From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:24:20 -0500

As I have mentioned here before, if advocates of open access think
that CC-BY is the only legitimate approach to open access, then they
are writing off practically every attempt publishers have made so far
to include monographs in the scope of open access, since publishers so
far have been able to make it work only by deriving revenue from sales
of POD or PDF versions of the works that are accessible OA online.  If
they don't want to call such initiatives open access, that is their
prerogative, but it seems a shame to self-limit the movement in this
way because it will be a very long time before a CC-BY approach will
work for monograph publishing.

Sandy Thatcher


At 6:28 PM -0400 8/20/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: "Bird, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:25:35 +0100
>
> Sandy Thatcher has highlighted some situations where a CC licence
> might not protect an author and, in doing so, neatly illustrates the
> philosophical difference between those that advocate the controlled,
> and the open, publishing environment.  Those who advocate CC-BY are
> essentially arguing that the value of having work made openly
> available outweighs the sorts of potential risk Sandy highlights.
>
> So in direct response, no, I can't cite any cases where such lawsuits
> have been found in the plaintiff's favour and I am happy to agree that
> there would be an argument either way on the strength of an author's
> moral rights to cease and desist certain actions with their work.
> What I can't agree is that the potential for these types of cases
> merits continuing the closed-shop approach to accessing work which has
> been paid for by the public and charitable purse.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:06:23 -0500
>
> I'll respectfully have to disagree with Chris Bird here as I do not
> believe the bow to "moral rights" embedded in the current CC-BY
> license would suffice to protect against these two potential harms to
> authors. Remember that I said "poor" translations, not intentionally
> bad ones that might be considered to "distort, mutilate, modify" the
> original work. And I think it would be highly unlikely that inclusion
> of an article in an anthology that the author objected to for, say,
> ideological reasons would be deemed "derogatory" in the sense of that
> term as used in European copyright law. I would be interested to know
> if Mr. Bird can cite any cases where lawsuits have been brought on
> such grounds and been found to be in the plaintiff author's favor.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>>  From: "Bird, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:53:32 +0100
>>
>>  I agree with Klaus Graf's post and would also add:  CC-BY *does*
>>  protect authors against having poor translations done or against
>>  having their articles reprinted in anthologies where the context might
>>  be offensive to the authors, through the author's moral rights, which
>>  give authors the right to be correctly attributed and to object to
>>  derogatory treatment of the work.  Correct attribution would certainly
>>  include reference to the fact that a work had been translated, hence
>>  the reader would be on notice.  Including work in an anthology
>>  offensive to the author would stand a pretty good chance, I think, of
>>  constituting derogatory treatment.
>>
>>  Of course, there are cross-jurisdictional issues with recognising and
>>  enforcing moral rights, but these considerations also arise when
>>  enforcing copyright itself.  They are not a good argument, in my
>>  opinion, for re-enforcing what Jan Velterop appropriately terms "the
>>  control attitude publishers are used to in a subscription
>>  environment", especially when the benefits of an open environment,
>>  which are well-rehearsed on this forum and elsewhere, are now so
>>  widely accepted.
>>
>>  Chris Bird