[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Fri Mar 21 16:07:23 UTC 2014

+99 to that! Including Elseviergate

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:

> Y'know that OA button map thingy? A companion piece could be a "wall of
> shame" of sorts that ranks offenders by the level of egregiousness of their
> infractions.
>
>
> --
> Puneet Kishor
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Puneet
> >
> > I can tell you that during an exercise using the open access spectrum I
> have come across more than one case where publishers used CC licences and
> at the same time worded restrictions on the author's rights to use the
> material that clearly contradicted the CC conditions. So there are more
> cases than just Wiley.
> > I think you are right that the scientist community should find out what
> their rights are. For individuals this might be a bit scary, but
> universities or research institutes could eg just place the articles open
> access in repositories.
> > If this gives problems with the publisher than the resulting public
> exposure will be worth it
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I will ask my colleagues, but my belief is that CC does not want to be
> seen as an enforcer. For one, CC has no legal standing to be the enforcer;
> it is the licensor who applied the license in the first place who has
> licensed her rights, so she is the enforcer. In this case, perhaps the
> entire research community as a whole is a very good proxy for each
> individual author. As a last resort, of course, the courts are the enforcer.
> >
> > Finally, speaking as completely not-a-lawyer, there really is nothing to
> enforce here. What WB is doing is misrepresenting the license (I am not
> sure what kind of law it breaks) but they are not violating the license by
> stating some incorrect nonsense. I can imagine me, as a user, downloading
> stuff from WB and commercially exploiting it. It would fall on WB to stop
> me, and they would fail because the license explicitly permits me to do so.
> >
> > That all said, nothing like a good public-relations storm to set these
> corps right.
> >
> > --
> > Puneet Kishor
> >
> >
> > On Mar 21, 2014, at 7:33 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it would be best coming from CC.
> > >
> > > -- Mike.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 21 March 2014 14:11, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:22 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> No.
> > >>> See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_Attribution_2.5
> > >>>
> > >>> This garble makes it unclear which licence is actually used (for
> example words may have been omitted). Maybe it can be gleaned from
> author-facing rubric. I have copied Puneet from CC to alert him to this
> gross misuse of CC licences.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Michelle Brook <
> michelle.brook at okfn.org> wrote:
> > >>>> Thanks Stuart :-D
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I wanted to get the WIley-Blackwell ones done, but got annoyed with
> the repeated statement:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 'Copyright (c) 2013 International Society for Neurochemistry' (this
> obviously varies across journals), 'Re-use of this article is permitted in
> accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not
> permit commercial exploitation.'
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is there something I'm misunderstanding about cc-by version 2.5?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As PMR says, you are not misunderstanding--that statement by
> Wiley-Blackwell is nonsense. All CC BY licenses allow as much commercial
> exploitation as your heart may desire.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, we could just use the works and commercially exploit it as
> per CC BY. However, perhaps the better approach is that as members of the
> global scientific community, we all submit a joint statement to WB (it
> doesn't need to come from CC; we, the public-at-large can and should speak
> out). Perhaps we should draft a few boilerplate statements indicating
> specific errors such as the above, and mail them out to the offenders. What
> would be the most effective signature (from:) on such an email?
> > >>
> > >>..
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/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/20140321/07a48e0d/attachment-0002.html>