Five days ago I wrote to Springer about violations of copyright on their site, SpringerImages. Since then I have documented everything on this blog and those who want to know more details can read recent blogs. I have made it clear that I consider the current practice is unacceptable, morally, legally, and ethically.
Springer rang me yesterday , agreed to put out a factual statement about the site. They then contacted me and asked me to retract what I had said and its implications. I said I would retract the word “theft”. Much of the rest of what I have said is fact. Springer have not yet explained the problem.
The current position is summarised by Mike Taylor http://svpow.com/2012/06/05/springer-are-digging-themselves-deeper-into-a-hole/ . He also says:
First up, Bettina Goerner, Springer’ Science and Business Media Open Access Manager, who spoke with Peter:
Something has gone wrong. Springer is working very hard. They hope to fix it by July.
By July?! So what we’re being told is this: Springer have a grotesque attribution, licencing and copyright problem on their Images site, whether by design or accident, which results in their gaining revenue from material that is not theirs. And they intend to continue profiting from it for another month. Not acceptable! At the very least, the Springer Images site should immediately be modified to show a prominent banner stating “the copyright and licence information pertaining to these resources is wrong: contact the original creators for permissions” until the mistakes are all fixed.
That is the least they can do. Since I may be asked to RETRACT opinions I shall stick to FACTs and labelled HYPOTHESES. I shall also deal ONLY with non-OA content. (The problem that alerted me was in the mislabelling of my OA CC-BY material.)
I would welcome correction of what follows:
- FACT: SpringerImages are still listing my content as “copyright BMC”, 5 days after my reporting it.
- FACT The site is a commercial site (confirmed by Bettina Goerner). As an example, if an academic wishes to use a Springer image in a course pack it will cost USD60.
- FACT Individual (non-corporate) membership costs USD595 (presumably per year) from the site
- FACT: Many of the licensing algorithms (and I found it very difficult to get quotes) refer to “agents of a commercial organization” and “member of the pharmaceutical industry”. HYPOTHESIS: they also sell to industry and generate income.
- HYPOTHESIS: Much (probably most) of the SpringerImages site is taken from Non-OA material sources,
- FACT much of it is copyrighted “Springer” (various Springer companies such as Springer Verlag, Springer Medizin, etc.)
- FACT the visitor to the site is told that they require a subscription to view the images.
- FACT I looked for apparent, alleged, violations of third party copyright (such as Wikipedia). Out of the first ten examples I looked at all were copyrighted Springer.
- HYPOTHESIS Some of the authors of these materials have not given Springer explicit permission to include them in Springer Images, change the copyright and resell them.
- FACT after 5 days I have been unable to find any changes to the site as a result of reporting the problem(s).
- FACT Springer are aware that there are images on the site that are mislabelled.
- FACT They are continuing to sell them
- FACT Springer have made no public announcement to customers of SpringerImages.
- HYPOTHESIS some customers will pay for material that Springer does not have the right to sell to them
- HYPOTHESIS some customers will pay for material that should be branded as FREE (gratis and libre).
In the UK many insurance companies sold insurance to people who did not need it. This has been called “mis-selling”. They have had to pay people back.
HYPOTHESIS The “glitch” is a serious system failure – FACT it will take a month to fix.
FACT If an airplane is found to be defective the company has to ground it.
FACT If an electric appliance is found to be defective it must be taken off the market (or recalled)
FACT If insurance is mis-sold the industry has to give the money back.
HYPOTHESIS Springer does not feel the same rules apply to them. FACT they have taken no action.
The absolute least they could do is:
- Put a statement ON THE SITE stating there is a problem
- Offer to refund anyone who has been mis-sold images (of course this may be zero, in which case there isn’t a problem)
In fact I HYPOTHESIZE the glitch will be very difficult to fix, for the following reason:
- FACT when an author requests permission from a publisher to reproduce an image they do it for a specific purpose. Springer do this: (http://www.springerpub.com/resources/authors/permissions#.T88MYsWQlS0 ). HYPOTHESIS. They will have to visit many of the 3 million images using human eyeballs
They also state here (FACT)
Welcome to Springer Publishing Company’s permissions and copyrights page. You must obtain written permission to reuse or reproduce material found in our books and journals, unless:
- You are a Springer author seeking to reuse your own material.
