[okfn-discuss] Temporary CC license

Fri Apr 25 14:52:44 UTC 2014

This is quite an unusual practice. Most of the time, the temporal limit 
works the other way around: a content under copyright become CC once the 
publisher/author thinks the advantage of monetization cannot imbalance 
the drawbacks of limited access.

Here is my interpretation:
*Every copy of the work made before June 18th is CC and will remain so. 
It can be copied at will, providing the terms of the license are respected.
*The copy published on the website of the editors after June 18th is 
copyrighted. This specific copy can no longer be freely republished.

In fact it's easier to think that the work will form two legal objects, 
although completely similar by the content.

As there is no way to ascertain if the republication comes from the CC 
or the Copyrighted version, this strange arrangement is completely 
nullified in practice. So, yes, the published does not understand 
anything about open access.

Greetings,

PCL

Le 25/04/14 16:36, John Levin a écrit :
> Dear list,
>
> I came across a curious academic publishing gambit I'd like to ask the 
> list about.
>
> In short, two articles in Society and Space Volume 32 Number 2 have 
> been made open access.
>
> The cc-by-nc button and the text 'Open Access" mark these 2 articles 
> on the journal issue page:
> http://www.envplan.com/contents.cgi?journal=D&volume=32&issue=2
>
> And the two articles are announced as open access until June 18th
> http://societyandspace.com/2014/04/24/discussion-forum-on-henri-lefebvre-dissolving-city-planetary-metamorphosis-paper-and-intro-open-access-and-four-online-commentaries/ 
>
>
> However, the PDFs of the articles have (c) Pion and Licensors at the 
> bottom.
>
> In the comments on the announcement page, I asked what happens after 
> June 18th. The reply was: "I think Pion will simply revert to the 
> previous status on that date."
>
> Can this be done? Does this revoke previously granted rights? If I 
> republished the articles on a blog, would I be obliged to take them 
> down on June 18th?
>
> Or - as I suspect - does a publisher not understand open access and CC 
> licenses?
>
> John