LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 04:28:27 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (107 lines)
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
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-and
> -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]
> ____________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2