Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?

[Lee Giles]

It's important to note that, at least in the US, facts, data and ideas
are not copyrightable.
> http://www.lib.umich.edu/copyright/facts-and-data
Lee
On 3/3/16 10:40 AM, Pippa Smart wrote:
> I believe moral rights (attribution and integrity) are upheld in UK law (
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/IV)
>
> My own issue with CC BY is that its simplicity results in a clumsy catchall
> - for example, few authors would object to figures from their work being
> used in another work (=derivative work), but might be unhappy about a
> translation being produced without their knowledge (=derivative work).
>
> Your point about commercial use is well made since this is the area where I
> hear most complaints from authors - the fact that their publisher can make
> money is accepted in many cases, but the idea that a third party can
> "freeload" and make money out of their work is often considered
> unacceptable.
>
> Pippa
>
> *
> Pippa Smart
> Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
> PSP Consulting
> Oxford, UK
> Tel: +44 1865 864255 or +44 7775 627688
> email: pippa.sm...@gmail.com
> Web: www.pspconsulting.org
> @LearnedPublish
> 
> Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing:
> http://www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing
> Editor of the ALPSP Alert: http://www.alpsp.org/ALPSP-Alert
> 
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 13:46, Sandy Thatcher  wrote:
>
>> Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first issue of
>> the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication back in 2012:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint
>> _Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License
>>
>> I was particularly concerned about translations.  It should be noted, by
>> the way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote this
>> article contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., as part of
>> the license terms. That part was dropped in later iterations, and the only
>> reference now is this: "Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are
>> not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or
>> other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the
>> Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the
>> Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the
>> Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." In other words, licensors do not give
>> up their moral rights by offering this license to users, but since moral
>> rights are not recognized under British or US law (with a very limited
>> exception under US law to works of fine art), that clause is of little
>> comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors.
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
>>
>> I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize that
>> translations may be a problem for HSS authors.
>>
>> There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be
>> addressed: "Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the
>> originator of a work that is subsequently sold on is not personally losing
>> a revenue stream." Just because an academic author may not be motivated by
>> personal monetary gain does not mean that a personal revenue stream is not,
>> in fact, lost in some circumstances. As former director of Penn State
>> University Press, I can cite examples of authors who benefited to the tune
>> of thousands of dollars from the reprinting of their articles from some of
>> the journals we published.
>>
>> There is a general problem also with the definition of what is
>> "commercial." When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several years
>> ago as to what people understand to be the meaning of this word in the
>> context of publishing, there was little consensus beyond a very small core
>> of shared understanding of what the term means.
>>
>> Sandy Thatcher
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:11 PM + 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at
>> Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons
>> Attribution licences.
>>
>> Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?
>> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555
>>
>> A taster:
>> ***
>>
>> Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet
>> about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic
>> community. However, in conversation with some legal people and
>> contemporaries at other institutions one of the observations was that
>> generally academics are not necessarily cognizant with what the licences
>> offer and indeed what protections are available under regular copyright.
>>
>> To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or
>> if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at
>> Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture o

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?

[Chris Bird]

Sandy

Moral rights (the right to attribution; the right to object to derogatory 
treatment; the right to object to false attribution; and, now, the right to 
privacy over certain types of photograph and film) are in fact very much 
recognised under UK law.

Best wishes
Chris

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 03 March 2016 13:46
To: Danny Kingsley; lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk; lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk; 
goal@eprints.org; ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk; scholc...@lists.ala.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we 
boxing shadows?

Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first issue of the 
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication back in 2012: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint_Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License

I was particularly concerned about translations.  It should be noted, by the 
way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote this article 
contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., as part of the license 
terms. That part was dropped in later iterations, and the only reference now is 
this: "Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under 
this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar 
personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or 
agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent 
necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." In 
other words, licensors do not give up their moral rights by offering this 
license to users, but since moral rights are not recognized under British or US 
law (with a very limited exception under US law to works of fine art), that 
clause is of little comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize that 
translations may be a problem for HSS authors.

There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be addressed: 
"Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the originator of a work 
that is subsequently sold on is not personally losing a revenue stream." Just 
because an academic author may not be motivated by personal monetary gain does 
not mean that a personal revenue stream is not, in fact, lost in some 
circumstances. As former director of Penn State University Press, I can cite 
examples of authors who benefited to the tune of thousands of dollars from the 
reprinting of their articles from some of the journals we published.

