[open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed

Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com
Sun Dec 11 12:50:54 UTC 2011

OK, so what's the process of updating this author addendum?

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have discovered to my surprise and disappointment that the SPARC/SC author
> addendum for scholarly publishing requests the publisher to allow the author
> to distribute their work under a CC-NC or equivalent licence. The addendum
> was created as a joint activity between Science Commons and SPARC (copied).
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.shtml
> and
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/Access-Reuse_Addendum.pdf
> 4. Author’s Retention of Rights. Notwithstanding any terms in the
> Publication Agreement to the contrary, AUTHOR and
> PUBLISHER agree that in addition to any rights under copyright retained by
> Author in the Publication Agreement, Author
> retains: (i) the rights to reproduce, to distribute, to publicly perform,
> and to publicly display the Article in any medium for noncommercial
> purposes; (ii) the right to prepare derivative works from the Article; and
> (iii) the right to authorize others to make
> any non-commercial use of the Article so long as Author receives credit as
> author and the journal in which the Article has been
> published is cited as the source of first publication of the Article. For
> example, Author may make and distribute copies in the
> course of teaching and research and may post the Article on personal or
> institutional Web sites and in other open-access digital
> repositories.
> This was crafted in 2006 and since then there is abundant evidence and
> argument that CC-NC is extremely limiting (e.g. no permission to use
> diagrans in textbooks and also unworkable). We have heard on this list that
> CC are considering an option to retire CC-NC.
> The addendum was primarily crafted for cases where the author did not pay
> for publication. Yet almost all publishers now licence PAID "open Access" as
> CC-NC.
> Michael Carroll (copied) was one of the authors of the SPARC addendum but
> now argues strongly for "full open Access" - i.e. libre-OA, OKD compliant:
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001210
> Yet CC-NC is becoming more common, not less, in paid "Open Access". I do not
> know why this is happening but the publishers are using CC-NC even with fees
> of up to 5000 USD per article. The more that this is allowed to happen
> unchallenged, the more we destroy any hope of real Open access, even when
> paid by funders.
> P.
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

More information about the open-science mailing list