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

[Heather Morrison]

More reasons for noncommercial:

AD REVENUE

Ad revenue is a great example of why many authors and publishers would  
not want to give away commercial rights, for very good reasons.

For a publisher, ad revenue can be one way of supporting a journal  
economically. It makes perfect sense for a journal to reserve rights  
to ad revenue derived from their journal.

Social media tools do provide interesting challenges. Google blogger  
is a good role model in this sense. Even without CC licensing, I can  
choose to turn on adsense, in which case they share the revenue with  
me; or, as in my case, if I do not wish to have ads appear on my blog,  
I can leave this turned off.

RESALE OF WHOLE JOURNALS AND JOURNAL PACKAGES

If Springer Open becomes a wild success and eventually Springer goes  
full CC-BY for all of their journals, then anyone can take Springer  
journals and re-sell them. Imagine if Elsevier were to take these  
journals and sell them, but not sharealike, then Elsevier could sell a  
version of Science Direct that includes all of the Springer journals,  
but Springer could not provide access to Elsevier journals. This could  
cost Springer prestige, impact, ad revenue, and opportunities to earn  
money themselves through value-added products. Or, imagine that your  
articles or your journal (or value-added products based on them) were  
offered for sale by the likes of the publishers listed on Beall's list  
of predatory open access publishers:
http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355

Thanks for raising this important discussion.

best,

Heather Morrison