[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

Mon Mar 5 11:29:43 UTC 2012

I am busy for the next two hours at least.

I suggest that someone takes the draft, hacks it independently of me. I can
provide email addresses. Probably one copy per addressee is polite. It's
OUR draft not my draft and if you think the language needs some moderation
fine.

But no concessions

I am talking with Elsevier at 1700. I shall record it

Maybe back at 1430-1530

P.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net>wrote:

> Just that I've talked about copyright in content in the text I used and
> the whole point here is that copyright doesn't apply to data. So where I've
> put content in that text it might be better to use a different form of
> words to separate data from "content which is copyrightable"
>
> Cheers
>
> Cameron
>
> On 5 Mar 2012, at 09:58, Mike Taylor wrote:
>
> > I don't understand what you mean by "data is not content".
> >
> > -- Mike.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 March 2012 09:36, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
> >> Agree this looks good and is a strong approach. You might also want to
> ask Rebecca Lawrence at F1000 and also Mark Hahnel at Figshare for "new"
> publishers.
> >>
> >> I don't know if this is useful but I threw this together in another
> context. It was intended as a quick draft "principles for research data
> mining"
> >>
> >> * Always link back to the version of record of the research output you
> have mined.
> >> * Include elements and snippets by reference, not by value. Restrict
> content replication to that reasonably allowed by Fair Use provisions or
> enabled by licences, and required for efficient services
> >> * Only redistribute content where copyright terms explicitly allow it
> >> * Deposit results in a public database or provide a public service API
> under appropriate terms for other researchers to use and benefit
> >> * Respect API service limits where posted and develop polite tooling
> with exponential back-off where appropriate
> >> * When providing a commercial service that depends on other's data or
> services, expect to pay a reasonable charge for service levels agreements
> and reasonable expenses
> >>
> >> In case its not clear this was focussed on content issues not on data,
> but something explicit could be added saying "data is not content". Perhaps
> the "include elements and snippets…" section needs a bit of work as well in
> this context
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Cameron
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 Mar 2012, at 09:15, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com>
> wrote:
> >>> That all looks good to me.  Only one nit to pick: the statement "facts
> >>> are not copyright" is an apples-to-elephants comparison.  We should
> >>> say something like "facts are not SUBJECT TO copyright".
> >>>
> >>> Good point
> >>>
> >>> No doubt many of the replies you receive will attempt to finesse the
> >>> issue by saying things that (they feel) fall short of an actual "no",
> >>> such as "we except that the amount should be limited".  We should not
> >>> ignore such detail, but clearly we mustn't allow it to blur the clear
> >>> picture that we want to present.  So my suggestion is that we present
> >>> the results of this survey as a list of YES and NO in bold; but then
> >>> include an annex with the detailed statements.
> >>>
> >>> Yes - we allow a box for publishers to add material if they wish but
> it is the YES/NO that counts
> >>>
> >>> Finally, I don't know which publishers you plan to contact, but please
> >>> be sure to include some YESses, such as PLoS, as well as the Elseviers
> >>> and Springers.  Otherwise if we end up with a document that is just
> >>> NO, NO, NO all the way down, we risk making it seem as though the
> >>> publishing industry has a united front supporting a reasonable
> >>> position, and we are unreasonable for wanting/expecting it to be
> >>> different.  Instead, we want to draw lines between the publishers that
> >>> co-operate and those that don't.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. I intend the following 10
> >>> PLoS, BMC, Science (contact needed), Nature, Wiley, Elsevier,
> Springer, STM Publishers assoc, Roy Soc Chem, Am Chem Soc.
> >>>
> >>> The latter two are representative of "pure society" publishers.
> >>>
> >>> -- Mike.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Peter Murray-Rust
> >>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> >>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> >>> University of Cambridge
> >>> CB2 1EW, UK
> >>> +44-1223-763069
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> open-access mailing list
> >>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> open-access mailing list
> >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120305/0cf47c71/attachment.html>