Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

rossmounce.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#21

Post by marincounty »

Why do I feel like this happens a lot?

I know a lot of individuals that scan documents, manuals, defunct school books and sell them on Ebay. They just scan the document, and state they own the copyright. They don't just claim ownership to the scanned usually PDF; they claim they own the original copyright.

There's a Seller on Ebay who digitized Chicago School of Watchmaking(old trade school closed down in 60's, or 70's?). He's been selling it for years. If he sees competition from other sellers, or free versions online he claims copyright infringement to Ebay, and to "offending" domain owners. Ebay takes down alleged copy written item, and website owners usually cave in too. (It's not easy to verify older copy written material.)

I wonder if it's a crime to state copyright ownership on a piece of work if the original owner of copyright died, and didn't transfer the copyright? Or, the work was never copy-written?

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#22

Post by icebraining »

marincounty wrote: post #21

Why do I feel like this happens a lot? I know a lot of individuals that scan documents, manuals, defunct school books and sell them on Ebay. They just scan the document, and state they own the copyright. They don't just claim ownership to the scanned usually PDF; they claim they own the original copyright. There's a Seller on Ebay who digitized Chicago School of Watchmaking(old trade school closed down in 60's, or 70…

Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#23

Post by TehCorwiz »

icebraining wrote: post #15
TehCorwiz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the document they sold should have had the relevant commercial license text included. If the document still contained the CC text then they can't really use that defense can they?

Yes, they can. They don't need to include their license with the work. When you buy a DVD, you don't get a copy of the licensing terms between the authors and the record company, either. Just because the CC license was included, that doesn't mean Elsevier is distributing the work under it. And in fact, there's a simple explanation: it's a license for the reader.

Good point. That explanation would put the article's premise on shaky ground.

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#25

Post by delinka »

mdbco wrote: post #11

It looks like the corresponding author of this article (Didier Raoult) is also the Editor-in-Chief of the the journal (Clinical Microbiology and Infection), so it seems entirely possible that he might have relicensed the article to Elsevier when the journal moved over there from Wiley. This would be permitted, since Creative Commons does allow for dual licensing.

In the case of the author licensing his work, he may license it in any way he wants, to as many entities as he wants and the licenses don't care and cannot disallow this.

Your comment reminds me of the people who complain that a software author released some code under GPL, then produced a second project based on their own GPL'd code without releasing the source of the second project.

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

delinka wrote: post #25
mdbco wrote: post #11

It looks like the corresponding author of this article (Didier Raoult) is also the Editor-in-Chief of the the journal (Clinical Microbiology and Infection), so it seems entirely possible that he might have relicensed the article to Elsevier when the journal moved over there from Wiley. This would be permitted, since Creative Commons does allow for dual licensing.

In the case of the author licensing his work, he may license it in any way he wants, to as many entities as he wants and the licenses don't care and cannot disallow this. Your comment reminds me of the people who complain that a software author released some code under GPL, then produced a second project based on their own GPL'd code without releasing the source of the second project.

> In the case of the author licensing his work, he may license it in any way he wants, to as many entities as he wants and the licenses don't care and cannot disallow this.

Actually, its quite possible for licenses (though probably not gratuitous licenses) to disallow this; a license can, for instance, by its terms be either completely exclusive or include some exclusionary provisions. In fact, such licenses are very important in quite a wide range of business scenarios.

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#27

Post by shakethemonkey »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
matthewmacleod wrote: post #16

It's not illegal, though it may be copyright infringement. But it also may not be; the fact that something is licenced under CC-NC doesn't preclude it being licensed under other terms too. The author is a frequent and vociferous critic of commercial publishing. I think we'd all like to see more open science, but I'm concerned that this sort of shallow and poorly-researched accusation is doing the cause more harm than…

> It's not illegal, though it may be copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is illegal, so that sentence is self-contradictory.

Copyright infringement is a civil tort, not necessarily illegal. The law defines infringement but does not prohibit it, but merely provides mechanisms of civil remedy.

Fair use is not infringement.

You may be thinking of criminal copyright infringement. That is a different matter entirely and would fall under what people consider as "illegal."

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#28

Post by [deleted] »

sp332 wrote: post #20
anigbrowl wrote: post #5

Just 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

if the infringement was committed — (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

[deleted]

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#29

Post by anigbrowl »

sp332 wrote: post #20
anigbrowl wrote: post #5

Just 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

if the infringement was committed — (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

That's cumulative with B or C.

Re: Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article

#30

Post by jsprogrammer »

icebraining wrote: post #15
TehCorwiz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the document they sold should have had the relevant commercial license text included. If the document still contained the CC text then they can't really use that defense can they?

Yes, they can. They don't need to include their license with the work. When you buy a DVD, you don't get a copy of the licensing terms between the authors and the record company, either. Just because the CC license was included, that doesn't mean Elsevier is distributing the work under it. And in fact, there's a simple explanation: it's a license for the reader.

How can one verify that a vendor has been licensed to sell a work if they don't include their license with the author?

Maybe a street vendor has been licensed to sell the just-appeared-in-theater movie that they are selling?

It seems someone who acquires a work has no responsibility (or most of the time, ability) to verify a proper license.

Post reply on HN