Re: Open Access & Conservation Commons

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I fully appreciate that Creative Commons offers a variety of licenses,
tailored to the different needs and circumstances of an author and
publisher. That is a positive development. I should have been clearer when
I wrote initially to indicate that I meant Creative Common License as it
is understood under the Bethesda Statement and the Berlin Declaration, as
well as by PLoS. I do not think you can honestly argue that any of these
statements or their adherents are advocating "a variety of licenses." They
advocate one, and one only, which I continue to believe is in virtually no
one's interest.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> libwdw@langate.gsu.edu 3/3/2005 9:04:36 PM >>>

Peter Banks argues that a "Creative Commons License would be disaster for
authors, publishers, and librarians, since it affords no protection
against the misstatement, exploitation, and diffusion of a work."  When
it's noted that Creative Commons offers a variety of licenses which permit
certain uses, while restricting others, Peter attacks the Berlin
Declaration on Open Access.

Some on this list may be interested in Lawrence Lessig's November letter
to The Chronicle of Higher Education, excerpted below:

To the Editor:

We thank The Chronicle and Andrea L. Foster for two thoughtful articles on
Creative Commons ("Who Should Own Science?" and "Alternative License for
the Arts Fails to Catch On in Academe," The Chronicle, October 1). It is,
however, necessary to correct two important errors and an unfortunate
implication.

To recapitulate, Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that offers
an alternative to full copyright. ... We offer creators a way to encourage
certain uses of their works while declaring some rights reserved.

...The article about the Science Commons carries a more troubling error.
The article centers on an imagined conflict between Science Commons on the
one hand and technology-transfer offices, the Bayh-Dole Act, and patents
on the other. This is a shame because much of what Science Commons will be
doing has little to do with universities' licensing policies, and those
portions that do are far from anti- patent, or anti-university-licensing.
...

None of our initiatives implies an attack on patents, licensing, or
Bayh-Dole, any more than Creative Commons implies an attack on copyright.
We hope to work with, not against, the technology-transfer offices. They,
too, we suspect, are not fans of unnecessary burdens created by the law.

Bill


William Walsh
Head, Acquisitions Department
Georgia State University Library
100 Decatur Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404.651.2149
Fax: 404.651.2148
Email:  wwalsh@gsu.edu