[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Double Licenses
- To: "'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Double Licenses
- From: Terry Cullen <tcullen@seattleu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:41:17 EST
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I don't have a problem with this license (assuming the publisher retains the full copyright in the article), except for my comment about Clause 4 below. It seems broad enough to accommodate fair uses. (I've seen licenses that say things like "You may not copy, download, or transmit any portion of this material." That's the sort of language that I find objectionable.) RE Clause 4: Clause 6 would seem to allow faxing of downloaded and printed articles, but restricts the number of recipients. I guess I fail to see the difference between uses allowed under Clause 6 and electronic transmission without the intermediate printing step, so long as the number of recipients is restricted. Isn't the real issue "systematic" transmission, not the means? Email-ing to a single person for scholarly communication isn't really different in effect from snail-mailing or faxing to them. However, sending to an email list would seem to be systematic redistribution, which would infringe the copyright. Terry Cullen, Esq. Electronic Services Librarian Seattle University School of Law Library 950 Broadway Plaza, Tacoma, WA 98402-4470 Email: tcullen@seattleu.edu Phone: 253-591-7092 FAX: 253-591-6313 On Thursday, February 04, 1999 3:31 PM, anthony.watkinson > I cannot accept that it is necessarily wrong for a publisher to try to > educate users especially as there are some librarians (not many now but > more in the past) who denied that it was part of their job to do so. I > cannot see it as "chilling" to be told, as a user, what you can do or > cannot do under the terms of the licence which has given you access. I am > pasting in a document, the status of which is self explanatory, which I > wrote in 1997. The contentious bit is of course clause 4. My concern as a > publisher was that there would be systematic sending on of an article to a > large email list. It seems to me a legitimate concern. It is very easy to > systematically send on documents in this way. > > C:TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ONLINE ACCESS FOR AUTHORIZED USERS > > This document will be electronically attached to each pdf file and/or > displayed prominently on the site. > > Your right of access to and use of this online article is governed by the > following terms and conditions: > > 1) You agree to respect the copyright which is set out at the base of the > first page of this article and protects the full rights of the authors of > the article. > 2) You may not transfer, sell or rent the rights granted under these terms > and conditions. > 3) You may not alter or modify the content or presentation in any way. > 4) You may not transmit electronically the article accessed except to other > authorised users or subscribers. > 5) You may download or print one copy of this article for research, teaching > or study purposes only. > 6) You may send downloaded and printed out copies of individual articles to > persons who are not authorized users or subscribers for the purpose of > scholarly communication as long as such transmission is not done on a > systematic basis. > 7) The publisher reserves the right to cancel your access to the journal > which contains this article if these terms and conditions are infringed. > 8) If you find errors in the electronic files of, or associated with, the > journal, please inform the publisher on xxx > 9) If you seek permission to use this article in ways not covered by these > terms and conditions, please contact our rights department at xxx
- Prev by Date: RE: Authors Rights
- Next by Date: Re: Click-through Licenses
- Prev by thread: Re: Double Licenses
- Next by thread: RE: "Double" Licenses
- Index(es):