3 ms·

> When we published in a paywalled journal, we had the option of paying an APC [0] to make the particular article open access. So in that sense, we were not 're

> When we published in a paywalled journal, we had the option of paying an APC [0] to make the particular article open access. So in that sense, we were not 'required' to relinquish copyright. It was just costly to retain it. It's worth noting that some (maybe even many) journal open access options do not allow the authors to keep copyright, even if they pay money! Open access ≠ keeping copyright.

setgree 6y ago
good point. I just double-checked and ours says: > Copyright: © Cambridge University Press 2018 > This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. So I guess Cambridge is the copyright holder but it's available under CC, which I think qualifies as "generous reuse rights," as originally stipulated.
- gpm 6y ago
  I don't think that was an "or" clause, I think it was an "and". The author will retain the copyright, and they will have generous re-use rights (i.e. they will not agree to a restrictive exclusive license).
  - setgree 6y ago
    But Elsevier's lawyers would presumably argue during negotiations that the option to have CC0 distribution of text meets this stipulation, whether in spirit or letter. I would bet that MIT's choice to divorce from Els came from a combination of ideoligical, budget, and reputational concerns (e.g. the UC system divorced from them as well and MIT now stands in solidarity). So I don't think issue was likely to be decisive. I think that if the price had been right, all parties would have found a way to argue that the stated terms had been met -- or to simply not address them.

3 ms·

> When we published in a paywalled journal, we had the option of paying an APC [0] to make the particular article open access. So in that sense, we were not 're

by btrettel 6y ago

setgree 6y ago
good point. I just double-checked and ours says: > Copyright: © Cambridge University Press 2018 > This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. So I guess Cambridge is the copyright holder but it's available under CC, which I think qualifies as "generous reuse rights," as originally stipulated.
- gpm 6y ago
  I don't think that was an "or" clause, I think it was an "and". The author will retain the copyright, and they will have generous re-use rights (i.e. they will not agree to a restrictive exclusive license).
  - setgree 6y ago
    But Elsevier's lawyers would presumably argue during negotiations that the option to have CC0 distribution of text meets this stipulation, whether in spirit or letter. I would bet that MIT's choice to divorce from Els came from a combination of ideoligical, budget, and reputational concerns (e.g. the UC system divorced from them as well and MIT now stands in solidarity). So I don't think issue was likely to be decisive. I think that if the price had been right, all parties would have found a way to argue that the stated terms had been met -- or to simply not address them.