Creative commons - The other way?

Learned Publishing

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 59-68

  Suthersanen, Uma ^a,b,c  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b British Literary Artistic Copyright Association (ALAI UK)   (United Kingdom)

^c Creative Commons (England and Wales)   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847708704     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315107779490616     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. For historical accounts, see Hesse, C. Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1810. University of California Press, 1991, pp. 115-121;
2. Peeperkorn, D. Collecting for 'Bluettes'. In D. Peeperkorn and C. van Rij (eds), Collecting Societies in the Music Business. International Association of Entertainment Lawyers/Maklu Publishers, 1989.
3. Suthersanen, U. 'Collectivism of copyright; the future of rights management in the European Union', in E. Barendt and A. Firth (eds), 5 Yearbook of Copyright and Media Law. Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 15-42.
4. An excellent economic analysis of collective management is to be found in Besen, S.M. and Kirby, S.N. Compensating Creators of Intellectual Property: Collectives That Collect. Rand Corporation, 1989.
5. Technically, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is defined as 'a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource'. In layman's terms, the URI (or URLs) are locators or names that identify resources on the Web.
6. Copyright Tribunal Case Nos. CT 71/00, 72/00, 73/00, 74/00, and 75/01, unreported. The decision can be accessed at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/ tribunal/triabissued.htm.
7. The 1976 Franki Committee in Australia, based on anecdotal evidence, concluded that most academic authors of journal articles were not members of any such society, Report of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction, 1976, para. 3.14. On education and copyright, see Suthersanen, U. Copyright and educational policies - a stakeholder analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2003:4, 586-610.
8. For a British account of poor authorial protection, see Bently, L. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Problems Facing Freelance Creators in the UK Media Marketplace. Institute of Employment Rights, 2002.
9. Section 106A, Copyright Act 1976 (United States) conferring.
10. Section 78 (requiring that the paternity right be asserted) and 87 (allowing waiver of rights), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (United Kingdom).
11. Lawrence Lessig's blogsite at http://www.lessig. org/blog/
12. For more on the Free Software Foundation's licence, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
13. Note that this version is still at a beta stage, and the final revised version may contain amendments.
14. A CC licence currently covers the content of the Public Library of Science publications PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine. And the Biological Innovation for Open Science (BIOS) initiative aims to make methods and techniques developed by scientists freely available, in return for the results gained through such techniques also being freely released.
15. For a British perspective, see An Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing, Wellcome Trust, 2003;
16. and Scientific Publications: Free for All?, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, HC 399-1 (2004);
17. Bunk S. Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents. The Scientist, 1999:13(20), 7.
18. For international statements, definitions and signatories of the open access concept, see the Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002 (http://www.soros.org/ openaccess/); and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities 2003 (http://www.zim.mpg.de/ openaccess-berlin/ berllndeclaration.html) .
19. The open access model is based on the central tenet that a subscriber or reader does not pay to access the intellectual content of the journal. The latter is the necessary condition for its status as an open access journal. Other conditions may apply - e.g. the payment of processing fees or the lapse of time between closed subscribed publication and open access publishing.
20. Publishers that have adopted this approach include the Public Library of Science, BioMed Central and Springer's OpenChoice programme.
21. A Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) is a contract that governs the transfer of tangible research materials between two organizations, when the recipient intends to use it for his or her own research purposes. The MTA defines the rights of the provider and the recipient with respect to the materials and any derivatives. Biological materials, such as reagents, cell lines, plasmids, and vectors, are the most frequently transferred materials, but MTAs may also be used for other types of materials, such as chemical compounds and even some types of software. Three types of MTAs are most common at academic institutions: transfer between academic or research institutions, transfer from academia to industry, and transfer from industry to academia.
22. Issues in the Economics, Politics, and Ideology of Copyright in the Global South, The Copy/South Dossier, ed. Alan Story, Colin Darch, Debora Halbert, The Copy/South Research Group, May 2006.
23. Lessig, L. The Future of Ideas. Vintage Books, 2001, p. 6: 'I am fanatically pro-market, in the market's proper sphere. I don't doubt the important and valuable role played by property in most, maybe just about all contexts.'
24. See summary of case at http://creativecommons.org/ weblog/entry/5823
25. English summaries of the two decisions case are available at http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/ entry/5829 and http:// creativecommons.org/weblog/ entry/5823.