[GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Heather Morrison <
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:

>
> This may help to explain why universities are avoiding the license in
> spite of the risk of expensive litigation, and why I suggest that a
> voluntary $181 USD fee for re-use of 5 figures is, in comparison, a model
> of transparency and a bargain.
>
> *** voluntary***???
This is no more voluntary than a paywall or subscription.


> Copyright collectives are organizations that have a particular approach
> and culture. People in other countries may find their local collectives
> easier to work with.
>
> Authors, publishers, and teachers do need to use works that are under
> copyright, sometimes in ways that go beyond fair use / fair dealing. Open
> licensing simplifies matters for some works, but not all works are, or ever
> will be, openly licensed. An organization like CCC makes it possible to
> find out who owns the rights and obtain permission. This saves time and
> sometimes makes to possible to re-use works when otherwise the use would be
> abandoned due to the complexity of finding copyright owners and negotiating
> use.
>

CCC are purely a rent-extractor whose only concern is maximising income for
publishers. By making re-users pay for Open Access they are destroying the
credibility of Open Access.
All those who argue for restricted re-use (NC, ND) must realise that this
pours huge amounts of money into publishers which are contributing
nothing. An there is no logic in the world that says that pharma companies
should pay tens of thousands to publishers for "open access" however much
you feel they can pay. And this destroys so much re-use for teaching, new
books, new research, etc..

It's about time that others take up this issue. There is no excuse for
paying Elsevier or many other publishers for OpenAccess re-use.



> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 8:20:52 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access
> Advisory Group
>
> Thank you, the Cell example is helpful.
>
> If you look up Cell on Sherpa Romeo you will see that authors can
> self-archive their preprint on noncommercial servers such as arXiv and
> bioRxiv at no cost and with no delay:
> https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?source=journal&sourceid=6580&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple
>
> In brief: this is what I recommend to authors and funders.
>
> Details:
>
> Relyx (Elsevier's parent company) is a corporation with a mandate to
> return profit to shareholders. In the case of Cell, revenue and profit is
> derived from selling the journal through subscriptions and selling re-use
> rights. For-profit scholarly publishers by definition must make a profit.
>
> 181 USD for the use of 5 figures is a model of transparency and a bargain
> in comparison with legally obligatory non-transparent blanket licensing as
> Canada's copyright collectives are demanding for limited rights that might
> not cover this case.
>
> If the figures are in an arXiv version and the downstream author cannot
> afford the 181 USD, they can cite the arXiv version at no cost. There is a
> small cost in inconvenience, but no loss of knowledge.
>
> Elsevier appears to be interpreting NC as necessary to their downstream
> commercial re-use rights. This is a matter of interpretation. NC/ND with
> author copyright means authors retain these rights, not publishers.  CC
> licenses with no NC grant blanket commercial rights to anyone. Under CC-BY
> for example, anyone could charge whatever they like for the 5 figures.
> Whether they could do this through CCC per se depends on CCC policy and
> practice, not the license. With blanket downstream commercial rights,
> anyone can set up a for-pay image database.
>
> My recommendation: authors of Cell articles should self-archive preprints
> for open access and take advantage of pre-submission peer review (a
> community practice in arXiv) in order to post a preprint that has been peer
> reviewed. For the future: further develop this model and eliminate the role
> of the for-profit publisher.
>
> I do not recommend paying for Elsevier postprint OA under any license.
> Their use of NC and ND is problematic. but so is their use of CC-BY.
>
> best,
>
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight
> Project
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:02:15 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access
> Advisory Group
>
> *Attention : courriel externe | external email*
> Typical example,
> Skimmed through Cell to the first CC - NC - ND article:
>
> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.055
> Copyright
> © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
> User License Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC
> BY-NC-ND 4.0) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/> |
> How you can reuse
> <https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30626-9#> [image:
> Information Icon]
>
> Go to RightsLInk
> Enter as academic author writing a book with CUP and requiring 5 figures.
> CCC requires me to pay 181 USD to Elsevier / CCC
> Try it yourself
>
> It's irrelevant in practice who s the copyright owner , the total
> transparency is that Elsevier can extort rent for all CC -NC they pubish
> even if the author has copyright.
> Transparency = daylight robbery
>
> --
> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I
> sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".
>
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>


-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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/20190913/9977ef6e/attachment.html