- You are planning on using our material in a dissertation.
Although you are not required to obtain written permission for the above mentioned exceptions, the reproduced material must be accompanied by a full citation.
Prior to requesting permission, please verify that Springer Publishing Company is the rightsholder to the material you are planning to use.
The copyright page of all of our books and journals lists “Springer Publishing Company” as the publisher and copyright holder. There are other publishers that use the name Springer (e.g., Springer-Verlag, Springer Science+Business Media, and Axel Springer), so please verify that we are the publisher.
If the material in the Springer title is attributed to someone else or labeled as “reprinted” or “reused with permission”, that means we do not control the rights to the material, and you must contact the source cited to request permission. (PMR emphasis).
So third party material in Springer does not belong to Springer and they do not have rights to it and they know this:
- FACT: many examples of third party material that I have found have been put SpringerImages, labelled as Springer copyright and offered for sale.
- HYPOTHESIS The original rights holders are unaware that this material is being badged and sold
- HYPOTHESIS. If I or others dug around a bit more I would find more examples
- FACT Springer have done nothing public about this and continue to offer it for sale.
- HYPOTHESIS It was the glitch that did it, honest guv.
I will use the term “mis-selling”. If Springer feel this is unfair I will call it something else.
- FACT relabeling someone else’s labelled work with your copyright is illegal
- FACT knowingly continuing to sell it breaks laws in most countries of the world
My OPINION is that the only way that Springer can avoid these problems is to close the site until they have found the glitch (or the family of glitches).
Oh, and a small FACTOID:
Almost none of these images have been created by Springer or their employees or as works for hire. The creative effort in these works has come from outside Springer. But that’s a different blog post.
Let’s find that pesky glitch!
FACT If an airplane is found to be defective the company has to ground it.
FACT If an electric appliance is found to be defective it must be taken off the market (or recalled)
These are both fallacious arguments, that have nothing to do with this issue. Both of these could result in a loss of life, which is not equatable to financial loss from Springer ‘stealing’ your images. You are using these comparisons in an attempt to make this clear case of egregious ‘copyright infringement’ seem more important than it is, probably because you are angry. I suggest that you do not do this.
Do not muddy your argument with these fallacious arguments. Your case is air tight and strong enough without them.
Thanks
I agree it is not a precise comparison. The analogy was to show that other industries are prepared and required to remove defective products. IMO SpringerImages is a defective product. IMO it is unacceptable to continue to sell material that they have no right to. Springer shows no public contrition and no indication that it will withdraw anything in a reasonable time scale (i.e. days, not months).
I have argued that the #scholpub industry requires regulation. When they behave like this there should be someone to complain to. Without that we have to take them to court ourselves.
No, I am not angry on my own account. The badging of my work by Springer doesn’t keep me awake at night.
But yes, I am angry on behalf of science and knowledge, because “re-use of images” is one of many huge impediments instituted by the #commTollPub industry. And they cannot even do it to the standard that most of us would expect.
FACT: Dr. Murray-Rust is referring to the rights and permissions text of a *different* “Springer”, namely the Springer Publishing Company (www.springerpub.com). Springer Images is our product (Springer Science+Business Media) and we are working very hard to correct the problems — not fast enough for some of you, but as fast as we can.
“We are working very hard to correct the problems — not fast enough for some of you, but as fast as we can.”
This is good to know, Eric. But until it’s fixed, you are (even if inadvertently) running an illegal scam. You must shut down the site, or at minimum add a big, visible explanatory banner, until the copytheft is fixed. Not to do so is to continue to con people. We’re all prepared to accept that the initial copytheft was accidental; but as of a couple of days ago the decision to keep the site up in its present form makes it deliberate.
