Module 6: Creative Approaches and Alternatives - Revision history

Ecrowley: /* 50px| Assignment and discussion questions */

2012-01-18T21:16:44Z

50px| Assignment and discussion questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 18 January 2012
Line 225:		Line 225:
	'''[[image:discussion.png\|50px]]Discussion Question(s)'''		'''[[image:discussion.png\|50px]]Discussion Question(s)'''

	Comment on strategies proposed by your colleagues in response to ~~Round 1~~ question 4.		Comment on strategies proposed by your colleagues in response to question 4.

	== Contributors ==		== Contributors ==

Ecrowley: /* The Open Access movement */

2012-01-18T21:10:59Z

The Open Access movement

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 18 January 2012
Line 145:		Line 145:
	Some journals do not generally allow authors to host open-copies of their articles on their own websites. In these situations, authors may formally request that the publishing contract allow them to do so. Several addendum models are available. "SCAE," the [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/scae/ Science Commons Scholars’ Copyright Addendum Engine] generates one such form.		Some journals do not generally allow authors to host open-copies of their articles on their own websites. In these situations, authors may formally request that the publishing contract allow them to do so. Several addendum models are available. "SCAE," the [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/scae/ Science Commons Scholars’ Copyright Addendum Engine] generates one such form.

	Funding institutions can facilitate or compel the use of one or more of these strategies -- by encouraging or requiring grant recipients to make the fruits of their projects publicly available. Currently, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, the European Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom require their grantees to make their work publicly accessible.		Funding institutions can facilitate or compel the use of one or more of these strategies by encouraging or requiring grant recipients to make the fruits of their projects publicly available. Currently, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, the European Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom require their grantees to make their work publicly accessible.

	Universities can also help. Harvard University has led the way on this issue. Starting in 2008, some schools within Harvard have required faculty members to provide the university with a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to distribute their scholarly articles for non-commercial uses. However, a faculty member may override this default rule by obtaining a waiver for a specific article.		Universities can also help. Harvard University has led the way on this issue. Starting in 2008, some schools within Harvard have required faculty members to provide the university with a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to distribute their scholarly articles for non-commercial uses. However, a faculty member may override this default rule by obtaining a waiver for a specific article.

Ecrowley: /* Implications for Authors and for Users */

2012-01-18T20:00:06Z

Implications for Authors and for Users

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 18 January 2012
Line 125:		Line 125:
	In many countries, collecting societies require their members to assign all of their rights in present and future works to the societies. Thus, members cannot use Creative Commons licenses, even for some of their works or some of their rights.		In many countries, collecting societies require their members to assign all of their rights in present and future works to the societies. Thus, members cannot use Creative Commons licenses, even for some of their works or some of their rights.

	Many authors do not understand why the two systems are not compatible, especially in the music industry. They would like to license their non-commercial rights for free under a Creative Commons license, and assign the management of their commercial rights to a collecting society. This model is possible for some collecting societies in some countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands or Denmark. But other collecting societies do not use the same legal categories as Creative Commons. For instance, they may not recognize the distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses. In those countries, authors are currently forced to choose one system or the other.		Many authors do not understand why the two systems are not compatible, especially in the music industry. They would like to license their non-commercial rights for free under a Creative Commons license and assign the management of their commercial rights to a collecting society. This model is possible for some collecting societies in some countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands or Denmark. But other collecting societies do not use the same legal categories as Creative Commons. For instance, they may not recognize the distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses. In those countries, authors are currently forced to choose one system or the other.

	Creative Commons staff and international affiliates have been working with collecting societies in hopes of resolving this incompatibility. Unfortunately, some collecting societies and other copyright stakeholders are skeptical of Creative Commons licenses and are thus reluctant to move forward. Their criticisms of the Creative Commons model include:		Creative Commons staff and international affiliates have been working with collecting societies in hopes of resolving this incompatibility. Unfortunately, some collecting societies and other copyright stakeholders are skeptical of Creative Commons licenses and are thus reluctant to move forward. Their criticisms of the Creative Commons model include:

Ecrowley: /* New Creative Commons Protocols */

2012-01-18T19:58:12Z

New Creative Commons Protocols

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 18 January 2012
Line 107:		Line 107:
	In addition to the six licenses, Creative Commons has recently developed two new protocols: CC+ and CC0.		In addition to the six licenses, Creative Commons has recently developed two new protocols: CC+ and CC0.

	[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus CC+] (CC “Plus”) is not a license, but a technology for offering users rights beyond the CC license grant -- for instance commercial rights, or additional warranties.		[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus CC+] (CC “Plus”) is not a license but a technology for offering users rights beyond the CC license grant -- for instance commercial rights -- or additional warranties.

