Bernard,
The Green Road is not generally conceived of as "publishing" unless you take the
work "publishing" in a very general sense, such as "making public". Stevan
Harnad, in fact, has always carefully separated the Green Road (self-archiving -
not self-publishing) from both vanity presses and publishing reforms. I agree
with him on these two points, even though I also believe that repositories could
make moves that would bring them much closer to a publisher-function (to
transpose the author-function of Michel Foucault). But I do not want to re-open
this can of worms here.
When most of us speak about the Green or Gold Road to Open Access, we generally
mean free access and free reuse within some well-defined limits (e.g.
responsible use) that the Bethesda Declaration (among others) tried to spell
out). In other words, OA is more than simply an ability to read at no costs. OA
is an ability to reuse, incorporate, etc... Again, think about the GPL in free
software and the meaning of "free" (as in "free speech") in this context. The
power of remixing is at the heart of the free software movement, and it is also
at the heart of a healthy scientific effort. It extends to the notuion of a
vigorous cultural evolution.
The OA movement does not deal with orphan works in any central way. It deals
with scholarly and scientific works where the issue of orphan works does not
appear to be central (at least I have never seen it mentioned in this context).
Your collecting societies in France obviously want to control both access and
re-use of orphan works. However, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, this is not
necessarily all bad provided that:
1. This helps clearly identify orphan works (and as a consequence, it also helps
define the public domain);
2. This removes the problem of identifying rights owners;
3. The fees collected are modest or even minimal.
My impression is that you should fight this battle with the use of Creative
Common licenses, rather than with the OA example. This would provide more wiggle
room to negotiate an acceptable solution for orphan works. And you might remind
your negotiating partners that if France puts too many restrictions (economic or
legal) on orphan works, it will simply make the projection of French culture
worldwide that much more difficult. In other words, French authorities will
shoot themselves in the foot. I know they are quite good at doing this
regularly, to the point that i suspect some form of masochism is at work here,
but nonetheless... Using a suitable CC license on orphan works could lead to
free re-use of these works so long as it is not commercial. Fees could be
collected for commercial re-use
Jean-Claude
Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 15:52 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit :
Thank you Jean-Claude
But when you speak of the green and gold road, and their form of publishing,
does it imply that the accessible works come with these rights granted ...
or is it only seen as a way to get there.
I means that if those rights are given, does it matter much how the
work is initially made available.
With apologies if my questions are silly. I am missing a link somewhere.
I do need to clarify these issues, as France seems intent (I do hope
they fail miserably) to have an orphan law, that would give control
over works to collective societies, to manage and make money from
(theoretically in the author's name). One of the explicit purposes is
to kill free works as much as possible (unfair competition).
This is already pretty bad.
Next news is that the definition of orphan works ignores the existence
of a licence or anything. Only reaching the author matters.
In other words, the open access publications of an academic who has
retired without leaving an address might cease to be open access.
They did not say either that the law is only applicable to French
works.
So far it was only a law for still images, but they were very clear
that the intents is to expend it to all things printable.
Why still images .. because that gives them an excuse to get started,
as photos are often used illegally by pretending the author cannot be
found. But there are better way of solving that problem.
As I want at least to have open access works excluded, I need a
definition, that will be general enough without encompassing
everything on the net.
I have various references, but all in French.
Bernard
PS The promoter of that law explained to me that violating the moral
rights of an author (by preventing use of his works without a mandate
from the author) is OK if done with a state mandate, i.e., with legal
permission.
* Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>, le 16-11-10, a écrit:
> Bernard,
>
> I will simply quote the Bethesda statement on OA:
>
>
> 1. Definition of Open Access Publication
>
>
> An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two
> conditions:
>
>
> 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a
> free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and
> a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the
> work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in
> any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to
> proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the right to
> make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
>
> 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a
> suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately
> upon initial publication in at least one online repository that
> is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society,
> government agency, or other well-established organization that
> seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
> interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical
> sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).
>
>
> I hope this helps you sort out these ideas.
>
> OA is more than simple and cost-less access; it implies the same kinds
> of freedoms that a GPL ensures for software.