There is a general problem also with the definition of what is "commercial." 
When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several years ago as to what 
people understand to be the meaning of this word in the context of publishing, 
there was little consensus beyond a very small core of shared understanding of 
what the term means.

Sandy Thatcher




At 12:11 PM + 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote:


Dear all,

You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at 
Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons 
Attribution licences.
Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555

A taster:
***
Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet about the 
Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic community. 
However, in conversation with some legal people and contemporaries at other 
institutions one of the observations was that generally academics are not 
necessarily cognizant with what the licences offer and indeed what protections 
are available under regular copyright.
To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or if 
there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at 
Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of 
academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners.
In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences do not encourage 
plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is a 
broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences could pose 
problems for the moral integrity of the work and cause issues with 
translations. CC-BY licenses do create challenges for works containing 
sensitive information and for works containing third party copyright.

**
Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam problem with the 
blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried (we are working on this).

Thanks

Danny
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@ca

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?

[Pippa Smart]

I believe moral rights (attribution and integrity) are upheld in UK law (
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/IV)

My own issue with CC BY is that its simplicity results in a clumsy catchall
- for example, few authors would object to figures from their work being
used in another work (=derivative work), but might be unhappy about a
translation being produced without their knowledge (=derivative work).

Your point about commercial use is well made since this is the area where I
hear most complaints from authors - the fact that their publisher can make
money is accepted in many cases, but the idea that a third party can
"freeload" and make money out of their work is often considered
unacceptable.

Pippa

*
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
Oxford, UK
Tel: +44 1865 864255 or +44 7775 627688
email: pippa.sm...@gmail.com
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
@LearnedPublish

Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing:
http://www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing
Editor of the ALPSP Alert: http://www.alpsp.org/ALPSP-Alert


On 3 March 2016 at 13:46, Sandy Thatcher  wrote:

> Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first issue of
> the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication back in 2012:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint
> _Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License
>
> I was particularly concerned about translations.  It should be noted, by
> the way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote this
> article contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., as part of
> the license terms. That part was dropped in later iterations, and the only
> reference now is this: "Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are
> not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or
> other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the
> Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the
> Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the
> Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." In other words, licensors do not give
> up their moral rights by offering this license to users, but since moral
> rights are not recognized under British or US law (with a very limited
> exception under US law to works of fine art), that clause is of little
> comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors.
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
>
> I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize that
> translations may be a problem for HSS authors.
>
> There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be
> addressed: "Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the
> originator of a work that is subsequently sold on is not personally losing
> a revenue stream." Just because an academic author may not be motivated by
> personal monetary gain does not mean that a personal revenue stream is not,
> in fact, lost in some circumstances. As former director of Penn State
> University Press, I can cite examples of authors who benefited to the tune
> of thousands of dollars from the reprinting of their articles from some of
> the journals we published.
>
> There is a general problem also with the definition of what is
> "commercial." When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several years
> ago as to what people understand to be the meaning of this word in the
> context of publishing, there was little consensus beyond a very small core
> of shared understanding of what the term means.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
>
> At 12:11 PM + 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote:
>
> 
>
> Dear all,
>
> You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at
> Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons
> Attribution licences.
>
> Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555
>
> A taster:
> ***
>
> Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet
> about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic
> community. However, in conversation with some legal people and
> contemporaries at other institutions one of the observations was that
> generally academics are not necessarily cognizant with what the licences
> offer and indeed what protections are available under regular copyright.
>
> To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or
> if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at
> Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of
> academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners.
>
> In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences *do not* encourage
> plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is
> a broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences *could* pose
> problems for th

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?

[Rick Anderson]

Thanks very much for sharing these notes and the blog post, Danny. A couple of 
comments:

1. I think it’s interesting that plagiarism keeps being raised as a CC BY 
issue, since plagiarism is not a reuse issue but rather an attribution issue — 
it’s pretending that you wrote something someone else did. Those who raise it 
in the context of CC BY probably don’t understand (or aren’t thinking clearly 
about) the very important difference between plagiarism and piracy.

