Margaret Winker, MD
eLearning Program Director and Trustee, World Association of Medical Editors
***
@WAME_editors
Understood, but my questions remain.
I doubt that anyone believes this is a new conversation – we’ve been arguing about authors’ rights, funder/government OA mandates, the pros/cons of various kinds of CC licenses, etc. for many years now. And the voices that have been centered and amplified throughout those conversations over the years have not typically been those of authors. That’s why, when I see authors’ positions being represented in public documents by those whose goal is to change authors’ minds and behavior, I can’t help but wonder what those authors would think about how their positions are being represented.
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 9:35 PM
To: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] [EXT] Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo continues to fail to die...
Rick it was eight years ago. I sent it through to indicate this is not a new conversation.
Danny
On 20 Aug 2024, at 13:28, Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks for sharing these notes, Danny. I notice that the actual voices of the researchers are not heard in this document – instead, while it’s the summary of a conversation involving researchers, the summary appears to have been prepared by people who want researchers to accede to OA/CC-BY requirements and don’t always seem to interpret researchers’ concerns entirely charitably.
Are there any other records of this meeting – preferably, records that give the academics themselves a direct voice? Failing that, is it possible to know the names of the people who were in the meeting? It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on how their positions and concerns were represented in this public document.
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 8:42 PM
To: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] [EXT] Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo continues to fail to die...
Hi all,
This discussion reminds me of those we were having in the UK in 2016. I convened a meeting to discuss this and wrote it up:
It covers the issues of: moral rights, translation, plagiarism, their party copyright. sensitive information, commercialisation, academic freedom. There’s also a few references throughout.
Danny
On 20 Aug 2024, at 07:07, Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ali Krzton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Ali Krzton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 2:50 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] [EXT] Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo continues to fail to die...
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.
Best,
Ali K.
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 2:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] [EXT] Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo continues to fail to die...
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. 😊
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Scott Delman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Scott Delman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 1:44 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] [EXT] Re: [OPENCAFE-L] Legislative opposition to the Nelson Memo continues to fail to die...
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….
Regards,
Scott Delman
ACM Director of Publications
Assoc. Computing Machinery
1601 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Office: +1-212-626-0659
Mobile: +1-212-729-7515
Fax: +1-212-869-0481
Email: [log in to unmask]
Skype: scott.delman
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottdelman
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-0696
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]
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
Visiting Fellow, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, ANUAdjunct Senior Lecturer, Charles Sturt University
Member, Board of Directors, FORCE11
Member, Australian Academy of Science National Committee for Data in Science
---------------------------------------
e: [log in to unmask]
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68b: @dannykay68.bsky.social
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
Visiting Fellow, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, ANUAdjunct Senior Lecturer, Charles Sturt University
Member, Board of Directors, FORCE11
Member, Australian Academy of Science National Committee for Data in Science
---------------------------------------
e: [log in to unmask]
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68b: @dannykay68.bsky.social
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939
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]