[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

[Graham Triggs]

On 13/04/2015 14:09:02, Heather Morrison <heather.morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under copyright.
That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights that you grant to end users, and the conditions attached to that licence. Rather than a waiver, it is pre-authorisation to exercise rights that are normally reserved under copyright, without seeking express permission.

It's a really important difference when you consider that the licence also contains conditions under which invalidates the licence for an end user. Say, for example, you completely misrepresented someone through re-use of their work - that would invalidate the licence as it applies to you. Not only would you be unable to re-use the work in that way, you would not be allowed any future re-use of the original work under a CC-BY licence, without express permission.
In those circumstances, the full extent of copyright restrictions can be applied against you, as someone without access to the CC-BY licence.
However, that does raise an interesting question about licensor vs copyright holder - if an end user invalidated the CC-BY licence as granted to them, who would be able to authorise any future use: PLoS, or the author(s)?
G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150413/3d4df9d8/attachment.html