Authors Caren Milloy Ellen Collins Graham Stone
License CC-BY-3.0
Guide to
Creative Commons
for Humanities and Social Science
Monograph Authors
Developed by the OAPEN-UK team:
Ellen Collins, Caren Milloy and Graham Stone
Edited by: James Baker, Martin Paul Eve and Ernesto Priego
An output of the Managed by Funded by This guide has been
checked by
project
Contents
About this guide … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3
About copyright and Creative Commons … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 6
Questions about process … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 12
Questions about repercussions for scholarship … … … … … … … … … … … … … 17
Questions about derivatives and reuse … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 23
Questions about commercial use … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 26
Questions about benefits … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 28
Conclusion … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 30
2
About this guide
The photo ‘Books - Then and now’ is © 2011
Spykster, used under a CC BY licence.
T
he Finch Report, published in 2012, paved the way for a big change in
the way academic journals are published. Following the report, Research
Councils UK (RCUK) revised their open access policy to require journal
articles based on research, that they have funded, to be published as open
access. Crucially, this policy also required that any publications made available
through payment of an Article Processing Charge1 (one route for so-called ‘Gold’
open access) must use a Creative Commons Attribution
licence (known as CC BY) to specify how content can be An Article Processing
1
Charge is a payment
reused, within the copyright framework. Articles made by the author (or
available through self-archiving (‘Green’ open access) their funder) to the
publisher, after
must simply be made available without any restrictions which the publisher
on at least non-commercial reuse: there is no mandate makes the article
available in open
for a specific licence. Creative Commons licences have access immediately on
subsequently become a topic of considerable debate, publication
confusion and concern among academics.
3
Current open access mandates from RCUK funders only apply to journal articles,
but the Wellcome Trust has recently extended their open access policy to include
scholarly monographs and book chapters (although CC BY is strongly preferred, it
is not mandated). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is
currently considering its approach to open access publishing, and is also looking
into monographs. At the same time, publishers are beginning to offer open access
routes for monograph authors, an option that may appeal to some - even without
a mandate. It is important, therefore, that authors understand issues of Creative
Commons licensing, as they apply to monographs, in order to make informed
decisions about how to licence their work.
This guide explores concerns expressed in public evidence given by researchers,
learned societies and publishers to inquiries in the House of Commons and the
House of Lords, and also concerns expressed by researchers working with the
OAPEN-UK project. We have also identified a number of common questions and
have drafted answers, which have been checked by experts including Creative
Commons. The guide has been edited by active researchers, to make sure that it
is relevant and useful to academics faced with making decisions about publishing.
This guide is specifically about Creative Commons licences, not about open access
in general.
For more information on open access and funders’ requirements visit the
Research Councils UK (RCUK)2 website, SHERPA/JULIET3 and SHERPA/
FACT4, for research funders’ open access policies.
2
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx
3
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php?la=en
4
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact/index.php
4
Monograph Publishing and OAPEN-UK
Print sales of scholarly monographs are in decline. In the US, between 1980 and
2000, average library sales of a monograph descended from around 2,000 to about
200. Print runs have reduced to reflect this with publishers reporting a reduction
from 1,000 to around 200–300. The monograph business model has always been
delicate, often cross-subsidised by other areas of publishing. The continued
pressure on library book budgets, combined with a move to electronic resources,
makes it even more fragile. This has caused concern among academics, who
worry that important academic works may never be made available because they
are not financially viable, or that dissemination of their research is being limited.
Publishers are experimenting with a number of business models to try and revive
the monograph market and support increased dissemination: one of these is open
access. OAPEN-UK is a collaborative research project gathering evidence to help
stakeholders make informed decisions on the future of open access scholarly
monograph publishing in the humanities and social sciences.
The OAPEN-UK project is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research
Council (AHRC) and Jisc. It is managed by JISC Collections. For more
information on the project visit: http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/
5
About copyright and Creative Commons
The photo ‘Photocopying photocopies’ is © 2009
de Faria, used under a CC BY-NC licence.
