In an email from Klaus Graf, one of the most consistent supporters of BBB-OA (and CC-BY):
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4931334/ In German. [PMR: It translates quite readably with Babelfish]. Reasons for re-use OA and my mantra "Make all research results CC-BY": (1) Data mining, see already http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4851871/ (in English) (2) Educational use, see GSU case and "Open Education" movement (3) Open Content projects (e.g. Wikimedia projects) (4) Re-Use of heritage items and scholarly photographs/illustrations: not possible if CC-NC and publication in commercial journal (5) More chance for impact if commercial use (6) Translations (7) Wiki-re-use of materials (8) Orphans (9) Mirroring in repositories - LOCKSS principle (10) We need more remix experiments Summary: CC-BY as default license. PMR: Clarification: I think "Orphan" means abandoned by the author(s) often through death. This overcomes the ludicrous repsonse I sometimes get from Libraries (and by indirection the British Library - "this work is over 100 years old, but we can't let you have it without permission from the author"). PMR: I'd like to see this list agreed and widely posted for reference. I'm not sure whether it's comprehensive. I have a particular requirement for "images" in scientific publications. Things like the diagram of the apparatus; chemical formulae; the machine-produced graphs of the data and many more. I'd see these as different from 4. The knee-jerk response of publishers is "it's an image- it's OURS! If you want it, you'll have to pay!" I'm thinking of what I say on Thursday. There are several publishers there. Publishers have three policies on Open Access:
- clear and positive (PLoS, BMC and occasional Open Access journals from others).
- It’s all ours and we make this clear
Unfortunately most publishers adopt the mumble policy. This is simple to describe and simple to operate. If asked a direct question, fail to give the courtesy of an answer. This perpetuates FUD or at least UD. Typical mumble licensing policy is shown by the American Chemical Society which was asked 6 months ago by Chemspider whether CS could use our CrystalEye data derived from the supplemental data in ACS articles. This data is outside the firewall but indirectly stamped as copyright. Is re-use of this data allowed?
So I think there may be representatives of ACS divisions present at the meeting.
Is it rude to ask them what their policy is?
They have 5 days to think of an answer. Surely that’s long enough?
Oh, and while I’m at it, and if there is a Wiley representative, maybe I’ll ask them whether I am allowed to reproduce graphs from their papers without permission.
After all it’s our data, not theirs