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

[Pippa Smart]

When I worked for a development publisher we used a version of the CC
licence for both our online and printed and CD books. Online was
available for free. Printed and CD books were sold - but the purchaser
could then reuse the content as they wished. So, yes, it is entirely
possible to put a CC-BY licence onto something that you sell (either
digitally or in hard copy).

It is possible to change a licence after publication. For example
several publishers have changed their licences from more restrictive
to less restrictive over the years. However, it is harder to change
online licences from less restrictive (e.g. CC-BY) to more restrictive
(e.g. CC-BY-ND) - the reason is that the user could easily say that
they access the material when it was available with the earlier - less
restrictive - licence. This is one of the reasons why publishers are
cautious about freeing up the content - knowing that it will be harder
to add restrictions if they later discover a problem (such as the
derivative one you mentioned).
Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK
Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255
email: pippa.smart at gmail.com
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
****
Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
****


On 20 August 2012 18:38, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> wrote:
> Possible solution?
>
> IF a funding agency were to require that any open access article processing fees covered by their funding require both CC-BY AND active deposit in a trusted digital open access archive (OpenDOAR lists thousands), this might be a solution to the problem that I raise below.
> OpenDOAR: http://www.opendoar.org/'
>
> The controlled LOCKSS or CLOCKSS network provides a useful model to look at, based on the scenario of a journal ceasing publication) - details about CLOCKSS can be found here:
> http://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home
>
> Comment: in my opinion, this to me is just one illustration that an open access future that involves both open access archives and open access publishing is more sustainable for scholarly communication than either approach alone.
>
> Original question follows.
>
> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to one's work, including commercial rights, for open access. My own take on this is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool for those fully engaged in the open access spirit, the license is problematic for open access. This is important now that funding agencies in the U.K. are beginning to require CC-BY licenses when they fund open access article processing fees. That is to say, we are now looking at a situation where organizations that do not have any commitment to (or even liking for) open access, may be required to use this license.
>
> Some questions that I think should be raised at this point:
>
> The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor is there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to works that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.      Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere that this license is only for open access works?
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to be the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with significant loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it is recommended as a standard for open access.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison, MLIS
> Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal