From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:16:33 -0400
Then a CC licence at some level of rights retained is fine and it has
the added advantage of being already transposed in several dozens of
legal jurisdictions.
To me, this new legal manoeuvre is just legal obfuscation aiming at
obfuscating an already complicated landscape. And we all know who
benefits from opacity... Think of confidential clauses for licences.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le vendredi 15 août 2014 à 02:52 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: "Seeley, Mark (ELS-WAL)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:36:28 +0000
I might have been thinking about hybrid context, but what I generally
meant is access and usage outside the context of subscription access
and subscription licenses. Gold OA would always (or should always)
have some indication of the user license directly connected to the
digital object, so that wherever and however it is accessed the user
license is clearly there.
Mark Seeley, Senior Vice President & General Counsel
Elsevier
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
M: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:06:59 +0000
I share Ann’s view that the issues have not been clarified. In fact,
Mark’s comment that for gold OA papers
'"... users expect to see some language re how a non-subscriber
general user can use the article.”
is hugely confused and confusing. If the paper is gold OA then surely
there are no subscribers at all. Perhaps he means specifically OA
papers in hybrid journals? But if so, thinking about the rights
associated with an OA paper in terms of the rights to subscribed
content appears to be the wrong way to go about it.
(Full disclosure - RLUK was one of the over 50 organisations calling
for STM to withdraw the new licenses. Our view is that they are
confusing and unhelpful.)
David
On 13 Aug 2014, at 09:28, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 04:13:34 -0400
>
> Mark, thank you for the clarification statement. Having read it, I
> don't feel all that "clarified" about the reason for the additional
> language.
>
> For example, one of the sentences reads, "... users expect to see some
> language re how a non-subscriber general user can use the article."
> In our experience, users generally aren't "expecting to see" nor
> asking for such language. There hasn't been an outpouring of
> requests. Our researchers and users have long-established best
> practices about how to use/re-use others' work. These are underpinned
> by copyright law (e.g., fair use in the US), existing library
> contracts, and at times by the authors' choice of a CC option.
>
> That, in addition, users would stop to read each publishers' or
> journals' statements (adapted from the STM suggested language and
> supplementary materials) about how any article might be used seems
> impractical -- and possibly confusing if they do.
>
> Ann Okerson
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> From: "Seeley, Mark (ELS-WAL)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:50:02 +0000
>
> Chairing the STM association Copyright Committee can often be a
> balancing act-- trying to cover a variety of competitive pressures
> while at the same time trying to provide helpful models. Hopefully
> the clarification issued last week by STM is helpful:
>
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/2014_07_30_OA_Licencing_STM_Model_Licences.pd
> f
>
> but the primary point of the STM model licenses (both the stand-alone
> and the supplementary/amendment docs) deal with user license language
> on Gold OA articles, where users expect to see some language re how a
> non-subscriber general user can use the article. As noted in the
> linked posting, STM was attempting to address a number of issues with
> the model license and language, as was done on TDM model license
> clauses last year, looking at the entire environment of user license
> language from individual publisher bespoke license to the CC slate.
>
> Best,
> Mark
>
> Mark Seeley, Senior Vice President & General Counsel Elsevier
> 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
> 2: +1 (781) 663-2241; Mobile: +1 (781) 354-4429 Executive Assistant:
> Matthew Braman +1 (781) 663-2308
> M: [log in to unmask]
> Internal Elsevier Legal department intranet site:
> http://nonsolus/legaldepartment/
> External information at
> http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:48:42 -0400
>
> These proposals feel confusing. If I read correctly, STM is
> advocating end-user licenses for each publisher's OA journals,
> licenses which presumably it expects the users sill stop and read
> before proceeding further. This expectation seems neither practical
> nor realistic.
>
> I also wonder where the proposed OA license(s) sit with respect to
> other legalities such as (1) the author's license to the publisher;
> and (2) the licenses that libraries and consortia negotiate and sign
> for STM publishers' journal collections. If I've negotiated for
> Publisher YYY's journals and the contract includes fair use, scholarly
> sharing, etc., -- then what's the point of the OA licenses in addition
> to all this, especially if they add complexities and restrictions that
> aren't in the library license? It feels as if we are tripping all
> over ourselves here.
>
> I may be misunderstanding, and any clarification would be welcome.
>
> Ann Okerson
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> From: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:00 AM
>>
>> FYI
>>
>> http://www.plos.org/global-coalition-of-access-to-research-science-an
>> d
>> -education-organizations-calls-on-stm-to-withdraw-new-model-licenses/
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Joachim
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Dr.-Ing. Joachim E. Meier
>> Head of Library
>> Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) (http://www.ptb.de)
>> PF 3345 Tel. +49-531-592-8131
>> 38023 Braunschweig Fax. +49-531-592-8137
>> GERMANY E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> ____________________________________________________
|
