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

31–40 of 53 posts

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

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #30
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

One generally is not expected to, unless one is the author or author's representative, in which case one doesn't need the vendor to provide the license agreement.

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

A more valid analogy here would be "maybe the multiplex cinema selling movie tickets has been licensed to screen the just-appeared-in-theater movie that they are showing".

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

#32

Post by btown »

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.

It's also almost certain that somewhere in Elsevier's terms, they require a copyright license, and require the same of their member journals, which would mean by accepting any member journal's fine-print guidelines for publication, the authors granted a separate license to Elsevier to propagate, store, and resell the content. IANAL but I'd assume that Elsevier's lawyers aren't stupid.

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

#33

Post by sp332 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #29
sp332 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's cumulative with B or C.

I don't think so. The syntax is (A); (B); or (C).

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

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

shakethemonkey wrote: post #27
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

> Copyright infringement is a civil tort, not necessarily illegal.

Civil torts are illegal, even though they are not criminal.

> The law defines infringement but does not prohibit it, but merely provides mechanisms of civil remedy.

That is incorrect, the law prohibits torts like infringement as much it prohibits criminal offenses. (It may do so by simply specifying the consequence of violation of the prohibition without separately stating the prohibition independently, but this is typical of criminal laws as well -- which are often phrased as "whoever does shall be punished with ", so if we accepted the prohibition/consequence distinction for torts, we'd have to do so for crimes as well, and say crimes are not "illegal".)

> Fair use is not infringement.

Sure, but that's a non-sequitur.

> You may be thinking of criminal copyright infringement.

No, I'm just not falsely limiting "illegal" to "criminal".

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

#37

Post by stox »

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…

He holds copyright to the container in which he put the scans. He also holds copyright to the pattern of bits he scanned. If the free, and/or competitive versions, are copies of his scans, he is correct. He does not hold copyright to the words which his pattern of bits might conveniently translate to.

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html

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

#38

Post by delinka »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
delinka wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If only the owner of the copyright can claim infringement (as is the case in the US), then the point is moot. Is J. Doe going to sue herself for violating a license by releasing under another license?

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

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #29
sp332 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's cumulative with B or C.

No, a series separated by commas or semicolons and a conjunction between the penultimate and the final item is equivalent to the same series with that conjunction between each item, so the "or" between B and C means that the sequence is A or B or C, not A and (B or C).

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

#40

Post by phkahler »

delinka wrote: post #38
dragonwriter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If only the owner of the copyright can claim infringement (as is the case in the US), then the point is moot. Is J. Doe going to sue herself for violating a license by releasing under another license?

One can contractually agree to make some else the exclusive source for something while retaining the copyright. In which case, if you then offer it to someone else then that "exclusive" party can sue you for breach of contract. Of course this has nothing to do with any of the open source or CC licenses.
Post reply on HN