	[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ CC0] (CC “Zero”) is a universal waiver of copyright, neighboring and related rights, and sui generis rights. CC0 thus enables authors to place their works in the public domain. CC0 is sometimes known as the “no rights reserved” option. Under the laws of certain countries, however, it is not possible for an author to grant a blanket waiver of his or her moral rights. Nor can an author waive the rights that others may have relating to the use of a work (for example, the publicity rights that the subject of a photograph may have).		[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ CC0] (CC “Zero”) is a universal waiver of copyright, neighboring and related rights, and sui generis rights. CC0 thus enables authors to place their works in the public domain. CC0 is sometimes known as the “no rights reserved” option. Under the laws of certain countries, however, it is not possible for an author to grant a blanket waiver of his or her moral rights. Nor can an author waive the rights that others may have relating to the use of a work (for example, the publicity rights that the subject of a photograph may have).

Ecrowley: /* Free Software Licenses */

2012-01-18T19:55:29Z

Free Software Licenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 18 January 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Most commercial software programs are distributed under restrictive terms of use. Moreover, their source code -- the code that makes the program run -- is '''closed.''' As a result, developers cannot study the code to understand how it works, to fix bugs, or to customize it to their needs.		Most commercial software programs are distributed under restrictive terms of use. Moreover, their source code -- the code that makes the program run -- is '''closed.''' As a result, developers cannot study the code to understand how it works, to fix bugs, or to customize it to their needs.

	A radically different approach to software was first developed by Richard Stallman, when he was a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stallman became angry when he could not modify the software for a printer in his office that was not working properly. Provoked by this and other experiences, Stallman created the GNU-GPL, which stands for "GNU is not Unix" General Public License. (Unix was the name of a popular "closed" operating system.) The GNU-GPL allows users to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software to which it is applied. More specifically, the GNU-GPL grants users [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html four kinds of freedoms((.link_red))]:		A radically different approach to software was first developed by Richard Stallman when he was a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stallman became angry when he could not modify the software for a printer in his office that was not working properly. Provoked by this and other experiences, Stallman created the GNU-GPL, which stands for "GNU is not Unix" General Public License. (Unix was the name of a popular "closed" operating system.) The GNU-GPL allows users to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software to which it is applied. More specifically, the GNU-GPL grants users [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html four kinds of freedoms((.link_red))]:

	* The freedom to run the program for any purpose (freedom 0).		* The freedom to run the program for any purpose (freedom 0).
	* The freedom to study how the program works, and to adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.		* The freedom to study how the program works and to adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
	* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).		* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
	* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this, and modifications must be shared with the same degree of freedom.		* The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this, and modifications must be shared with the same degree of freedom.

	In what sense, exactly, is software licensed on these terms, "free"? Stallman suggested that analytical clarity could be enhanced by differentiating two meanings of "free" -- one that appears in the phrase, “free speech”; the other that appears in the phrase, “free beer.” Other commentators distinguish these concepts by using the French terms, '''libre''' (meaning freedom) and '''gratis''' (meaning no cost). Relying on this distinction, Stallman argued that free software was "free" in the first sense, but not necessarily in the second sense. In other words, some "free software" is sold for a fee. That said, in practice most free software currently is "free" in both senses -- in other words, both libre AND gratis.		In what sense, exactly, is software licensed on these terms, "free"? Stallman suggested that analytical clarity could be enhanced by differentiating two meanings of "free" -- one that appears in the phrase, “free speech”; the other that appears in the phrase, “free beer.” Other commentators distinguish these concepts by using the French terms, '''libre''' (meaning freedom) and '''gratis''' (meaning no cost). Relying on this distinction, Stallman argued that free software was "free" in the first sense, but not necessarily in the second sense. In other words, some "free software" is sold for a fee. That said, in practice most free software currently is "free" in both senses -- in other words, both libre AND gratis.

BerkmanSysop: /* 50px| Additional resources */

2010-03-19T16:04:15Z

50px| Additional resources

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 19 March 2010
Line 193:		Line 193:
	* [http://www.plosmedicine.org PLoS Medicine]		* [http://www.plosmedicine.org PLoS Medicine]
	* [http://www.biomedcentral.com/browse/journals/ BioMed OA Medical Journals]		* [http://www.biomedcentral.com/browse/journals/ BioMed OA Medical Journals]
	* [http://www.bioline.org.br/journals BioLine ~~Interneational~~ OA Journals]		* [http://www.bioline.org.br/journals BioLine International OA Journals]
	* [http://www.la-press.com/ Open Access Medical Journals]		* [http://www.la-press.com/ Open Access Medical Journals]
	* [http://www.dovepress.com/open-access-emergency-medicine-journal Open Access Emergency Medicine Journal]		* [http://www.dovepress.com/open-access-emergency-medicine-journal Open Access Emergency Medicine Journal]

Tfisher: /* The Open Access movement */

2010-03-01T03:53:05Z

The Open Access movement

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:53, 1 March 2010
(No difference)

Tfisher: /* The Open Access movement */

2010-03-01T03:52:28Z

The Open Access movement

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 1 March 2010
Line 141:		Line 141:
	OA journals offer articles to the public online for free. They often use very open online licenses, such as the Creative Commons Attribution license. This strategy is sometimes known as “Gold Open Access.” Because they forgo traditional sources of revenue, OA journals must devise alternative business models. Some charge authors for publication of their work. Others rely entirely the work of volunteers.		OA journals offer articles to the public online for free. They often use very open online licenses, such as the Creative Commons Attribution license. This strategy is sometimes known as “Gold Open Access.” Because they forgo traditional sources of revenue, OA journals must devise alternative business models. Some charge authors for publication of their work. Others rely entirely the work of volunteers.

