[GOAL] Re: OASPA Adds Licensing FAQs Page to Information Resources

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca> wrote:

>
> >
> > One set of licensing terms applies to their generic web content, and the
> other to specific
> > articles that are surfaced via that website.  This isn't a conflict in
> licensing terms as different
> > things are being licensed, although the presentation could perhaps be a
> bit clearer.
> >
>
>

> Quite an understatement! One wonders if this kind of confusion is
> deliberate, or simply evidence that copyright matters are not taken
> seriously enough by (some) publishers.
>
> In many cases this is (a) historical / ignorance / laziness (b)
deliberate. I have written to several publishers. A common phrase is "this
journal is copyright FooBar" - the implication being that an all-knowing
superintelligent reader can work out that the article is not copyright
FooBar. I think it's critical that publishers highlight the fact that the
articles are copyright(Authors) and/or the article is CC-BY. It's
demeaning to authors and funders not to have their efforts formally and
prominently recorded.

Other variants include "this site is copyright FooBar". University
repositories are as bad as some publishers in this respect.




-- 
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/20130306/94b1145d/attachment.html