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.1043/

Klaus Graf



2018-03-24 20:26 GMT+01:00 SANFORD G THATCHER :

> So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to
> publish
> under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to
> have
> input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where
> their
> works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's
> meaning
> and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author
> finds
> abhorrent)?
>
> Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.
>
> The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA
> posting
> of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
> publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
> have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
> saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this
> problem?
> That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?
>
> Sandy thatcher
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with
> this
> being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
> akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the
> University’s
> requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition
> to
> the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic
> freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we
> have
> seen a few
> https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05 (relevant bits below)
> >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to
> choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
> about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into
> the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement
> that:
> “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
> academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright
> ownership
> (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and
> the
> place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
> >
> >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing
> requirements.
> This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real
> threat
> to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and
> academia. As
> the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had
> enough of experts”
> https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not
> even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and
> stars.
> >
> >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
> >
> >Danny
> >
> >*
> >The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’
> >
> >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open
> access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*,
> one of
> my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this
> comment:
> >
> >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
> >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.”
> (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)
> >
> >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the
> comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).
> >
> >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher
> Education 12/21/defining-academic-freedom> is  primarily that “Academic freedom
> means that both faculty members and students can engage in intellectual
> debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”.
> >
> >This definition was based on the American Association of University
> Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> which
> includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in the
> publication of results”.
> >
> >Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish,
> not that they have full freedom in choosing where.
> >
> >Rick has since contacted the AAUP sspnet.org/2018/03/05/open-letter-aaup-faculty-authors-
> full-freedom-publication/> to ask for clarification on this topic. Last
> Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

I have been arguing none of those three.

Jeroen



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


 Original message 
From: Heather Morrison 
Date: 24/03/2018 18:20 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Jeroen,

For clarification, can you confirm that you are arguing:

1. The "royalty free" clause in CC-BY means that works licensed CC-BY means a) 
the copyright holder is obliged to make the work available for free and b) no 
one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access 
services?

2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" 
Date: 2018-03-24 12:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[David Wojick]

I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, 
which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from 
regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may 
restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything 
to do with academic freedom.

So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do 
with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright 
does not do this.

David

David Wojick
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to publish
>under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have
>input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where their
>works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's meaning
>and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds
>abhorrent)?
>
>Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.
>
>The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA 
>posting
>of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
>publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
>have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
>saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem?
>That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?
>
>Sandy thatcher
>
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up 
> with this
>being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
>akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the University’s
>requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to
>the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic
>freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have
>seen a few
>https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below)
> >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to
>choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
>about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into
>the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement 
>that:
>“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
>academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright ownership
>(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the
>place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
> >
> >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing 
> requirements.
>This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real threat
>to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and 
>academia. As
>the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had
>enough of experts”
>https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not
>even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars.
> >
> >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
> >
> >Danny
> >
> >*
> >The new scare ­ threats to ‘Academic Freedom’
> >
> >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about 
> open
>access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*, one of
>my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this
>comment:
> >
> >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
> >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.”
>(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)
> >
> >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the
>comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).
> >
> >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher
>Education
> 
>is  primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members and 
>students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or 
>retaliation”.
> >
> >This definition was based on the American Association of University 
> Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic 
> Freedom
>  
> which includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in 
> the publication of results”.
> >
> >Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to 
> publish, not that they have full f

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 7:26 PM, SANFORD G THATCHER  wrote:

> So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to
> publish
> under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to
> have
> input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where
> their
> works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's
> meaning
> and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author
> finds
> abhorrent)?
>
> Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.
>
> The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA
> posting
> of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
> publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
> have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
> saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this
> problem?
> That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?
>
> Sandy thatcher
>

This is the clear distinction between rights under copyright and author's
moral rights. Moral rights are not affected by copyright or licences. From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights :

>>

*Moral rights* are rights  of
creators of copyrighted  works
generally recognized in civil law
 jurisdictions and,
to a lesser extent, in some common law
 jurisdictions. They include the
right of attribution ,
the right to have a work published anonymously
 or pseudonymously
, and the right to the integrity
of the work.[1] 
The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to
alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to
the author's honor or reputation".[2]
 Anything else that
may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it
leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights
into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to
copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a
work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the
work.[3] 
PMR> The author can defend their moral rights just as well with CC BY as
with "all rights reserved".

It is a pity that some parties, including for-profit publishers, argue that
CC NC-ND protects the author against misuse of their work. In STEM subjects
it often hands a monopoly interest to the *publisher* , not the author. The
use of default NC/ND licences by some publishers, also when coupled to
lower fees to attract authors to hand over monopoly rights, is seriously
regrettable and seriously holds back the re-use of knowledge in STEM
subjects.

In STEM, if the researcher doesn't accept the CC BY of funders such as
Wellcome Trust (who have an excellent resource on CC BY:
https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/creative-commons-attribution-licence-cc)
they don't have to take the funding. I assume the same holds in non-STEM
subjects. If an academic wishes to write a book without funding, their
issue is with their employer.


P.


-- 
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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Heather Morrison]

Ok. It is helpful in discussion to know if we are talking about the same thing. 
Here is another aim at clarification:

Public domain refers to works that are no longer in copyright. This means that 
the original copyright holder no longer has exclusive economic or moral rights. 
This means that anyone can take the work and do whatever they like with it. 
This includes making the work available for free or selling it as is, or making 
a derivative and making that available for free or for sale as they please. 
Attribution of the original is not required.

Do you agree? If so, shortening the period of copyright for scholarly works has 
this effect in this time frame.

If you do not agree with this statement, can you explain why?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" 
Date: 2018-03-24 4:04 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

I have been arguing none of those three.

Jeroen



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


 Original message 
From: Heather Morrison 
Date: 24/03/2018 18:20 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Jeroen,

For clarification, can you confirm that you are arguing:

1. The "royalty free" clause in CC-BY means that works licensed CC-BY means a) 
the copyright holder is obliged to make the work available for free and b) no 
one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access 
services?

2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" 
Date: 2018-03-24 12:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your reaction. I should have said "Any publication shared with a 
CC-license is free of charges, as is any publication you find online shared 
with a public domain dedication. Period."

Of course, as you rightly say there can be paid (re)publications of works in 
the public domain. And indeed licenses (whether liberal or restricted) do not 
guarantee availability. That can only be promised but not guaranteed by 
libraries and sustainable online archives with good contingency plans.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Downes, 
Stephen [stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 5:35 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access


Jeroen Bosman wrote, "Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of 
charges, as is any publication in the public domain. Period."


This is simply not true.


Thomas Hardy's book 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' is public domain, having been 
published in 1886. However, if you go to a book store and try to take a copy 
without paying, you will be arrested and charged with theft.


If you search for it online, you can find it for sale on Amazon and other 
sites. You will have to pay money before they give you a copy.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56759.The_Mayor_of_Casterbridge


It is true that you can find it for free on sites like Project Gutenberg.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/143/143-h/143-h.htm


But it's availability for free is not guaranteed by the license. Someone like 
Project Gutenberg must make it available for download. If this doesn't happen, 
then the only way to get a copy to pay money. Even if it's CC or public domain.


-- Stephen



Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:08 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples 

[GOAL] Derivative works that scholars don't want

[Heather Morrison]

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

Universities in the US under copyright law could, if they so chose, to specify
that all faculty writings done in the course of their employment that relate to
their academic careers are to be regarded as "work made for hire."  Under that
regime academic authors would have no rights at all with respect to their
publications. So, yes, copyright could, in theory, be used to take away all
choice. That might not be a matter of content, but I see no reason to restrict
the meaning of "academic freedom" to just the idea that appears in the AAUP's
statement. That's an arbitrary definition.

Sandy Thatcher

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:02 PM David Wojick  wrote:
>
>I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, 
>which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from 
>regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may 
>restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything 
>to do with academic freedom.
>
>So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do 
>with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright 
>does not do this.
>
>David
>
>David Wojick
>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
>At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>>So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to publish
>>under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have
>>input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where their
>>works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's meaning
>>and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds
>>abhorrent)?
>>
>>Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.
>>
>>The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA 
>>posting
>>of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
>>publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
>>have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
>>saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem?
>>That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?
>>
>>Sandy thatcher
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up 
>> with this
>>being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
>>akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the
University’s
>>requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to
>>the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the
academic
>>freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
>> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have
>>seen a few
>>https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below)
>> >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to
being able to
>>choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
>>about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown
into
>>the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement 
>>that:
>>“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
>>academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright
ownership
>>(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the
>>place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
>> >
>> >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing 
>> requirements.
>>This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real threat
>>to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and 
>>academia. As
>>the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have
had
>>enough of experts”
>>https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s
not
>>even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars.
>> >
>> >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
>> >
>> >Danny
>> >
>> >*
>> >The new scare ­ threats to ‘Academic Freedom’
>> >
>> >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions
about 
>> open
>>access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*, one of
>>my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this
>>comment:
>> >
>> >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
>> >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in
IHEs.”
>>(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)
>> >
>> >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic
Freedom’ part of the
>>comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).
>> >
>> >Acad

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Heather Morrison]