	Some journals are not OA journals, but authorize the authors of the articles they publish to archive versions of their articles in institutional repositories set up by their universities. This strategy is sometimes called “Green Open Access.” Some Green Open Access journals also allow authors to upload their work to free, discipline-specific public repositories, like the [http://www.ssrn.com Social Science Research Network]. Journal copyright policies regarding self-archiving are analyzed by the project [http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ Sherpa RoMEO]. More than 50% of pay-journal policies allow their authors to archive their pre-print articles in open access repositories.		Some journals are not OA journals, but authorize the authors of the articles they publish to archive versions of their articles in institutional repositories set up by their universities. This strategy is sometimes called “Green Open Access.” Some Green Open Access journals also allow authors to upload their work to free, discipline-specific public repositories, like the [http://www.ssrn.com Social Science Research Network]. Journal copyright policies regarding self-archiving are analyzed by the project [http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ Sherpa RoMEO((.link_green))]. More than 50% of pay-journal policies allow their authors to archive their pre-print articles in open access repositories.

	Some journals do not generally allow authors to host open-copies of their articles on their own websites. In these situations, authors may formally request that the publishing contract allow them to do so. Several addendum models are available. "SCAE," the [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/scae/ Science Commons Scholars’ Copyright Addendum Engine] generates one such form.		Some journals do not generally allow authors to host open-copies of their articles on their own websites. In these situations, authors may formally request that the publishing contract allow them to do so. Several addendum models are available. "SCAE," the [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/scae/ Science Commons Scholars’ Copyright Addendum Engine] generates one such form.

Tfisher: /* Implications for Authors and for Users */

2010-03-01T03:32:50Z

Implications for Authors and for Users

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, 1 March 2010
Line 132:		Line 132:
	* Creative Commons does not track infringements and is not authorized to represent licensors in lawsuits or help them enforce the licenses.		* Creative Commons does not track infringements and is not authorized to represent licensors in lawsuits or help them enforce the licenses.
	* Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, and the license grant is perpetual. Authors who employ CC licenses thus cannot later change their minds. They can, of course, cease distributing the works or distribute them under different conditions, but this will not affect the rights associated with the copies that are already in circulation.		* Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, and the license grant is perpetual. Authors who employ CC licenses thus cannot later change their minds. They can, of course, cease distributing the works or distribute them under different conditions, but this will not affect the rights associated with the copies that are already in circulation.
	* There is no central registry or authority to verify that licensors have all the rights they need to use a CC license.
	* Determining what does and does not constitute a commercial use is a difficult question, and answers may vary among individuals and user communities.		* Determining what does and does not constitute a commercial use is a difficult question, and answers may vary among individuals and user communities.
	* It is questionable whether jurisdiction-specific licenses, which have been adapted to national legal systems, are really compatible with each other. For instance, some versions of the CC licenses include moral rights or database rights; others do not.		* It is questionable whether jurisdiction-specific licenses, which have been adapted to national legal systems, are really compatible with each other. For instance, some versions of the CC licenses include moral rights or database rights; others do not.

Tfisher: /* Implications for Authors and for Users */

2010-03-01T03:31:23Z

Implications for Authors and for Users

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 1 March 2010
Line 123:		Line 123:
	The licenses are based on copyright law, and are thus applicable only to copyrightable works.		The licenses are based on copyright law, and are thus applicable only to copyrightable works.

	In many countries, collecting societies require their members to assign all of their rights in present and future works to the societies. Thus, members cannot use a Creative Commons licenses, even for some of their works or some of their rights.		In many countries, collecting societies require their members to assign all of their rights in present and future works to the societies. Thus, members cannot use Creative Commons licenses, even for some of their works or some of their rights.

	Many authors do not understand why the two systems are not compatible, especially in the music industry. They would like to license their non-commercial rights for free under a Creative Commons license, and assign the management of their commercial rights to a collecting society. This model is possible for some collecting societies in some countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands or Denmark. But other collecting societies do not use the same legal categories as Creative Commons. For instance, they may not recognize the distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses. In those countries, authors are currently forced to choose one system or the other.		Many authors do not understand why the two systems are not compatible, especially in the music industry. They would like to license their non-commercial rights for free under a Creative Commons license, and assign the management of their commercial rights to a collecting society. This model is possible for some collecting societies in some countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands or Denmark. But other collecting societies do not use the same legal categories as Creative Commons. For instance, they may not recognize the distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses. In those countries, authors are currently forced to choose one system or the other.