[open-science] Elsevier caught selling articles that should have been open access

Tue Mar 10 20:09:38 UTC 2015

NC DOES prevent use in the Classroom in Germany
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml
- this is a Court decision. NC is "only for personal use". Text and Data
mining has not been tested in court so I cannot be legally definitive.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:14 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't know the specific details of this case & am not the person to
> discuss it, but I can say that according to the folks I've been talking to
> on the publisher side, NC does not prevent text and data mining, nor does
> it prevent use in the classroom. It's really about selling the content
> itself.
>
>
> William Gunn
> +1 (650) 614-1749
> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:17 AM, S.C. Edmunds <
>> scott at gigasciencejournal.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody want to buy some reprints
>>> <https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=CLM&title=HIV%20infection%20en%20route%20to%20endogenization%3A%20two%20cases&publicationDate=18%20DEC%202014&author=P.%20Colson%2CI.%20Ravaux%2CC.%20Tamalet%2CO.%20Glazunova%2CE.%20Baptiste%2CE.%20Chabriere%2CA.%20Wiedemann%2CC.%20Lacabaratz%2CM.%20Chefrour%2CC.%20Picard%2CA.%20Stein%2CY.%20Levy%2CD.%20Raoult&startPage=1280&endPage=1288&copyright=%C2%A9%202014%20The%20Authors%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infection%20%C2%A9%202014%20European%20Society%20of%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infectious%20Diseases&contentID=10.1111%2F1469-0691.12807&orderSource=Wileyonline&orderBeanReset=true&oa=creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd>?
>>> Would it be "quintuple dipping" if so? One of the reasons the more old
>>> school publishers are thought to be trying to cling on to the NC clauses in
>>> their "OA" offerings is that they don't want to lose revenue from reprints
>>> and other similar transactions.
>>>
>>>
>> I have done a lot of checking in the past in this respect and it's very
>> common. Haven't checked this one...
>>
>> Yes, you are right. The NC is driven by reprints and the justification
>> for it is - that publishers give to authors - is almost completely
>> specious. Unfortunately some academics believe CC-NC protects their moral
>> rights (it doesn't) and the whole area is seriously MUDdied and FUDdled.
>> CC-NC:
>> * prevents reuse (without permission) of material for teaching
>> * protects the publishers reprint market.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
>

-- 
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-science/attachments/20150310/8f40bb67/attachment-0003.html>