FACT: Dr. Murray-Rust is referring to the rights and permissions text of a *different* “Springer”, namely the Springer Publishing Company (www.springerpub.com).
My apologies – in this instance – to both Springer Publishing and Springer.com. I will find the latter permissions and quote from them.
” until it’s fixed, you are (even if inadvertently) running an illegal scam. You must shut down the site, or at minimum add a big, visible explanatory banner, until the copytheft is fixed. Not to do so is to continue to con people. We’re all prepared to accept that the initial copytheft was accidental; but as of a couple of days ago the decision to keep the site up in its present form makes it deliberate.”
In the last few years, OASPA and/or BioMed Central have called attention to, and worked with other publishers to address, incorrect Rights/Permissions info on multiple sites hosting OA content – this has been a common problem (for readily understandable reasons).
e.g. here is an extract email I sent on behalf of OASPA to a major STM publisher in 2010, in response to an enquiry about OASPA membership:
“Lastly a common problem, seen to some extent with OUP, the BMJ and Springer before they joined OASPA, and which I can imagine will be a potential issue for [REDACTED] too, is that journal platforms which have been designed around subscription-based journals may accidentally include elements which are actively misleading in the case of OA articles. E.g. there may be a link encouraging the user to pay Rightslink for the right to photocopy and distribute copies of the article to students, or there may be a footer saying ‘All rights reserved’. So OASPA would strongly encourage any publisher launching new OA journals to review the web pages carefully to try to catch any such misleading statements before launch.”
Similarly, BioMed Central spotted years ago that the British Library was erroneously levying a copyright charge when providing document delivery for OA articles, and worked with them to resolve that issue.
More recently, I called attention to a similar problem with rights on Mary Ann Liebert’s open access journal websites:
http://svpow.com/2012/05/23/i-would-like-an-explanation-for-why-it-costs-585-to-email-an-open-access-article/
These issues are important and need to be resolved, but I do not believe they result from any malfeasance on the part of the publishers concerned. I think it would have been over-reacting, for example, to demand that the BMJ shut down its website until it fixed the Rightslink issue on its OA articles…
Meanwhile, it has certainly never been Springer’s intention to profit by selling rights to images for which is it not the rights-holder, and Springer have confirmed that anyone who has paid for such rights will be entitled to a refund. My guess is there have been zero such mistaken purchases (just as I doubt if anyone has actually paid $585 to email a Mary Ann Liebert article), but if any such payments have been made they will be refunded.
Springer is also investigating the quickest way to provide an interim warning to users that the rights info on some open access images may be inaccurate.
Matt
Thank you,
I appreciate your comments
>>> In the last few years, OASPA and/or BioMed Central have called attention to, and worked with other publishers to address, incorrect Rights/Permissions info on multiple sites hosting OA content – this has been a common problem (for readily understandable reasons).
I would agree with that. To the extent that other publishers do/not take this seriously I judge their commitment to OA and more generally to the scientific community. I appreciate BMC’s. I am continuing to form my own opinion about the non-BMC part of Springer.
>>> e.g. here is an extract email I sent on behalf of OASPA to a major STM publisher in 2010, in response to an enquiry about OASPA membership:
>>> “Lastly a common problem, seen to some extent with OUP, the BMJ and Springer before they joined OASPA, and which I can imagine will be a potential issue for [REDACTED] too, is that journal platforms which have been designed around subscription-based journals may accidentally include elements which are actively misleading in the case of OA articles. E.g. there may be a link encouraging the user to pay Rightslink for the right to photocopy and distribute copies of the article to students, or there may be a footer saying ‘All rights reserved’. So OASPA would strongly encourage any publisher launching new OA journals to review the web pages carefully to try to catch any such misleading statements before launch.”
This seems reasonable.
>>> Similarly, BioMed Central spotted years ago that the British Library was erroneously levying a copyright charge when providing document delivery for OA articles, and worked with them to resolve that issue.
I am glad it is resolved because when I spotted the same issue the BL said they weren’t prepared to help me.
