Re: MPS and PLoS Sign Agreement

[Peter Hirtle <pbh6@cornell.edu>]

I see three possible advantages to authors in using the 
Attribution license adopted by PLOS:

1.  As Sandy notes, it ensures that authors receive credit for 
their work in a nation that does not recognize moral rights. 
This is the primary advantage over dedication to the public 
domain (which itself would require a different CC license). 2. 
It simplifies for authors the process of granting rights.  Sandy 
correctly notes that "One could simply grant to users free use of 
the article for any purpose with no need to protect attribution, 
since that right is inalienable in 'moral rights' systems."  But 
how would one grant users "free use of the article"?  The CC 
license is an easy, standard way of doing so. 3.  Most of all, it 
makes it explicit that one's work is intended to be part of the 
"republic of scholars," where advances in scientific knowledge 
are freely shared for the betterment of society.

Sandy, are you suggesting that the public domain dedication 
license should be used instead?  Why would the public domain be 
preferable to an attribution license?

Peter

Peter B. Hirtle
CUL Intellectual Property Officer
Scholarly Communications and Special Collections
Cornell University Library
Ithaca, NY  14853-5301
peter.hirtle@cornell.edu
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu