版权,创造性的公共和混乱

This post by Robert Harington originally appeared on The Scholarly Kitchen blog; access the original post这里。Robert Harington是美国数学社会(AMS)的副执行主任。188bet会员Robert拥有在AMS出版的总体责任,包括书籍,期刊和电子产品。my188bet金宝博

回到2017年,我张贴了一篇帖子学术厨房题为“版权所有:出版商的观点“。我们现在在2020年,孤立地击中,远程工作。当我们骑出这些困难时期时,我们无法帮助,但展望未来,考虑Covid-19出版社的内容。在本文中,我想重新审视版权历史,转向创造性的公共牌照那and weigh the value of protection and reuse in light of an inexorable push towards global openness. There is value in publishing in an open setting, but do we fully understand how openness will stimulate or hinder creation and expression of ideas? Publishers, and indeed all players in the publishing ecosystem, have not moved far in helping our communities understand the rights and licensing landscape. On the one hand, authors are mainly concerned with disseminating their research and doing so in a way that maximizes use and citation. On the other hand, authors be they authors of journal articles or books, may find their content repurposed in ways they did not expect by publishers they did not sign on with. I am deliberately not stepping into the treacherous waters of whether publishers pay royalties for differing kinds of content to authors. The issue I address is how to equip authors to be able to ask the right questions, and sign up to be published knowing how their content will be treated. An author’s bandwidth to consider complexities of licensing and rights associated with their publishing output is limited. However, it is important that authors grapple with such complexities, as their ability to create may rest on being able to navigate the right path for publicizing their research and communicating their ideas.

copyright symbol surrounded by circular lines

版权法很复杂,各国差别变化 - 作者不遵循其复杂性的主要原因之一。在这里,我将特别提及美国版权法,但当当然,当印刷机在第十五世纪晚期被引入英格兰时,就建立了这样的法律。印刷机牢固地控制,而且1662年的许可行为cemented what was effectively their ability to censor publications. By 1710, England’s parliament enacted安妮的法规,建立了作者如何拥有其工作的权利 - 版权所有。它设定了一个固定的14年,以保护作者的工作,如果提交人在前14年期限已过期时,如果提交人仍然活着。版权法继续发展,虽然您毫无疑问,但我将遗憾地将您详细介绍其所有扩展。

然而,一些关键的创新是值得研究的。For example, the伯尔尼公约,这是在1886年的,并于1989年被美国签署。该概念将美国将美国的版权探讨在更广泛的国际方法的背景下。有效地,鉴于研究的全球性质,这是世界上全世界的版权法有无数的版权法,这使得作者和出版商相同。

版权案例法是卷积的:数百个重要案例,直到现今的进一步完善版权法。一个重要的美国法律是美国版权法案为1976年,这大幅修改了版权法1909年基本上为1978年至今的所有作者的作品提供了保护。为什么这件事?嗯,这是第一次真正的认可,即个人的工作是值得的,需要受到保护,远离书店和打印机垄断。

我们没有解决的问题是为什么强烈发展版权?版权法的概念是,如果通过建立防止未经授权使用内容的权利,作者更能够在艺术和科学中表达他们的创意。太少的人认识到学术产品 - 也就是说,想法和知识 - 是相当艰苦的工作的结果,应该至少通过归因认可的工作。作者可以寻求版权法,以帮助防止他人不恰当地重新挑选工作,或者改变它在其名称下说出不同和重新发布的作品。版权保护研究的完整性。这是对人文作者的主要关注点,其中争论是结果。他们不希望其他人改变他们仔细选择的话。

This, in turn, allows authors to benefit financially from publishing their work. I do find this notion appealing, and I sense that in the rush to demonize copyright law in the publishing industry, it is often easy to forget that copyright is indeed in force to protect authors themselves, not so much the publishers.

