Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#2Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#3This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#4This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#5Just for accuracy's sake, it's not criminal unless you can show that it was both willful and netted more than $1000 in any 180 day period: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#6This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
It's possible that Wiley received one license while Elsevier received another. Just because one publisher got CC CN ND doesn't mean that's the only license that was ever granted.
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#7This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
It's possible the authors signed a contract that allowed commercial use by Wiley that somehow extends to Elsevier. (That seems a bit odd since they are competitors, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.) Even if that's the case and it's technically legal, it seems disingenuous to sell the article, since the authors presumably paid a fee to make it freely available to everyone.
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#8Just for accuracy's sake, it's not criminal unless you can show that it was both willful and netted more than $1000 in any 180 day period: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
> it's not criminal unless you can show
And, only then if "you" are a federal prosecutor. But "illegal" doesn't just mean "criminal".
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#9This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
Because the work can be multiply-licensed, even potentially by any one of the authors without the consent of the others, you can't really say what "the" (singular controlling) license was without research that excludes all the possibilities. You can only say what "a" license was.
(It's certainly possible Elsevier overstepped its rights… but no one making that allegation has yet supplied enough evidence to be sure that's what happened.)
Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article
#10This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual licensing (content also being offered under another licence)
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
[deleted]