[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and - or versus - open access

[Marc Couture]

Heather Morrison asks four questions about the CC-BY license



>

> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere
that this

> license is only for open access works?

>



No, but it makes any work to which it is attached de facto OA.



>

> 2. Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license on
toll-access

> works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a licensee).

>



There is no other reason that it would be completely pointless. Once a work
is labelled CC-BY, anyone can post it on a freely available website. So,
theoretically, as Arthur Smith points out, such a publisher could sell one
copy (or collect one pay-per-view fee) before the work is made freely
available. But even then, the author, or anybody who has a copy of the
manuscript, or of the work itself, can also put it on a website.



The only thing that could make sense, and this was discussed here in regard
to service providers that asked a fee to access works which had been made
freely available (with a CC-BY license) by the original publisher.





>

> 3. Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from changing
their license

> at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is the publisher's, not
the author's).

>

> 4. Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing an
open access

> publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the formerly open
access

> journals under a toll-access model and dropping the open access versions?
The license

> would not permit a third party to do this, but what I am asking about is
if the original

> licensor sells to another publisher.

>



As stated in the legal code, the CC licenses are perpetual, which means as
far as I can understand that they can't be modified or rescinded.



But consider the hypothetical case of a dishonest publisher which would try
to sell works that were previously freely available under a CC-license.
First, he has to hide the license, which would constitute a serious
misrepresentation (I'm no lawyer, but I suspect it's illegal). Second, as
anybody can put on a freely available website a CC-licensed work, chances
are that multiple copies of the works have already been made freely
available.



But such things could happen, and maybe some works would not be OA anymore.
That makes me wonder if one shouldn't self-archive even when the work is
published under a CC license. Personally, that’s what I do.

Marc Couture
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120817/85d26e51/attachment.html