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

Tue Dec 13 15:05:06 UTC 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 00:55, Carl Boettiger <cboettig at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm curious if the journal hopes to leverage some added-value product
> itself by carrying NC licenses, rather than what I see as an
> economically irrelevant motive of "injustice."  For instance, if they
> not only had but owned the NC license & not the author, they could
> sell added value services such as text-mining, while still claiming to
> provide "Open Access" (gratis access) publications (which presumably
> has market value in boosting image and attracting those extensive fees
> from grant agencies to "cover costs").

I am sure you are right, and that in the cut-throat world of academic
publishing notions of justice and fair play are seldom relevant
(although they are most assuredly relevant in parts of the commercial
software world, both on their own merit and for hard-nosed motives
relating to corporate image).

I am sure that a common motive for an NC license is to allow the
copyright holder to develop and market their own "value-added"
services, as you describe.  I imagine, from experience elsewhere, that
these services are often expensive, limited, and late (when they
appear at all).

Out of interest, in cases when publishers use NC licenses, do authors
generally retain any commercial rights?
-- 
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/