<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Couture Marc <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc.couture@teluq.ca" target="_blank">marc.couture@teluq.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> One set of licensing terms applies to their generic web content, and the other to specific<br>
> articles that are surfaced via that website. This isn't a conflict in licensing terms as different<br>
> things are being licensed, although the presentation could perhaps be a bit clearer.<br>
><br>
<br></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
</div>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.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>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. <br>
<br>Other variants include "this site is copyright FooBar". University repositories are as bad as some publishers in this respect.<br> </div><br></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069