From: Mike Rossner <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:49:28 -0400

Jan,

A publisher can obtain a license from the authors that permits it to
sell reprints, and it can release content to third parties under a
CC-BY-NC license.  The third parties then do not have the right to
sell reprints.

Mike Rossner
The Rockefeller University Press


At 07:07 PM 4/2/2013, you wrote:

From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:29:40 +0200

This is rather beside the point, Anthony, I'm afraid. No publisher is
expected to willingly give up a source of income. That's why it is so
surprising some publishers seem to be in favour of CC-BY-NC and even
lobby their authors. Selling reprints, or even print versions in the
case of hybrid journals, is in breach of the NC clause.

However, there is a very simple solution: the CC-BY licence. That one
does allow the sales of reprints and print versions. And so preserves
that source of income for the publisher. Of course, anybody would be
able to do that; not just the original publisher of the material.
That's open access. On the other hand, even with CC-BY-NC, the pharma
industry has full access to the articles anyway and may give away the
urls to those articles to anybody they like.

Open access truly does open another world.

Jan Velterop

On 2 Apr 2013, at 01:10, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:58:02 +0100
>
> From what I know of David's career in publishing, I do not imagine he
> has ever had to make a decision to give up a source of income which
> for some publishers ( probably not T&F ) is important for some
> journals, and it is a long time since I might have been involved.
>
> I wonder what he would do? Perhaps he could tell us - hypothetically
> of course. What to me is interesting is the lack of discussion about
> the complete removal of a source of income to the the scholarly
> communication process from big pharma (users rather than contributors
> of papers) under an OA scenario. Freeloading or free riding used to be
> much discussed.
>
> Anthony
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 31 Mar 2013, at 19:12, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:51:49 +0000
>>
>> Having discovered that the majority of authors do not approve of the
>> commercial reuse of their work will Taylor & Francis now suspend the
>> selling of reprints to third-parties?
>>
>> David