This is a series of posts critiquing the trend towards adopting a particular CC license as a standard for open access. My own views are that we don't know what the best approach for sharing scholarly and other types of work will be in the future, and cannot know until we spend some time thinking and trying things out. By "time", I mean decades, or centuries. This view is expressed most clearly in the post Articulating the commons: a leaderful approach. This topic is also addressed, although not in full, in the defense draft of my thesis Freedom for Scholarship in the Internet Age (see the open access chapter and the conclusion).
Editorial: open access, copyright and licensing: basics for open access publishers
Author copyright in name only
The Elsevier website provides a clear example of how author copyright can be in name only, with all rights other than nominal transferred to the publisher.
Open access publishing: current issues in copyright and licensing
This is a post for recording some of the issues I come across in the May 2015 OA APC survey.
A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses for scholarship
One of the problems with the push for ubiquitous CC-BY is that it overlooks the needs of scholars to include works that are not scholarly in nature. If every scholarly article in the world were released as CC-BY, this would not only not be helpful to the communication scholar needing to include excerpts of commercially valuable or sensitive works, it would likely make it even more difficult to obtain permission to use this kind of material.
Creative Commons CC-BY confusions.Describes a CC mixter discussion about whether it is legal and/or ethical to sell compilations of CC-BY licensed songs, and whether the community understands the implications when licensing their work.
Chang vs. Virgin Mobile: the photo of a young minor age woman is posted CC-BY to flickr, becomes part of an advertising campaign without the family's knowledge or permission. Legal battles ensue.
The commercial overlords of scholarly rewrite copyright licenses to suit themselves
The Elsevier "open access" / exclusive license to publish hybrid
Rosie Redfield has posted results of an author survey and some of her own critique on RRResearch.
Attitudes and values regarding research dissemination and licenses
Is DOAJ inadvertently promoting publisher power over scholars?
A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached is the toll access model
Wikipedia, scholarship and CC-BY
A simple definition for open access: a proposal to open the discussion
UK BIS Committee submission
flickr and Creative Commons: the popularity of noncommercial
Why CC-BY will sometimes be a violation of research ethics
CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining
PLooS, or contemplating new IJPE series: poking fun at CC-BUY
CC-BY - and/or versus - open access?
Dear Creative Commons: please drop the gratuitous insult
Are strict CC-BY publishers shooting themselves in the foot?
Copyright for expression of ideas; patent law for ideas
Research Councils UK draft new open access policy: my comments
A way of saying "this is open access"
PLoS ONE is in the lead - but could a well thought out noncommercial approach give a competitor an edge?
Should we copyleft our personal information - including our bodies?
Let's raise the floor - a proposal for Creative Commons
Is the OJS simple statement of open access enough, or should we do away with academic copyright altogether?
Why require attribution? A Creative Commons discussion item
Noncommercial means noncommercial (creative commons discussion)
Journals with good Creative Commons models
Three pictures, one small gift, to everyone, with love
To everyone, with love
Creative Commons, noncommercial and formats
Articulating the commons: a leaderful approach
Creative Commons and noncommercial: CC 4.0 discussion
Education is a public good - not a commercial activity!
Dissension in the open access ranks on CC licenses and strategy tips for publishers