<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">An entire shoal of red herrings, here. Much FUD. The situation is actually quite simple:<div><ul><li>The © licence of an article can only be changed retrospectively by the © holder</li><li>If the author/s is/are the © holder/s, the publisher cannot change the © licence</li><li>Whether the © is vested in the author or publisher, a © licence can only ever be changed from less open/less liberal to more open/more liberal; otherwise the user/reader can always claim to have read/used/distributed under the previous licence or not being aware of the new licence.</li><li>If a publishers changes the default © licence covering articles in a given journal, he can only do that going forward</li><li>Impecunious authors who cannot afford the services of a publisher can always deposit their articles – with a CC-BY licence – in an open repository and invite peers to review and comment</li><li>etc</li><li>etc</li></ul></div><div>Jan Velterop</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 21 Aug 2012, at 19:29, Heather Morrison wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>These are excellent points, Wilhelmina. I'd like to add that these other negotiations may make publisher transitions TO CC-BY from non-CC or other CC licenses problematic as well. For example, if a journal has published an article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license with the author understanding that a) they retain copyright and b) this will be the license, and the journal subsequently transitions all of its articles to CC-BY, then the journal has violated its contract (implicit or explicit) with the author. Note that many journal articles have multiple authors, so this is an oversimplification.<br><br>This is not a hypothetical situation, but I'd prefer not to name names. The journals that are doing this may be doing so under pressure from OA advocates with a strong belief in CC-BY.<br><br>It has happened to me in a group writing situation that someone else decided to change the group license to CC-BY without checking in with others. I had contributed considerable original writing, and would not have chosen this license. I was not happy, to put it mildly. It may be fortunate that I noticed early on and changed the license for my own work back to my preferred license. It may happen that someone else in a similar situation will find out that someone has used their work someone else decided to release as CC-BY by seeing a paywall on their work, someone else earning royalties on a book they wrote, for example. Given that an increasing portion of academics are working in precarious positions that in some countries may involve pay at below poverty levels, this would be not just legally but also morally wrong. <br><br>In my opinion, universities and government funding agencies should subsidize reasonable salaries for scholars and lower or free tuition for students before giving a second's thought to subsidizing for-profit commercial publishers.<br><br>my two bits,<br><br>Heather Morrison<br><br><br>On 2012-08-21, at 10:09 AM, Wilhelmina Randtke wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Something that hasn't come up yet: The open access model has, usually, an author as an individual, then a separate publisher. A different, non-standard, non-CC negotiation goes on between the author and publisher before the article gets released. Depending on what promises were made to the author, that negotiation might prevent the publisher later changing the license under which it makes the work available. The author might later be able to challenge the changed license terms. A random person probably wouldn't have any way to challenge that. Any challenge would be based on promises made to the author to affect which venue to publish in, and not based on the CC license.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If CC-BY needs to be assigned to meet a regulatory requirement, the CC-BY license doesn't make that regulatory requirement drop out of the picture. The regulation will give the terms by which it's met.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">So, that's two things that might later prevent a publisher from releasing under CC-BY and then later changing and only making the material available on different terms. Neither of those is in CC-BY, though. Those are related to circumstances surrounding the publication and any requirement not to change would come from that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-Wilhelmina Randtke<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Heather Morrison <<a href="mailto:hgmorris@sfu.ca">hgmorris@sfu.ca</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Possible solution?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">IF a funding agency were to require that any open access article processing fees covered by their funding require both CC-BY AND active deposit in a trusted digital open access archive (OpenDOAR lists thousands), this might be a solution to the problem that I raise below.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">OpenDOAR: <a href="http://www.opendoar.org/'">http://www.opendoar.org/'</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The controlled LOCKSS or CLOCKSS network provides a useful model to look at, based on the scenario of a journal ceasing publication) - details about CLOCKSS can be found here:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home">http://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Comment: in my opinion, this to me is just one illustration that an open access future that involves both open access archives and open access publishing is more sustainable for scholarly communication than either approach alone.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Original question follows.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to one's work, including commercial rights, for open access. My own take on this is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool for those fully engaged in the open access spirit, the license is problematic for open access. This is important now that funding agencies in the U.K. are beginning to require CC-BY licenses when they fund open access article processing fees. That is to say, we are now looking at a situation where organizations that do not have any commitment to (or even liking for) open access, may be required to use this license.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Some questions that I think should be raised at this point:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor is there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to works that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Questions:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere that this license is only for open access works?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2. Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license on toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a licensee).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">3. Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from changing their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is the publisher's, not the author's).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">4. Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing an open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the open access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do this, but what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to another publisher.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to be the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with significant loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it is recommended as a standard for open access.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">best,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Heather Morrison, MLIS<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/">http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com">http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>