From: "Bargheer, Margo Friederike" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:50:19 +0000 Among German university presses <http://blog.bibliothek.kit.edu/ag_univerlage/> we have an ongoing discussion whether it is economically wise to publish scholarly books under a CC-license permitting commercial use (cc-by-sa, cc-by-nd and cc-by). There are reasonable arguments pro and contra. The presses doing it already as a default mode (f.e. KIT Publishig, Goettingen University Press) are convinced that the integrity of the content and the book as such is maintained best through other modes than a restrictive open access license. After thorough analysis we decided to trust in: a) scientific standards (as a scientist working with material from peers, one either indicates "own translation" or seeks permission from author; one doesn't distort texts from peers as that is a scholarly no-go), b) in continental European copyright that enables authors/creators to prohibit garbling or distortion of the creation (a miserable Kindle edition f.e. could be interpreted as an wrongful distortion; as a rights-owner I'd make vendors aware that it needs to be corrected or taken down) c) in the strength of our brands (trademark law gives us exclusive rights to sell products under our name) and d) in the field we're playing on. Scientific books from university presses usually serve the purpose of P2P communication. This ain't the field of generating hit-and-run profits as the entire field operates against a backdrop of reputation and long-standing relations, among authors, editors and their presses, among presses, vendors and libraries. So far we didn't need to persecute any infringements, hence we will continue with the chosen licensing policy. In our perspective the advantages of libre licenses outweigh the potential risks. Although there is no robust evidence yet we are convinced that books in their printed and online form benefit from widest dissemination. And dissemination of scientific books shouldn't come to a full stop once it reaches the realm of the "commercial". Although several authors think so, "commercial use" isn't necessarily a profit-maximising enterprise. Any given player in the internet relying on generating revenues exercises commercial use. We don't want to exclude databases, contexts, connections, whether existing or yet unknown, solely because they involve financial flows with a commercial nature. Best Margo Margo Bargheer Leitung Elektronisches Publizieren ǀ Head of Electronic Publishing ---------------------------- Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen State and University Library Goettingen [log in to unmask] www.sub.uni-goettingen.de ________________________________________ From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:59:51 -0500 The difference, of course, was that all of those other efforts were focused solely on journal publishing, David, and that's the problem. The CC BY definition does not work so well for monograph publishing, and that is one reason why I drafted the AAUP's Statement on Open Access, released in July 2007, viz., to expand the conversation beyond STM journal publishing. If the OA community doesn't care about anything other than journal publishing, then it may well be that CC BY would suffice. Sandy Thatcher > From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:21:59 +0000 > > I think it is useful to have a distinction between 'Open Access' and > 'Free Access'. Many of those who want to redefine Open Access > essentially want to expand the definition to include all material that > is freely available online. If that is the case then 'Open Access' > becomes useless as term in itself. > > My understanding is that 'Open Access' was adopted as a term > specifically to distinguish material from the 'merely' free to access. > Why not keep it that way? > > (Of course, Sandy wasn't alone in pursuing projects and models that > would support free and open access. Around the time of the events he > describes in his articles Stevan Harnad, for example, was working on > his 'Subversive Proposal' and many journals were experimenting with > open publishing.) > > David > > > > On 4 Jun 2015, at 01:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:09:52 -0500 >> >> Why should the people who met in Budapest in 2002 have a monopoly on >> the "correct" definition of open access? There were some of us >> working on open-access projects long before that meeting was held and >> developing business models around them. I trace the history of one >> such project for OA monograph publishing in the CIC (Committee on >> Institutional Cooperation) in the early 1990s in the lead article in >> the April issue of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. The >> appropriate CC license for that initiative (before CC existed) would >> have been CC BY-NC-ND. >> >> Sandy Thatcher