Ronja Addams-Moring presents on the use of Creative Commons licenses in scholarly and scientific publishing. The presentation outlines the requirements and task analysis of researchers, provides a historical overview of copyright and copyleft licenses, and reviews current publishing practices. It examines example license policies from different journals and proposes that the CC BY-NC-SA license may be suitable for balancing open access with commercial interests in academic work. The presentation argues that standardized CC licenses could help researchers more easily understand and choose licensing for their own work.

1. Creative Commons licenses in
scholarly and scientific
publishing – an idea whose
time has come
Ronja Addams-Moring
ISCRAM2007 conference
Round Table presentation

2. Disclaimer
• The views, interpretations and opinions
expressed in this presentation are mine
• There certainly are similarities with some
other persons' views but that is not their
responsibility
• Feel free to copy, distribute, criticize,
ignore or form derivative opinions as you
see fit

14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 2

3. Presentation outline
• Task analysis: What we researchers do
• Requirements: What we need
• Historical overview
• Current practices
• Choosing our approach
• Which CC license(s) fit?
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 3

4. Task analysis
• A simplified ”circle of life” of scientific-
scholarly knowledge
1) Researcher A publishes a new result
2) Based on A’s result, other researchers
create more new knowledge
3) Researcher A uses other researchers’
results as input for more research
4) The process repeats: Body of Knowledge
grows larger and better with each ”round”
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 4

5. Requirements
• The essential necessities
– Access to previous publications
– Visibility of own work
– Plus a multitude of things not addressed here
• Coffee!
• Equipment!
• Finding the relevant previous publications!
• Funding
• Colleagues, students and staff
• etc
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 5

6. Historical overview 1(3)
• Before 1886 only national laws
– Problem: legal to print and sell e.g. a Belgian book in
France without author’s permission
– Solution: international copyright conventions
– New problem: public domain only alternative
• Copyright protects the form (wording, lay-out,
typography, pictures, etc) for ca. 100 years
• Copyright does not protect ideas or solution
principles (that’s what patents are for)
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 6

7. Historical overview 2(3)
• 1980ies: Richard M. Stallman: Emacs, GNU
– Problem: RMS shared source code with a friend who
developed it, sold it and the buyer forbade RMS to
use any of the friend’s code
– Solution: GNU GPL, first copyleft license
• The copyleft innovation: share-alike
– The license sticks to the work and its derivatives
forever (”strong copyleft”)
• Limitation of strong copyleft’s social
acceptability: absolute, all-in-one, no degrees,
no exceptions
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 7

8. Historical overview 3(3)
• Many other approaches; attempts to
remedy strong copyleft’s shortcomings
• 2001 Creative Commons
– authors choose which rights they license
• Meanwhile, the cost for university libraries
of offering journals has skyrocketed
– 1986-2005: +302% serial expenditures (ARL)
• Economic possibilities of offering
monographs are growing ever slimmer?
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 8

9. Current practices
• Scholarly and scientific publishers
– Many require that author gives away copyright
– Each has own principles and practices
– Each has own vocabulary (“dialect of legalese”)
 Author must learn all or check every time what (s)he
may do with own work
• Creative Commons (CC) offers
– Author keeps copyright, licenses work to users
– Standardized vocabulary & ready-made legal jargon
– Well-known ”brand”
– Easy enough user interface for author and user
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 9

10. 14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 10

11. 14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 11

12. 14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 12

13. Example 1(4)
• Springer, Natural Hazards (1st issue March 1988)
• “An author
– may self-archive an author-created version of his/her article
on his/her own website and his/her institution's repository,
including his/her final version;
– …may not use the publisher's PDF version which is posted
on www.springerlink.com. Furthermore, the author may only
post his/her version
– provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of
publication and a link is inserted to the published article on
Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the
following text: quot;The original publication is available at
www.springerlink.comquot;.”
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 13

