It appears that the legal culture on copyright is not widely disseminated so serene and precise development of uses around open access. I am not a lawyer, and I'm sure my friends will comment extensively significant lawyers every comma of the text, but I can still bring some light on the use of copyright significant law in the context of open access.
This is what I call open access. A document significant open access is available without barriers other than the ability to have access to the Internet and a web browser. It does not have to pay (hence the "free") or identify to gain access to the full text. Part of the open archives adopted this model. When they expose their metadata in OAI-PMH, they are, by default, protected by law. It is possible to include such content as "short quote" but not possible to republish the full text. From a strictly legal point of view, metadata is protected as the full text. But in terms of usage, the metadata significant (= title, author, summary, URL of the document on the open archive) have an incentive significant to move to give more visibility to the text and the original platform. Therefore, even if needed permission to republish metadata, in fact, no one takes offense (those who want full control of their metadata will put up a barrier to access their OAI repository -PMH). With regard to the full text, it is otherwise: republish the full text on another site increases the visibility of the text but denies the origin of the ability to measure the usage site. So it can not take the measure significant of usage, which is the main "retribution" significant site, which enables significant it to continue its operations.
This is what I call open access. Free open access is a combination of open access (the texts are accessible without identification and without payment) significant and a free license, allowing reuse under certain conditions. The type of the most widely used free software license is the Creative Commons license, but others may be used. The most open Creative Commons license CC BY: Text can be freely used, modified and even republished, as long as the author is credited and the source is acknowledged. The most restrictive license CC BY NC ND: Text can be freely used, republished but not modified and any commercial use can not be made. In this case, it is impossible to sell the text. Sell services related to the text is allowed? I do not know.
Normally, the imprint of a site are required. They are part of good practice and should be present as a link on every page of every website. For example, the disclaimer OpenEdition: http://www.openedition.org/6540 This is an imperfect exercise, but necessary.
Imprint possible to know the legal requirements for use of the Website accessed. In the absence of legal references, the regime of intellectual property and the legal protection of databases applies. We can read, but not repost.
It is more difficult to reach the free open access because you have to convince significant publishers and authors to sell more rights. Some think that they should make the effort of a sudden, to free open access. Others think it must proceed step by step and start with open access (open access for free).
In any event, when I filed my articles on HAL, I allowed HAL to republish metadata and full text of the article. I did not give other rights. So, to allow others to republish my articles, HAL must ask me permission and 50,000 or 100,000 other authors as well. Therefore ask HAL permission to republish their 239,000 products may not lead to a positive answer: they do not have that option at the time of this writing. However, it is possible significant to point to the item on HAL easily. It is good practice to be developed.
The press is under the same legal regime that scientific content. We meet occasionally for a carnetier Assumptions believes he can republish them verbatim in his notebook a research article published in Le Monde because it is open access. There is open access (free open
No comments:
Post a Comment