C
opyright is the exclusive right, held by the creator of a work, to reproduce,
publish, modify and sell copies. It arises automatically as soon as the work
is created in ‘a material form’. For an academic work, this usually means
as soon as it is written. In the UK, copyright will remain with the creator during
their life and for at least 70 years after their death. Copyright can be transferred
to a third party by the author in an assignment. In broad terms, for traditional
monograph publishing models, the publisher will require the author to either
assign or license the copyright to the publisher on a temporary or perpetual basis
so that the publisher can generate revenue from the book. This is determined in
the contract that the author signs with the publisher, which also defines other
rights and responsibilities of the author and the publisher.
Two existing models are Transfer of Copyright Agreements and Licences to
Publish. The main difference between these two models is that in the Transfer
of Copyright Agreement, the author assigns all their rights in the work to the
publisher, including those pertaining to electronic forms and transmissions, and
can no longer exercise control over how the publisher uses those rights, whereas
6
in a Licence to Publish, the author retains copyright and licenses specific rights
to the publisher, thus maintaining control over their rights.
This distinction affects, to some extent, the way in which an author is able to use
and distribute their own work. It is therefore essential that authors discuss the
contract with their publishers and check that they are happy with the rights that
have been assigned or licensed and the clauses of the contract that determine
what they can and cannot do.
Common rights reserved by authors or granted by publishers in a standard book
contract, whether based on a Transfer of Copyright Agreement or an exclusive
Licence to Publish, are:
• the right to make further copies of all or part of the work for private use and
classroom teaching
• the right to reuse all or part of the work in a compilation of a work or text
book of which you are the author
• the right to make copies of the published work for internal distribution within
the institution that employs you
If a publisher does not expressly allow the author to exercise those rights as
standard in the contract, the author will have to seek permission to do any of
these things unless the use is one of the statutory exemptions in copyright law.
These include ‘fair dealing’, which allows reproduction of limited amounts of
content, such as single photocopies of short extracts of a copyright work for: non-
commercial research or private study, criticism or review, or reporting current
events.
Authors can always try to retain more rights over the work through
negotiation with the publisher. For inspiration have a look at the SPARC
Author Addendum5, or the SURF/JISC Copyright Toolbox6.
5
http://www.sparc.arl.org/bm~doc/SPARC_AuthorRights2006.pdf
6
http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/
7
What is a Creative Commons licence?
Creative Commons (CC) is an international not-for-profit organisation publicly
launched in December 2002 that aims to improve clarity about what people can
do with published content. For researchers, this generally means academic
books or journal articles, but Creative Commons licences are used by all kinds
of content creators – photographers, musicians, artists, Wikipedia contributors
and people collecting data, to give just a few examples. Creative Commons has
developed a legal and social framework in the form of licenses that complement
copyright by permitting sharing and reuse of published content with conditions.
The licence is expressed in three forms: the legal code (the licence itself); a
human-readable deed summarising the principal terms and conditions of the
licence, and a machine-readable form that computers can parse to identify the
key licence features.
Creative Commons licences were originally written to work within the US legal
system: as of version 3.0, the licences were internationalised for use around the
world. In order to promote understanding of the licences, Creative Commons
allowed version 3.0 and earlier versions to be ‘ported’, which means they were
translated and adjusted to use terminology aligned with national copyright
laws; however, all licences (even the ported licences) are suitable for use in
other jurisdictions. Version 3.0 and earlier versions have been ported to over 55
jurisdictions. The ported version for England and Wales is presently version 2.0,
and for Scotland version 2.5.
The Creative Commons licences are in constant development – the international
‘unported’ licences are now on version 3.0 which was launched in 2007. At the
moment, Creative Commons is working on version 4.0. You can choose which
version of the Creative Commons licences you want to use. It is very important to
read the versions that are available for the UK before you use them. The advice
from the Creative Commons UK affiliate is to use version 3.0 unported until
version 4 unported has been released.
There are six Creative Commons licences to choose from as shown in the table
opposite. All Creative Commons licences require attribution: this is signified with
the ‘BY’ in each licence name.
8
Licence designation Licence name What does this mean for you as an author?
CC BY Attribution The most liberal of the Creative Commons
licences apart from CC0 Public Domain
Dedication (see below). This licence allows
others distribute, remix, tweak, and build
View License Deed upon your work - even commercially
View Legal Code - provided they credit you for the original
creation and clearly indicate that changes
were made to your work.
CC BY-SA Attribution-ShareAlike Similar to CC BY, however, others must
license new creations under identical terms.
