<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Couture Marc</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc.couture@teluq.ca">marc.couture@teluq.ca</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM<br>Subject: [GOAL] Re: Simple Explanation of the Green Road<br>To: "<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br>
<br><br>I've got no problem with Andrew Adam's "advice" concerning publishers' possible (albeit unlikely) lawsuits or take-down requests when I read it in the context of the page where it appears.<br>
<br>
Andrew is careful enough to state first: "Where the publisher requires an embargo or does not allow for open access, the full text must still be deposited but set to closed access in the repository software."<br>
<br>
If one follows **this** advice, no copyright infringement will occur. But it is always possible that one misreads or misunderstands a publishers' policy, which may be sometimes unclear, even self-contradictory, as has been discussed in this forum. In that case, a good-faith response to a take-down notice (i.e. reverting to closed access) seems to me to satisfy both law and ethics.<br>
<br>
Marc Couture<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br></div>