Good question, Ali.
There are lots of different kinds of “repurposing.” Referring to someone else’s research findings, or citing them (accurately or not) to further one’s own agenda, would be one example. As you note, that’s entirely possible under a traditional copyright regime in which the author (or her assign, like a publisher) retains all the exclusive prerogatives of copyright. And no one should be prevented from doing that – a system in which the only people who could cite someone else’s research are those who agree with the original researcher would obviously be a disaster.
A different kind of repurposing is the creation of derivative works. For example, suppose a photojournalist produces a photographic essay designed to help members of a marginalized group tell their stories, and someone who hates that group repurposes the entire essay for use as an illustration of that group’s supposed deviancy. (That’s not a hypothetical example: seehttps://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/03/31/cc-by-copyright-and-stolen-advocacy/.) If the author has retained his or her exclusive rights as a copyright holder, s/he can sue and will likely win. If the author has licensed the essay under a CC BY license, not only would s/he have no legal recourse, but the license terms would require that s/he be credited as the creator of the original version of the derivative work.
As I mentioned below, the same thing can happen, though probably on a much less dramatic scale, with scholarly research: the issue in this case isn’t being _cited_ by those with an ideological agenda the author abhors (as you note, that can happen regardless), but rather having _derivatives of one’s work_ produced by those whose agenda one abhors, and – even worse – those people being required by the terms of the license to attach your name to the derivatives.
Of course, if you want your work to be freely available for all possible uses and reuses, but don’t necessarily want to be credited as the originator of the work, you can use a CC0 waiver instead of a CC BY license, thus putting your work immediately into the public domain. Then you’ll only be credited if the creator of the derivative follows standard scholarly norms of citation.
Best,
Rick
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
I'm inclined to agree about the law of unintended consequences, but I'm struggling to see how open licenses, specifically, allow work to be repurposed in ways you can't already do now with someone's book or paper. Prior to becoming a librarian my research field was evolutionary bio/bioanthropology, where controversial questions and research topics abound. People claimed research in those areas demonstrated all kinds of pet hypotheses. We can look at something like what the "redpill" community did with evolutionary psychology - that started twenty years ago, at least. What kind of "repurposing" does CC-BY permit that isn't already happening? Not trying to be contrary here...I genuinely want to understand. I certainly have my own concerns about what can happen with CC0 (public domain) and data, but that's probably because I am a data librarian and am more familiar with what's going on in that area.
Of course, “with attribution” can become an issue when one’s work is being repurposed in ways or for purposes with which the author disagrees. Imagine publishing research that deals in some way with inheritable characteristics, and that is then adapted for reuse by someone with an ideological agenda that you strongly oppose. A CC BY license makes just such reuse entirely acceptable, AND requires that your name be attached to it.
The law of unintended consequences is both real and merciless. 😊
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
Angela,
This is very interesting and also a bit concerning with regards to the “attribution” aspect. That remains the single most important issue for authors with respect to sharing licenses and also having scholarly Works ingested and trained on by LLMs…..without attribution as a firm requirement, the entire ecosystem will become even more fraught with plagiarism and other forms of misconduct….
Please note that the NIH draft policy requires grantee/authors to make the following attestation:
"I hereby grant to NIH, a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use this work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so. This grant of rights includes the right to create derivative works and make the final, peer-reviewed manuscript publicly available upon the Official Date of Publication."
The NIH is not requiring a CC BY license but is requiring that they get the same rights without any requirement for attribution. This directly relates to language in the appropriation reports. Public comments on the NIH draft policy are due today and there will likely be a lot of commentary on this.
Angela Cochran
VP, Publishing
ASCO
########################################################################
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
########################################################################
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