>
> Much of OA thinking was inspired by the free software movement.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit :
>
> >
> > Is there a distinction between papers that are just openly accessible,
> > and papers that can be freely reproduced on other sites, or other
> > media in your classifications.
> >
> > I am trying o identifi the concept of an open work. If it is simply
> > something that I can access, that qualifies the whole of the Internet.
> >
> > But can I make copies, preserve it or present it in some other form.
> > Who has enough rights so that the conditions of work availability can
> > evolve with the state of the art in documents access, presentation,
> > organization.
> >
> > What we do now in not the end of progress in publication. My concern
> > is the future.
> >
> > Why do I worry : because I spend much time working on orphan works
> > issues. I am trying to determine when the rightsholder is needed to
> > ensure adequate life and survival of a work. Being accessible for
> > reading is just not enough.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> >
> > * Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_UMONTREAL.CA>, le 14-11-10, a écrit
:
> > > Indeed, Larry!
> > >
> > > And Stevan Harnad is quite right is refusing to equate Open Access with
> > > the Gold Road.
> > >
> > > In fact, Open Access is made up of two approaches: OA publishing or
> > > "Gold Road" and self-archiving or "Green Road". And both roads are
> > > valuable, arguably equally (although differently) valuable.
> > >
> > > As for Wallace-Evans, one only has to see how he characterized Robert K.
> > > Merton ("most pusillanimous"... ???) to realize that the barbarians are
> > > at the gates. It is a pity to see a priodical like Nation fall this low.
> > > I used to like reading Nation when I was a student.
> > >
> > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 10:21 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > > > One can sympathize with Larry Lessig's frustration in "An Obvious
> > > > Distinction":
> > > >
> > > > LL:
> > > > "In 2010, [for David Wallace-Evans] to suggest [in a
> > > > 6000-word review in The Nation] that [the Creative
> > > > Commons movement] 'exhort[s]… piracy and the
> > > > plundering of culture'... betrays not just sloppy
> > > > thinking [but] extraordinary ignorance… [and lack of]
> > > > respect for what has been written… This terrain has
> > > > been plowed a hundred times in the past decade…
> > > > Reading is the first step to… respect for what has
> > > > been written... Reading is what Wallace-Wells has not
> > > > done well."
> > > >
> > > > Larry tries to correct Wallace-Evans's 6000 sloppy words with 878
> > > > carefully chosen ones of his own.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me try to atone for my own frequent long-windedness by trying to
> > > > put it even more succinctly (20 words):
> > > >
> > > > Creative Commons' goal
> > > > is to protect
> > > > creators' give-away rights --
> > > > not consumers'
> > > > (or 2nd-party copyright-holders')
> > > > rip-off rights.
> > > >
> > > > (Reader's of the American Scientist Open Access Forum may have a sense
> > > > of déjà lu about this since at least as far back as December
> > > > 2000: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1048.html )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > Harnad, Stevan (2000/2001/2003/2004) For Whom the Gate
> > > > Tolls? Published as: (2003) Open Access to Peer-Reviewed
> > > > Research Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving: Maximizing
> > > > Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access. In: Law, Derek &
> > > > Judith Andrews, Eds. Digital Libraries: Policy Planning and
> > > > Practice. Ashgate Publishing 2003. [Shorter version: Harnad S.
> > > > (2003) Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 49: 337-342.] and in:
> > > > (2004) Historical Social Research (HSR) 29:1. [French version:
> > > > Harnad, S. (2003) Cielographie et cielolexie: Anomalie
> > > > post-gutenbergienne et comment la resoudre. In: Origgi, G. &
> > > > Arikha, N. (eds) Le texte a l'heure de l'Internet.
> > > > Bibliotheque Centre Pompidou: 77-103.
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > The persistent "piracy" canard calls to mind others like it, foremost
> > > > among them being:
> > > > "OA ≡ Gold OA (publishing)"...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S.,
> > > > Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E.
> > > > (2004) The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web
> > > > Focus
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > > Professeur titulaire
> > > Littérature comparée
> > > Université de Montréal
> >
>
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Received on Tue Nov 16 2010 - 16:01:03 GMT