[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pippa Smart <pippa.smart at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a few issues here and I think it is important to separate them
> out.
>
> *$400 for course packs*
> OUP allows authors who want open access to select whether they want to
> restrict reuse of their article - to prevent commercial or derivative
> reuses. It is the authors that select the licence they want to use - unless
> their funder forces them to use a particular licence.
>
> The CC BY licence allows anyone (including OUP) to reuse content for
> commercial reasons - i.e. to sell the articles. CC BY means that if I want
> to use the articles to create a coursepack then I do not have to ask
> permission - the CC BY licence allows me to do this. It also allows me to
> sell my coursepacks (even if they comprise only CC BY articles). However if
> I "want" to pay then there is nothing to stop someone making a charge.
> [Example - someone has downloaded a series of OA CC BY articles published
> in PLOS Medicine and is selling them as a book on Amazon - this is entirely
> legitimate under CC BY].
>

Here is OUP's wording (via RightsLink) for re-use in a pharmaceutical
context for a ** CC-BY** article

>>Please Contact Oxford University Press

>>Please note republication of content for pharmaceutical use requires
authorization from an Oxford University Press customer service
representative directly. Please e-mail your request to
corporate.services at oup.com
PMR> This states categorically that OUP forbids the re-use of CC-BY
articles. I will not imply motivation to OUP - if it is deliberate then
they have a case to answer. If it is not, then does it reflect a high
standard of customer care (to the author, who has paid a lot of money)?

This is not an isolated case - it's endemic in the Scholarly publishing
industry. Elsevier calls it "The Bumpy Road" - i.e. we should feel sympathy
for Elsevier in the difficult task of getting this service right. Remember
that it costs a lot of money to publish CC-BY. The author's rights have
been ignored.

Much of the wording in Reuse Permissions is weighted towards purchase even
when the reader or re-user can technically get it somewhere for free.

And, of course, there is the additional ongoing problem when articles which
authors have paid to have Open, are hidden behind a paywall.

===========



> If an author wants to publish under a CC BY-non-commercial licence, then
> they must grant OUP commercial rights - otherwise OUP could not publish
> their work in this (commercial) journal.
>

The main problem here is exclusive, ongoing rights. Rights to publish are
not the same as re-use rights which (especially in the pharma industry) can
run into 7 figures for a single instance.


>
>
>
-- 
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/20160210/7c2d4398/attachment.html