<br><br>On Friday, 1 May 2015, Heather Morrison <<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
<div>Question: does the GOAL of open access include making works freely available for use in promotional material? I argue that this kind of re-use is highly problematic from legal and author moral rights perspectives. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please, this is another straw man argument. Consider:</div><div><br></div><div>1) if the reuse misinterprets and misuses the research, it is a breach of CC licencing</div><div><br></div><div>2) advertisers are free to cite publications in any case</div><div><br></div><div>3) a restricted licence only means that the advertiser pays the publisher a fee to use the material, the author isn't asked</div><div><br></div><div>In relation to this argument, there is no practical benefit to not using CC-BY.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div dir="ltr">
<div>As Lessig points out, a noncommercial license would have been a better fit and would almost certainly have avoided this situation.</div><div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That only works so long as the advertiser would have to seek the permission of the photographer to use the material.</div><div><br></div><div>If Flickr's T&Cs give it the right to resell material that the photographer uploads as CC-BY-NC then the advertiser just pays Flickr without asking the photographer.</div><div> </div><div>In science, the publisher is assigned those rights by the author. As long as that happens, you have no effective argument against the use of CC-BY.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Funders and institutions that are requiring or strongly encouraging open access might
want to consider potential similar scenarios where the photographer is a researcher and they publish the photo under a CC-BY</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Funders wasn't the research to be used, not for there to be barriers against it.</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>
<div>My argument is that rather than pushing for blanket re-use rights, we should have a more nuanced conversation that asks whether there are some re-use rights that most would agree to and others, like promotional use, that are problematic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>There are some sensitive issues that require a different approach, and the appropriate funders will do so.</div><div><br></div><div>Continually holding up straw man arguments about Cc-BY being bad is just damaging to all forms of open access.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>G<span></span> <br></div>