From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:49:34 +0100
I'm not sure about this particular license, but in general I think the
recommended policy would be for the publisher of an OA journal to set
a fee with CCC (etc) for all copying - but to set it at zero.
However, if the amount collected by the RRO is unaffected by
publisher-set fees (as it might be in some cases), then all you are
doing by opting out of receiving your share is to ensure that it gets
shared out among the other publishers involved, who have not done so.
Sally
Sally Morris
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:26:22 +0000
Unfortunately, when you opted out of CCC licensing, all you did was
decline to receive further checks; you did not, apparently, stop them
from continuing to express their willingness to collect fees for
permission when and if they are asked. I have heard multiple stories
from both authors and publishers about the CCC offering permission for
materials that they do not seem entitled to license. It is quite
similar, really, to the recent flap about Elsevier offering to sell
permission to reprint articles that have been published through its
own paid open access option.
The worst of this is that organizations that try to be responsible and
seek a license when they believe it is needed do not actually know
whether they are buying a valid license or just paying for something
that might ultimately be useless as protection against an infringement
claim. In that climate of uncertainty, the value of all such
licensing is diminished.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Camilla MacKay <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:21:53 -0400
An experience with the CCC and article licensing that might be of interest:
About three or four years ago, Bryn Mawr Classical Review received a
check (something under $100, as I recall) from the CCC for licensing
BMCR reviews. BMCR is open access, and moreover, authors sign no
copyright transfer agreements, so BMCR does not hold copyright in the
reviews published, and should not have been receiving a payment for
licensing fees in any case. I called the CCC to ask about the money,
and was told that we could choose to opt out of CCC licensing, so I
did. I think we must have deposited that check; there was no way to
get the money to the rightful owners because the specific reviews were
not identified.
When I checked the CCC site just now, I see that it's still possible
to request a "special order" for BMCR articles. I don't know what
would happen if someone tried to license a BMCR article now, but at
least we haven't received any more checks. But there seem to be plenty
of OA journals in the CCC database with licensing options; do they all
know they're represented?
Camilla MacKay
(co-editor, BMCR)
|
