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

[Wilhelmina Randtke]

Something that hasn't come up yet: The open access model has, usually, an
author as an individual, then a separate publisher.  A different,
non-standard, non-CC negotiation goes on between the author and publisher
before the article gets released.  Depending on what promises were made to
the author, that negotiation might prevent the publisher later changing the
license under which it makes the work available.  The author might later be
able to challenge the changed license terms.  A random person probably
wouldn't have any way to challenge that.  Any challenge would be based on
promises made to the author to affect which venue to publish in, and not
based on the CC license.

If CC-BY needs to be assigned to meet a regulatory requirement, the CC-BY
license doesn't make that regulatory requirement drop out of the picture.
The regulation will give the terms by which it's met.

So, that's two things that might later prevent a publisher from releasing
under CC-BY and then later changing and only making the material available
on different terms.  Neither of those is in CC-BY, though.  Those are
related to circumstances surrounding the publication and any requirement
not to change would come from that.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120821/261ba353/attachment-0001.html