The Canadian Association of University Teachers' policy statement on academic 
freedom section 5 addresses academic governance, that is, academic staff should 
have a major role in governance in all matters pertaining to academic work, 
i.e. curriculum, tenure and promotion: 
https://www.caut.ca/about-us/caut-policy/lists/caut-policy-statements/policy-statement-on-academic-freedom

In other words, in Canada decisions about the copyright of the work of 
academics (teaching materials as well as publication) is considered part of 
academic freedom.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: SANFORD G THATCHER 
Date: 2018-03-24 5:07 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: David Wojick 
Cc: goal@eprints.org, scholcomm , Danny Kingsley 

Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

Universities in the US under copyright law could, if they so chose, to specify
that all faculty writings done in the course of their employment that relate to
their academic careers are to be regarded as "work made for hire."  Under that
regime academic authors would have no rights at all with respect to their
publications. So, yes, copyright could, in theory, be used to take away all
choice. That might not be a matter of content, but I see no reason to restrict
the meaning of "academic freedom" to just the idea that appears in the AAUP's
statement. That's an arbitrary definition.

Sandy Thatcher

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:02 PM David Wojick  wrote:
>
>I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom,
>which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from
>regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may
>restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything
>to do with academic freedom.
>
>So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do
>with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright
>does not do this.
>
>David
>
>David Wojick
>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
>At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>>So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to publish
>>under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have
>>input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where their
>>works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's meaning
>>and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds
>>abhorrent)?
>>
>>Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.
>>
>>The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA
>>posting
>>of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
>>publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
>>have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
>>saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem?
>>That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?
>>
>>Sandy thatcher
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up
>> with this
>>being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
>>akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the
University’s
>>requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to
>>the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the
academic
>>freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
>> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have
>>seen a few
>>https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below)
>> >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to
being able to
>>choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
>>about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown
into
>>the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement
>>that:
>>“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
>>academics are not consistent with academic freedom.� But copyright
ownership
>>(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the
>>place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom.
>> >
>> >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing
>> requirements.
>>This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real threat
>>to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and
>>academia. As
>>the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have
had
>>enough of experts�
>>https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s
not
>>even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars.
>> >
>> >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter.
>> >
>> >Da

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Danny Kingsley]

Hi all,

I would very much welcome a concrete example (or two..) of the scenario 
described below where a work has been taken and distorted to the extent an 
author would actually wish to have their name removed as an originator of the 
work. It is a scenario often used by people concerned about the Non Derivative 
aspect of Creative Commons licenses. It is my understanding that Creative 
Commons themselves have not had any examples of this type provided to them in 
discussions about the ND aspect of their license. In the UK we are similarly 
asking for examples and have not managed to unearth any to date. It would help 
hugely before we make national decisions on policies whether concerns being 
raised are actual problems or not.

On the thesis issue, this is indeed something I am actively managing working 
through a new policy at my institution and I am working from the premise that 
we must give our students the best possible opportunity to succeed. That means 
different things for different disciplines and it is important to ensure that 
we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in both directions. It is not 
helpful to have a moratorium of 10 years on all theses to ensure the small 
percentage who require an embargo of a period of time to secure publication are 
protected. Equally we do not want to put those students at risk by insisting on 
blanket immediate OA. It requires nuance.

But I would like to point out that in the consultations I have now had working 
with two institutions, I know of several cases where theses have been published 
as books under another person's name. These were all theses that were 
'protected' by All Rights Reserved. They were not born digital theses, they had 
had to be requested and then digitised and a single copy sent to a 
person/library. In at least one case where a thesis was heavily plagiarised and 
submitted as someone else's thesis the work was never digitised. It is still 
unclear how it happened. 

So we do, to a large degree actually rely on 'scholarly culture', not copyright 
law to protect us. Lizzie Gadd explains it much better than I do 
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/31/guest-post-academics-copyright-ownership-ignorant-confused-misled/
 

This is again, however detracting from the point I was trying to make. We have 
bigger fish to fry. There will be no 'academic' - free or not - if we are not 
vigilant in our current political climate. 

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services
Cambridge University Library
e: da...@cam.ac.uk
p: 01223 747 437
m: 07711 500 564
On 24/03/2018, 19:27, "SANFORD G THATCHER"  wrote:

So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to 
publish
under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have
input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where 
their
works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's 
meaning
and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds
abhorrent)?

Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why.

The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA 
posting
of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a
publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.)
have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are
saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem?
That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either?

Sandy thatcher



On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley  wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with 
this
being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is
akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the University’s
requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition 
to
the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic
freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria.
>I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have
seen a few
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p?05 (relevant bits below)
>Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to
choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion
about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into
the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement 
that:
“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by
academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright ownership
(other than the moral right to be identified