Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>]

On 2013-10-22 04:40, Sarah Pearson wrote:
> Last, you make an excellent point about the risk that licensors could feel
> more justified in using ND for scientific data and similar domains. That is
> an important point for us to consider. Curious whether you and others think
> that risk is not one we can adequately counter with messaging.

I am not sure.

During the last six months, CC Norway been heavily involved in a process
where the goal is to get the Norwegian Research Council to adopt a
policy on OA similar to the policy adopted by the RCUK earlier this
year:
   http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/news/2013news/Pages/130408.aspx

(In short, we want to make peer reviewed OA and raw data OD a
*requirement* for receiving public funds for research, and also
to link "gold OA" to the use of CC BY, and then make "gold OA"
a requirement for getting APF grants.)

One of the major hurdles in the process has been that some major
stakeholders has insisted that instead of CC BY, "multiple licenses"
should be permitted for the "gold OA" status.  What they mean is
that they also want to use CC BY-ND.

The source of this idea is without doubt the criticism of the
RCUK for recommending that *only* CC BY should qualify for
"gold OA" from BIS select committee in the UK House of Commons:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/sep/11/open-access-report-bis-committee

and the House of Lords:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Openaccess/OpenAccessevidence.pdf

and the objections to the same summarized in this workshop note by
the Wellcome trust:

http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Note-of-Wellcomeworkshop-on-CC-BY-in-hums-and-soc-sci-final.pdf

The CC was quick to counter these objections, e.g.:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/BIS_committee_UK_OA_Policy

These well-written objections, (along with some of our own),
has been communicated to the stakeholders we work with as often
and as clearly as possible.

However, I still think the misconception that CC BY will
permit "misuse of research" and cause authors to "lose control
of their work", prevails. And that many of those who subscribe
to this misconception believe that CC BY-ND is a "cure"
that will prevent misuse and give authors the sought after
control of their work.

It may be that enough "messaging" eventually will reach the
hearts of minds of these people, but I don't think we're
there yet.

And while I think it is true, *telling* them that by using
CC BY-ND, they can have their cake and eat it too may not
be the best *tactical* move in the present debate.

[The "cake" metaphor in this case refers to my fear the the proposed
change to ND licenses will give the impressionable the impression
that by using CC BY-ND, they can have the control they crave to
stop  "misuse of research" (i.e. distortions and plagiarism),
while still permitting further research in the form of text and
data mining (something they usually want to make possible).]
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
    "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan