[open-science] Should scientific text be put in the public domain rather than licensed with CC-BY?

koltzenburg at w4w.net koltzenburg at w4w.net
Wed Jan 12 16:22:21 UTC 2011

> Even if they could legally giveup their moral right

hm, this holds true for legal traditions in countries that have a copyright law similar to the UK or the USA
in the legal traditions of continental Europe, authors will always keep their moral right (unless they publish anonymously) - as far as I know, this is certainly also an issue to be addressed in the Panton Papers: legal traditons may be different and we can possible gain some interesting ideas for, e.g., Open Data, from each if these traditions :-)


On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:15:54 +0000, Angus Whyte wrote
> It may be worth posting on this to the JISC repositories list. Theargument I've seen put forward by open access advocates there isthat authors should retain copyright rather than comply withpublisher requests to hand it over. Even if they could legally giveup their moral right, are you saying it is in the public interestfor researchers to give up their right to be attributed? 
> Angus Whyte

Dr Angus 
Curation Research 
Digital Curation 
University of 
Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 
> On 12/01/2011 15:38, Marius Kempe wrote:1) You said it yourself - "a few dozen lines of codecan pull in data from a large number of source, potentially makingit tricky to keep track of all the attributions". One day not veryfar from today, scientific texts will be the raw data of naturallanguage science knowledge engines, and then the situation fortext will be exactly the same as that for data. Using CC0 todaywill make this easier in the future, for all the same reasons thatyou support CC0 for data.
> 2) Using CC0 simplifies the science IP landscape; it wouldallow us to tell unconverted scientists to simply use the publicdomain for all works, rather than a hodgepodge of CC0 for data,CC-BY for PLoS One, CC-BY-NC for Nature's Scientific Reports,etc etc. Much simpler to say: publicly funded science belongs inthe public domain.
> Best,
> Marius
> A footnote: Google did not provide snippets of copyrightedbooks "without much trouble" - they fought a long, protractedlegal battle that cost them more than $100 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement).
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM,Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm having trouble seeing the advantage of CC0 over CC-BYfor writing. For data, a few dozen lines of code can pullin data from a large number of sources, potentially makingit tricky to keep track of all the attributions. Writingis generally done by humans, so it's hardly onerous topoint to sources.
> The scientific search engine example you give (on Quora)would most likely be exempt under 'fair use' or equivalentprovisions, and in any case, I would consider the links itprovides to be attribution. After all, Google provides'snippets' of all-rights-reserved works without muchtrouble. Even if we can produce software intelligentenough to read free text, and synthesise interestingsummaries from it, we'll undoubtedly want links to theoriginals (would automatic summaries actually infringecopyright?).
> What could we do if all scientific writing was CC0, thatcouldn't be done if it was all CC-BY?
> Thomas
> On 12 January 2011 13:51,Marius Kempe <m.kempe at qmul.ac.uk>wrote:
> The other pointthat I feel is worth making is that many of thereasons that the Panton Principles and Open Bibliogive for using the public domain apply equally toscientific texts - why should open scientistsadvocate a confusing two-tiered system of publicdomain for data and bibliographic records butcopyright licensing for papers and books?
open-science mailing 
open-science at lists.okfn.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20110112/862baba3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list