让我们快进朝前的一天,看看我们如何发展成为一个创造性的公共许可的世界是新的正常的。Creative Commons许可证是一个成功的企业,允许作者保留版权,并通过允许重复使用的许可证来发布他们的工作。这些许可证有各种口味和礼貌创意共享组织,我在这里列出了他们的完整复杂荣耀,具有创造性的公共的简要摘要描述:

归因:CC by

This license lets others distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

归因 - Sharealike:cc by-sa

即使在商业目的中,此许可证允许其他REMIX,适应和构建在您的工作时,只要他们通过相同的术语信任您并许可其新创作。此许可证通常将与“Copyleft”进行比较,免费和开源软件许可证。所有基于您的新工程都将携带相同的许可证,因此任何衍生品也将允许商业用途。这是维基百科使用的许可,建议用于将内容从维基百科和类似许可项目中获益的材料。

归因-Noderivs:cc by-nd

此许可证让其他许可证为任何目的重用工作,包括商业;但是,它不能以适应形式与他人共享,并且必须向您提供信用卡。

归因 - 非商业:CC By-NC

This license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

ATTRIBUTION-NONCOMMERCIAL-SHAREALIKE: CC BY-NC-SA

只要他们通过相同的条款信用并许可了许可证,就可以在您的工作中进行其他混音,适应和构建其他校正,适应和构建。

归因 - 非商业 - Noderivs:CC By-NC-ND

本许可证是我们六个主要许可最严格的限制性,只允许其他人下载您的作品并只要他们信誉您,只要他们信誉,就可以以任何方式改变它们或商业上使用它们。

What are the pros and cons for authors thinking about using Creative Commons Licenses? Advantages to Creative Commons Licenses lie mainly in the open nature of an author’s content, with the license allowing for reuse under conditions set by the license used. The con to using these licenses is in the lack of control an author may have over their content. A reuse of content can’t be revoked under a Creative Commons License once granted – unlike removing copyright permissions. Also, authors need to be very careful about which license they use. If an author is adamant that they do not want their work used by another party to make money, then they need to know to use CC BY-NC. If an author does not want their work to be the basis of a derivative work then ND comes into play and so on. Even with CC BY, where all that is asked is correct attribution in reuse, who amongst our authors knows how to follow up on abuses – and abuses are common. Even if attribution is given, an author may not initially realize to what use their content may be put. For examples of this you can turn to Rick Anderson’s excellent article of 2014 entitledCC-by,版权和被盗的宣传, 例如:

去年,我们看到了一个令人不安的(如果越来越令人厌恶)的例子是如何在学术领域发生这种情况。Apple学术出版社发布了一本名为ePigenetics,环境和基因的书。本书几乎完全由他们的作者许可所采取的文章,从他们在CC牌照下发布的OA期刊。my188bet金宝博它现在是卖在亚马逊只有100美元。虽然学术界的成员已经回应了暴行,苹果学术出版社没有做任何非法甚至不道德的。只要文章的作者得到了适当的信用,这种重用就是在CC-y术语下明确允许的许多人之一。如果作者感到被苹果学术虐待,那就是因为他们未能阅读(或理解)他们在提交OA网点的出版物的文章时签署的协议。

Joe Esposito指出了他2019年的题为“开放访问书籍内部矛盾“,发布商自己并不总是通过许可证的效力来理解或计算CC的影响,并且当他们发布的内容时,可以非常沮丧。

作者基本上必须询问自己在发布内容时对他们的重要性如何。由于它代表,出版商,实际上所有的利益相关者都在出版生态系统中,做出了糟糕的工作,解释如何浏览这些问题。

这个问题对于许多作者是出版商那institutions, and funders are not making it clear what their licensing and copyright expectations are of authors. A journal may require copyright transfer, but an author’s institution may require use of a Creative Commons License. How does an author resolve such a quandary? (If, indeed, they are even aware of it?) Publishers perhaps are not helping here, as we do very little to explain how rights issues may affect authors as they publish their content. An author deserves to be able to make an informed choice to publish based on the rights they want associated with their content, and to do that they need help understanding their rights.

Further Reading:

CC-BYE再见!无拘无束的复制权的一些后果变得更加清晰- Phil Davis,学术厨房2013

创造性的共享混乱继续困扰内容创作者– David Crotty, Scholarly Kitchen 2014

更具创造性的共享混乱:NC什么时候真的意味着“非商业”?– David Crotty, Scholarly Kitchen 2015

此条目已发布作者出版问题和趋势。书签书签永久链接

发表评论

您的电子邮件地址不会被公开。必需的地方已做标记*

不允许HTML标记。

546 Spambots Blocked by简单评论