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

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:45:18 +0200

Mr Thatcher is repeating his well known arguments against CC-BY, of low value.

A bad translation is better than no translation. How many scholars are
able to get their works translated? Good translations aren't cheap. If
CC-BY helps that translations were made then this is an advantage.

I never heard of problems with anthologies in which CC-BY articles are
integrated.

Klaus Graf


2012/8/7 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:22:51 -0500
>
> I can understand why many scientists would not particularly care about
> the quality of translations or about where their articles get
> republished, but these are concerns that a lot of scholars in the
> humanities and social sciences have. The CC-BY license does not
> protect authors against having poor translations done or against
> having their articles reprinted in anthologies where the context might
> be offensive to the authors. So it is not just a "a leftover from the
> control attitude publishers are used to"; these are matters important
> to authors themselves.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:35:23 +0200
>>
>> Sandy,
>>
>> In addition to the PLOS journals, all of the Open Access Hindawi, BMC
>> and Springer journals have CC-BY, and since earlier this year also
>> the OA articles in Springer's hybrid journals. CC-BY-NC is a leftover
>> from the control attitude publishers are used to in a subscription
>> environment and is a sign of open access publishing immaturity: a
>> lack of understanding that in respect of OA, the publisher is paid
>> for the service of peer-reviewed publishing and not for ongoing
>> control over the content (the NC clause nullifies important potential
>> benefits of
>> OA: unimpeded text mining and re-use for meta-analysis and
>> large-scale knowledge ingestion, and usage by small and medium-sized
>> companies, start-ups and SMEs, the ones responsible for the bulk of
>> job creation).
>>
>> I am not aware of licence information being available in aggregated
>> form. The Directory of Open Access Journals
>> (http://www.doaj.org/doaj) does indicate for some journals what the
>> licence is they use, but it is nowhere near complete and hybrid journals are not covered.
>> Regrettably, it also doesn't offer a possibility to search on licence
>> type (it's not one of the search fields and free search doesn't seem
>> to pick it up), but given that this information is only given for
>> what looks like a minority of journals in the DOAJ, such search
>> wouldn't be of much help anyway, at this stage.
>>
>> Jan Velterop