>>> More recently, I called attention to a similar problem with rights on Mary Ann Liebert’s open access journal websites:
http://svpow.com/2012/05/23/i-would-like-an-explanation-for-why-it-costs-585-to-email-an-open-access-article/
>>> These issues are important and need to be resolved, but I do not believe they result from any malfeasance on the part of the publishers concerned. I think it would have been over-reacting, for example, to demand that the BMJ shut down its website until it fixed the Rightslink issue on its OA articles…
Yes, but what Springer is selling is wholly different – it is the mass appropriation of *images*. I shall wait to see whether they can create a system where the rights of all image creators/owners is honoured.
>>> Meanwhile, it has certainly never been Springer’s intention to profit by selling rights to images for which is it not the rights-holder, and Springer have confirmed that anyone who has paid for such rights will be entitled to a refund. My guess is there have been zero such mistaken purchases (just as I doubt if anyone has actually paid $585 to email a Mary Ann Liebert article), but if any such payments have been made they will be refunded.
There are several issues:
* the selling of material it does not have rights to sell
* the selling of material that is Open
* the copyrighting of materials it has no right to
>>> Springer is also investigating the quickest way to provide an interim warning to users that the rights info on some open access images may be inaccurate.
Noted – that is what I asked for this morning
Thanks, Matt. Peter has said much of what I would have said, so I cam be brief. My issue here is that, which I can absolutely see how this could have happened accidentally, now that Springer knows about the issue and is still selling images on that basis it can’t claim the “accidental” defence any more. Right now it is deliberately selling material that is has no rights to and that is intolerable. It would be intolerable if PLoS did it, or if Elsevier did it; it’s intolerable when Springer do it. I am a bit surprised that you don’t see that.
And so:
“Springer is also investigating the quickest way to provide an interim warning to users that the rights info on some open access images may be inaccurate.”
Come on. “Investigating”? Shoving a banner on the site is not rocket science. It would take a competent engineer ten minutes. Yet here we are three days after the mistake was pointed out, and nothing has happened. Do you honestly think that’s reasonable?
I think there are at least two problems – as I have tried to outline in my latest post.
(A) the rebadging of BMC content as CC-NC and copyright BMC.
(B) the apparent, allegedly, misattribution of copyright for other SI content.
I am not clear whether SpringerImages is actually offering (A) for sale. If so I couldn’t find it. (But the site is not IMO very well designed for people like me). So Mike’s concern is valid for (A) IFF the site is actually offering BMC content for sale or apparently restricting its re-use or misreprenting authors’ moral rights or making it difficult to find original material.
(B) is potentially very serious. My blog shows examples of material which (to my simple mind) might possibly be interpreted as belonging to people other than Springer. I don’t know whether that is a result of the glitch because I don’t know what this glitch is. Again to my simple mind I find it hard to think of a glitch which could claim (A) and (B) simultaneously.
But If I were a rights holder in some of this material that Springer claims rights to and if I hadn’t given Springer the right to rebadge and redistribute my work then I might be rather unhappy. But I’m not a RH. I’m going to try to find some.
IFF, as my simple mind goes, I could multiply my investigations to the suggestion that there are tens of thousands of mislabelled images then I would. If I were Groundwood books (about whom I know nothing except it doesn’t seem to be a Springer company) I might want to make sure I had formally given Springer the right to copyright and resell art material from my books. And if I were Springer I might worry about the owners and I might worry that I hadn’t made any changes to the site.
And, if I were a scientist I might feel some moral and ethical concerns about how my material was being resold. But I’m sure that’s legal. I just have to find the right Springer agreement.
The technical term for what they’re doing is “copyfraud”.
Yes,
Many thanks,
I am familiar with the term and have planned to write a post about it.
Of course I mustn’t accuse them of it or I shall be asked to RETRACT. But I am very happy that you have highligthed the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud )
Pingback: Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - #springergate: I try to explain SpringerImages and my continuing concern. « petermr's blog