From: Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:11:46 -0400

As examples of the lack of clarity in the purpose and intent of the
new-license model initiative:

1.The language in the NONCOM license seems to prohibit linking to a
subject article by a for-profit company. Possibly it forbids hosting
or even use of the content in a corporate library. I assume this is
just shoddy legal drafting, but I can't be sure.

"By way of indication, commercial purposes include:

- Copying or downloading articles, or linking to such postings, for
further redistribution, sale or licensing, for a fee;

- Use for the purposes of monetary reward by means of sale, resale,
license, loan, transfer or other form of commercial exploitation."

2. References to Creative Commons in the "Research Rights Added"
licenses seem to suggest that activities such as indexing are in some
way restricted or not allowed by Creative Commons licenses. Which
seems to me silly if not libelous. I trust this is just overzealous
myopic lawyering rather than some evil intent. But it's easy to
understand why users of CC licenses might perceive the STM effort as a
shot across the bow. The clarification just makes this worse.

Perhaps the clumsiness of the RRA is related to jurisdictional
differences; I'll admit I know much less about European copyright law
than I do about US law. But the whole definition of "Derivative Use"
is really odd in the context of US law. Most of what it covers would
be fair use in the US. For example, there's no law that prevents me
from translating any legally obtained article to another language,
providing that I don't publish my translation. A simple statement
making clear that nothing in the RRA should be construed to restrict
any sort of fair use (and fair dealing) would go a long way to present
a better impression of the whole effort.

Eric


On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:28 AM, 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.pdf
>
> 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
> M: [log in to unmask]