From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 03:47:21 +0000 CCC is infamous for collecting such fees. Any search of an O.A article is likely to show fees for use rights that contra Sandy may be completely unnecessary to pay. Especially in hybrid journals. However, savy publishers can protect their content from unnecessary fee collections by signing up with CCC with special arrsngements. See the Charleston Advisor for how CCC handles their permissions . While not perfect, it encourages serious users to enquire direct. Since a fair amount of TCA is OA content this permits the publisher to inform users directly. Chuck -------- Original message -------- 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)