2. One issue that (as far as I can see from the notes) doesn’t seem to have 
gotten the attention it deserves is that of mandates. The pros and cons of CC 
BY are very important to understand and discuss, but so is the question of the 
degree to which adopting CC BY for one’s work ought to be a condition of 
receiving research funding, or of graduation, or of employment. This latter 
issue is getting much less discussion, unfortunately, than the implications of 
CC BY itself. Speaking personally, I think CC BY is wonderful and I’m very glad 
that it’s available as an option to authors. I’m much less comfortable with 
making it mandatory.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.ander...@utah.edu

From: mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> 
on behalf of Danny Kingsley
Organization: University of Cambridge
Reply-To: Danny Kingsley
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:11 AM
To: "lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk", 
"lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk", 
"goal@eprints.org", 
"ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk", 
SCHOLCOMM
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?



Dear all,

You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at 
Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons 
Attribution licences.

Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555

A taster:
***

Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet about the 
Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic community. 
However, in conversation with some legal people and contemporaries at other 
institutions one of the observations was that generally academics are not 
necessarily cognizant with what the licences offer and indeed what protections 
are available under regular copyright.

To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or if 
there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at 
Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of 
academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners.

In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences do not encourage 
plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is a 
broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences could pose 
problems for the moral integrity of the work and cause issues with 
translations. CC-BY licenses do create challenges for works containing 
sensitive information and for works containing third party copyright.

**
Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam problem with the 
blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried (we are working on this).

Thanks

Danny

--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?

[Sandy Thatcher]

Klaus Graf and I debated this question in an article in the first 
issue of the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 
back in 2012: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254667054_Point_Counterpoint_Is_CC_BY_the_Best_Open_Access_License


I was particularly concerned about translations.  It should be noted, 
by the way, that the CC BY license in existence at the time we wrote 
this article contained a reference to distortion, mutilation, etc., 
as part of the license terms. That part was dropped in later 
iterations, and the only reference now is this: "Moral rights, such 
as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public 
License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality 
rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or 
agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the 
limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed 
Rights, but not otherwise." In other words, licensors do not give up 
their moral rights by offering this license to users, but since moral 
rights are not recognized under British or US law (with a very 
limited exception under US law to works of fine art), that clause is 
of little comfort or utility for Anglo-American authors.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

I am glad to see that the Cambridge discussion continues to recognize 
that translations may be a problem for HSS authors.


There is one non sequitur in the Cambridge summary that needs to be 
addressed: "Academics do not publish in journals for money, so the 
originator of a work that is subsequently sold on is not personally 
losing a revenue stream." Just because an academic author may not be 
motivated by personal monetary gain does not mean that a personal 
revenue stream is not, in fact, lost in some circumstances. As former 
director of Penn State University Press, I can cite examples of 
authors who benefited to the tune of thousands of dollars from the 
reprinting of their articles from some of the journals we published.


There is a general problem also with the definition of what is 
"commercial." When Creative Commons itself conducted a survey several 
years ago as to what people understand to be the meaning of this word 
in the context of publishing, there was little consensus beyond a 
very small core of shared understanding of what the term means.


Sandy Thatcher




At 12:11 PM + 3/3/16, Danny Kingsley wrote:



Dear all,

You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion 
held at Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of 
Creative Commons Attribution licences.


Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555


A taster:
***

Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some 
disquiet about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of 
the academic community. However, in conversation with some legal 
people and contemporaries at other institutions one of the 
observations was that generally academics are not necessarily 
cognizant with what the licences offer and indeed what protections 
are available under regular copyright.


To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy 
problem or if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion 
on 29 February at Cambridge University attended by about 35 people 
who were a mixture of academics, administrators, publishers and 
legal practitioners.


In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences do 
not encourage plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within 
academia (although there is a broader ethical issue). However in 
some cases CC-BY licences could pose problems for the moral 
integrity of the work and cause issues with translations. CC-BY 
licenses do create challenges for works containing sensitive 
information and for works containing third party copyright.


**
Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam 
problem with the blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried 
(we are working on this).


Thanks

Danny
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939



--
Sanford G. Thatcher
Frisco, TX  75034-5514
https://scholarsphere.psu.edu


"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)

"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people 
who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)


"Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance 
with the limitations and incapacities of the human 
misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906)
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org