14. Example 2(4)
• Blackwell Publishing, Disasters (1st issue March 1997)
• “you may use the accepted version of the Article …
updated … after peer review…
– you may share print or electronic copies of the Article with
colleagues;
– you may use all or part of the Article and abstract, without
revision or modification, in personal compilations or other
publications of your own work;
– you may use the Article within your employer’s institution or
company for educational or research purposes, including use in
course packs;
– 24 months after publication you may post an electronic
version of the Article on your own personal website, on your
employer’s website/repository and on free public servers in
your subject area.”
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 14

15. Example 3(4)
• Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management (1st issue May 2003); semi-open
• “The following uses are always permitted to the
author(s) ... provided … does not alter the articles …:
– Storage and back-up of the article … provided that the article
… is not readily accessible by persons other than the author(s);
– Posting of the article on the author(s) personal website,
provided that the website is non-commercial;
– Posting of the article on the internet as part of a non-
commercial open access institutional repository or other
non-commercial open access publication site affiliated with the
author(s)'s place of employment …;
– Posting of the article on a non-commercial course website for
a course being taught by the author at the university or college
employing the author.”
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 15

16. Example 4(4)
• Open Medicine (1st issue 18th April 2007)
• “Open Medicine applies the Creative
Commons Attribution NonCommercial
ShareAlike License …
• because … there should be no financial
barriers to access to information that can
benefit medical practice. … authors
should retain copyright to the article they
have worked so hard to produce.”
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 16

17. What makes a great idea?
• It is right, because
• In case any of e.g. these apply
– Research is done with public funds
– The results influences public spending
– Research addresses the well-being of the
general public (medicine, social psychology,
political science, ISCRAM…)
• Then that research should be fully public
– Available to be freely utilized
– Open to critical comments from all
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 17

18. What makes a great idea?
• It is (often) profitable, because
• Open access to electronic versions
boosts sales of printed versions
(National Academic Press, since 1994)
• Open access -> higher impact (JHSEM)
• Problem: funding of some academic
societies
• One solution: HTML is free, small(ish)
sum for ”neater” PDF (Amer. Scientist)
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 18

19. What makes a great idea?
• It is fun! because
1. It really annoys an established industry who
is making a lot of money
2. It’s legal
3. It gets you excited to get out of bed every
morning
• John Buckman (2007) How to piss off the Music
Industry for Fun and Profit. PDF via:
http://blogs.magnatune.com/buckman/2007/05/how_t
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 19

20. Choosing our approach
• Why should we authorize anyone to ”hide” our
work? (Blackwell, Elsevier & Co.)
• Why would we agree to keep track of N
different copyright systems?
• Why would we pay or work extra to make our
work fully public? (Kluver, ACM & Co.)
• Why do we require reader identification?
(ISCRAM, JHSEM & Co.)
• What else needs to be considered?
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 20

21. Which CC license(s) fit?
a) The individual researcher
b) A professional community as publisher
c) The scientific-scholarly community
• Attribution (by) – always included
• NonCommercial (nc) – smart, realistic
• ShareAlike (sa) or NoDerivatives (nd) –
that is the question
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 21

22. My answer
• I want my work to be used & I like to get paid
• Therefore, this work is licensed under the
Creative Commons license Attribution Non-
Commercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
– Attribution form: Ronja Addams-Moring (2007)
”Creative Commons licenses in scholarly and
scientific publishing – an idea whose time has
come”. Round Table presentation 14th May at the
ISCRAM2007 conference, Delft, NL, EU.
– The license terms are available via:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 22

23. What say you?
• Each of us should make her or his own copyright/left
decisions (with co-authors, preferably before starting)
• Our decisions should be documented in such a manner
that others can easily understand them: therefore CC?
 ISCRAM conferences may need two CC licenses in the
future: by+nc for all, plus a choise: sa or nd
• Thank you for your time! Let’s talk more during these
conference days.
• http://www.iki.fi/~ronja/
• http://no-fate-but-what-we-make.blogspot.com/
• ronja [at] iki [dot] fi ; skype: ronja-am
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 23

24. See for yourself, starters
• http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/me
• Hal Abelson on MIT Open Courseware:
http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss_40/Abelson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
• Ethical background: Steven Levy (1984)
Hackers. Dell Publishing, New York, NY,
USA. ISBN: 0-440-13405-6.
14th May 2007 Ronja Addams-Moring 24