[GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 Suggestions

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Leslie Carr <lac at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> I assume that your problems with harvesting repositories are the publisher
> objections on the principle that the *author* is allowed to decide to
> deposit in the appropriate place, but that a third party does not have the
> right to make a deposit independently of the author's wishes. (For the
> purposes of this post I am ignoring the damage done to the concept of
> "Open" Access by this distinction.)
>

That's my interpretation. *I*  do not have any rights in much of the UK
repopsitory content. Lots of it says "everything in this repo is copyright
and you have no default rights". Here's Dspace at cam conditions:

*You may not further copy, reproduce, publish, post, broadcast, transmit,
make available to the public, hire, rent, lease, license, sell or otherwise
use a Deposited Work in whole or in part or in any manner or in any media
without the express written permission from the appropriate rights owner/s
of the Deposited Work/s.
* *
You must obtain written permission from all appropriate rights owner/s if
you wish to copy or use a Deposited Work in whole or in part for a direct
or indirect commercial purpose.

*
I take this seriously. I regard this as Cambridge prohibiting me and anyone
else from extracting any information. I do not break the law - I try to get
it changed (and wrote extensively to Hargreaves). If I am contesting the
appropriation of my and your content by publishers I cannot afford to break
the law.

It's different for large rich organizations. Google, Elsevier and others
have rich lawyers. Wiley pursued Shelley Batts with lawyers for posting a
single graph. Springer took all my Open material in BMC and copyrighted it.
They have stamped many third party copyright works with "Springer
Copyright". There is an assumption by many publishers that they effectively
own academic copyright.

I have effectively no rights - which Is why I fight for them. Green gives
me no rights unless it's CC-BY-* (which most of this list regards as second
priority). Gold gives me no rights unless it's CC-BY-*. Hybrid gives me no
rights unless it's CC-BY-*.

Stating that I can go ahead and break copyright laws because everyone else
does doesn't work for me..




> Whatever reason, and I think that the huge variety of Web search engines
> and OAI-PMH services has shown that "potentially hundreds of repositories"
> is really no obstacle, the repository community has invested in the
> capability to make automated deposits on behalf of their users into
> centralised repositories such as PMC. The SWORD protocol has for several
> years been supported by arXiv and used internationally by EPrints, DSpace
> and Fedora institutional repositories.
>
> Unless the rights are clear, PMC cannot trawl and ingest from random
repositories.


> For more information, see "Use Case 4" in "SWORD: Facilitating Deposit
> Scenarios " available from
> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january12/lewis/01lewis.html
>
> This means that a sustainable distributed network of institutional
> repositories, where local support and investment is provided for a local
> community of scientists and scholars, can support and supplement the
> centralised repositories which already exist.
>

Only if there is clear permission to re-use this and there is clear
navigation within the repo. Many repos mix deservedly-copyright works with
intended "green" works and it is impossible for a machine (or a human) to
work out what they have rights to and what they don't.



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130224/19fc42b1/attachment.html