- Jul 2022
Nella licenza ODbL definita come “eventuali termini o misure tecnologiche presenti nel Database, in un Database Derivato, o in tutto o in parte sostanziale dei contenuti che alterano o limitano i termini della Licenza”, intesa, quindi, come divieto di imposizione salvo possibilità di lasciare copia aperta. Nella licenza CC-BY definita come “misure che, in assenza di apposita autorità, possono non essere eluse ai sensi di leggi che adempiono agli obblighi di cui all’articolo 11 del Trattato WIPO sul diritto d’autore adottato il 20 dicembre 1996, e/o accordi internazionali simili”, intesa quindi come divieto di imposizione senza alternative
piccola nota: questo è anche uno dei motivi per cui non c'è compatibilità fra CC-BY 4.0 e ODbL
- Oct 2021
Peers can help you go from No Open Access to some Open Access.
It's difficult to spread Open Access and Free cultural work licenses if blog posts about Open Access are not compatible with Open Access. The article by Anne Young has a non-commercial restriction. It would be nice to contact Anne Young to propose to release her blog post under CC BY-SA license or anyway under a Free cultural work license.
- Feb 2021
Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.
work against the shared objective of a more open and equitable scholarly ecosystem
Again, it is not at all clear what is meant by this statement. Equity in academia is an incredibly important goal. This statement currently reads like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Libraries, Institutions and funders have found that the unintended consequences of deficient deals with publishers supported by their funds can include inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing. However, the intention of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is to arm all authors with detailed knowledge of their rights to ensure they have the same minimum opportunity to widely disseminate their work. Furthermore, by providing a version of an output with a CC BY license there is greater equity around accessing the research and therefore greater opportunity to build on it for public benefit, making a more equitable environment for all. The version of record (VoR) remains important in this scenario, so more equitable access should not undermine the sustainability of journals and platforms which are valued.
However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,
The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.
Academy of Dental Materials
Acoustical Society of America
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
American Chemical Society
American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
American Medical Association
American Physical Society
American Society for Investigative Pathology
American Society for Radiation Oncology
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Association of Physics Teachers
AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Budrich Academic Press
Cambridge University Press
Canadian Cardiovascular Society
Duncker & Humblot
Erich Schmidt Verlag
French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Future Science Group
International Association for Gondwana Research
Journal of Nursing Regulation
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).
Julius Klinkhardt KG
Laser Institute America
Materials Research Forum LLC
The Optical Society (OSA)
Society of Rheology
Taylor & Francis Group
The Geological Society of America
Verlag Barbara Budrich
- Jan 2021
- Oct 2020
- Oct 2018
Consequently, the SA condition does not apply to your contributions to modified works including these kinds of changes.
Examples would really help. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would care about this. As was pointed out in the comments, making minor corrections to a CC BY-SA work would not enable anyone to reshare that entire work with corrections under a new license. So the case here is if someone wanted to share minor corrections to a work independently of the work itself and license those minor corrections differently? For example: Here are my typo corrections to a published work, outside of the context of that published work? Example please...
In other words, the CC licenses (all of which include the BY condition) enable the creator of a work to prohibit you from attributing them. However, except in the extremely rare cases where the creator explicitly prohibits you from attributing them, you are always required to attribute the creator of a work shared under a CC BY license.
Except for the semi-famous case of the open resources collected in lardbucket, how often does this example appear in the wild?
- Sep 2018
To add to "More scholarship about CC licenses" and to support unit 4.1: Bishop, Carrie. “Creative Commons and Open Access Initiatives: How to Stay Sane and Influence People.” Art Libraries Journal 40.4 (2015): 8–12. Web.
Bishop presents a cheerful exploration of the Tate’s mammoth enterprise to digitize and release into the public Web 52,000 works of art, many of which are still under copyright. Commonly, galleries and museums would like to broaden exposure to the artwork in their collections, but when artists or their descendants are still actively monitoring use and income, there can be a barrier between connecting the public with the art work and the needs of the artistic community. Bishop describes the Tate’s desire to license the newly digitized images under a Creative Commons license to provide clear guidelines to the public, but at the same time to respond to the fears, hopes, and wishes of their artists. The Tate decided that it could best realize its goal to "democratize access" and to connect the public with British artists through applying the CC-BY-NC-ND license—both making the images available and quelling the concerns of the artists or their estate managing family members. The article provides an interesting perspective to the discussion of “open culture” or “free culture.” Some of this freedom may come about in incremental doses. The CC license might make it possible to allow an artist to connect their work with a larger public, at the same time that it makes them confident that their work won’t be misused or appropriated in an undesired manner. Aart museums seem to have a difficult relationship with open access and Creative Commons licensing. The Getty, for instance, has a fairly complicated statement of terms that make murky all that CC transparency, so there is viewing the material and then there is repurposing the material. The result is that a slow, measured pace, while nurturing the artist along, may be the way to ultimately make CC and Open Access a norm rather than an exception.
Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Unit 3.2 (New Article)
Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Gulley, a publisher with Institute of Physics (IOP) sets out to describe and clarify the CC BY license for researchers who may be wary of making use of it for their own work. The Research Councils UK currently require APC funded OA articles to be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license . This license is also favored by the UK’s Wellcome Trust).
Although this is a 2013 article, Gulley’s overview of the six licenses is still largely valid. The benefits she sites include clarity for the user, the ability to build on past research—the primary need for scientists and providing a nearly internationally applicable standard (something that has only improved since she wrote her article). Gulley cites that authors have expressed concern over maintaining control of their work over time and against derivative uses, maintaining the integrity and context of their work, and the compatibility as CC licenses are combined into a single work.
Gulley explains in detail the more weedy aspects of CC-BY licensing, and how to address some of the concerns she mentioned in line with established Creative Commons policy. In fact, IOP has adopted CC BY licensing for its publications (presumably for their openly accessible content) because the opportunities for sharing outweigh any negative effects.