From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:33:09 -0500

I wasn't talking about "selling" translations. If someone from another
country wants to translate an article covered by a CC-BY license and
post it on a web site that is itself not "commercial," the author
using this kind of license has no legal recourse to demand that the
translation, if poor, not be circulated in that way. That is a loss of
authorial control. Some authors, perhaps especially in the humanities
and social sciences, may be greatly concerned about having poor
translations of their articles circulated.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Kiley, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:19:32 +0100
>
> Sandy
>
> We accept that the CC suite of licences is largely untested in terms
> of legal precedent, and that some of the definitions contained in them
> are -- as is the case with many licences -- open to interpretation.
> What we do have at Wellcome Trust, however, is significant experience
> of negotiating with large publishing houses a wide range of open
> access licences which have been intended to convey some or all of the
> contents and spirit of the CC licences.  That experience has given us
> strong evidence of how individual publishers regard what would
> constitute activity which was "primarily intended for or directed
> toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation", and
> this most certainly includes selling translations of articles for a
> fee and posting articles to web sites which carry advertising.
>
> It is this experience which has influenced our decision to require a
> CC-BY licence on those articles for which we pay an OA publication
> fee.
>
> Best regards
> Robert
>
>
> Robert Kiley
> Head of Digital Services
> Wellcome Library
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:41:45 -0500
>
> By the same token, the CC_BY license removes ANY control the author
> might otherwise have over the quality of a translation. The "moral
> rights" provision of CC licenses MIGHT be invoked to prevent
> distribution of an egregiously bad translation, which could reflect
> poorly on the "honor and reputation" of the author, but it is unlikely
> to succeed against merely a poor translation. At least some authors
> care about how their works are presented in other languages and have
> concerns about nuances of meaning and the like.
>
> The objections stated here to the CC-BY-NC-SA license are at least
> questionable as to the interpretation of what is "commercial" since
> the license does not define that term other than to provide this
> partial clarification:
>
>>  You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in con-nection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
>
> This paragraph even adds to the ambiguity by highlighting the term
> "primary"  and by failing to specify whom the "commercial advantage or
> private monetary compensation" is supposed to benefit.  It could be
> plausibly interpreted to mean that unless the author of the work
> benefits monetarily in some direct way, the reuse is to be deemed
> "noncommercial." The example given here of web sites that use
> advertising as their means of support might therefore not disqualify
> posting of an article as "commercial" because the author receives no
> monetary benefit.  The same would be true for the example of
> translation, which is not "commercial" in any way that benefits the
> author.
>
> I would be interested to know on what authority Mr. Kiley bases his
> interpretations of the license. There is nothing in the license itself
> that unambiguously supports his interpretation, as far as I can see.
>
> Sandy Thatcher