Therefore, all new works based on your
work will carry the same licence, so any
View License Deed derivatives will also allow commercial use.
View Legal Code This is the licence used by Wikipedia.
CC BY-ND Attribution-NoDerivatives This licence allows for redistribution,
commercial and non-commercial, provided
it is passed along unchanged and in whole,
with credit to the author.
View License Deed
View Legal Code
CC BY-NC Attribution-NonCommercial Similar to CC BY, however, others must not
remix, tweak, or build upon the original work
for commercial purposes. Although new
works must also acknowledge the author
View License Deed and be non-commercial, they do not have to
View Legal Code license their derivative works on the same
terms.
CC BY-NC-SA Attribution- This licence lets others remix, tweak,
and build upon the authors work non-
commercially, provided they credit the
author and license their new creations under
View License Deed the identical terms.
View Legal Code
CC BY-NC-ND Attribution- This is the most restrictive of the six
NonCommercial- licences, only allowing others to download
NoDerivatives works and share them with others as long
as they credit the author, but they cannot
change them in any way or use them
commercially.
View License Deed
View Legal Code
Table 1: The six Creative Commons licences
Adapted from the Creative Commons licence pages at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
9
Creative Commons licences allow you, as a creator of content, to be precise about
how others may, and may not, use your work. The licences are flexible enough to
say exactly what is and is not allowed. All Creative Commons licences should be
used unamended. You can choose one of the six but once you have done so you
are not allowed to change the wording.
Creative Commons has also developed a tool (CC0 Public Domain Dedication7)
by which you can dedicate creations to the public domain. The dedication is done
through legal code hosted by Creative Commons (just as the licences are) in
which you waive all copyright and related rights, such as your moral rights - to
the extent they are waivable - that you have over your work. Once this has been
done, anybody who reuses or builds on your work does not have to credit you,
although citation is encouraged. The tool may be of use in certain situations,
particularly pertaining to data. Before using CC0, you will need to ensure that all
possible rights holders in the work are notified, as the dedication to the public
domain is irreversible.
7
For further information on CCO please visit http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
Are Creative Commons licences an alternative to copyright?
It is important to be very clear that Creative Common licences are not an
alternative to copyright. They are, in fact, built on copyright and last for the same
length of term as the copyright in the work. They enable you, as an author, to
specify the conditions of re-use that best suit your needs, while ensuring that you
are credited for your work.
You will also retain all the moral rights (see below) to your work under all Creative
Commons licences.
Why are Creative Commons licences linked to open access, and why has CC BY
been prioritised?
Open access publishing aims to make research publications available for anyone
to read and reuse. Creative Commons licences are used because they offer an
10
internationally established legal structure that is aligned with the aims of open
access. The move by RCUK is not unilateral: open access academic publishers in
the sciences, such as PLOS, have been using CC BY licences for a number of years
to disseminate peer-reviewed articles, and the Budapest Open Access Initiative8
– a key driver of open access developments in Europe – has recommended CC BY
as the preferred licence for open access publication.
Find out more on the Budapest Open Access Initiative at:
8
http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/
As shown in table 1, CC BY is the most permissive Creative Commons licence,
allowing sharing, commercial reuse and modification as long as the original
author is credited and the fact that changes were made to the original work
is made clear. Its proponents argue that this gives users the greatest possible
degree of flexibility, allowing (among other things) businesses to use published
research and, by doing so, potentially encourage innovation and economic growth.
11
Questions about process
The photo ‘Spider web’ is © 2008
Andrea Kirkby, used under a CC BY-NC licence.
How do I publish under Creative Commons?
If you want to use a Creative Commons licence for your book, you will need to
discuss this with your publisher and agree an appropriate contract. You can find out
what copyright and self-archiving policies different publishers have on SHERPA/
RoMEO9, for example. Although many publishers do not yet offer a Creative
Commons option explicitly for monograph publishing, you should feel empowered
to discuss the licensing conditions of your work directly with your publisher.
9
SHERPA/RoMEO is a useful resource available at: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/. There is
also SHERPA/FACT - Funders and Authors Compliance Tool and SHERPA/JULIET - Research
funders’ open access policies.
Are there other licences that publishers might use to provide open access?
Yes, some publishers have designed their own licences to provide open access.
It is not clear whether these licences are acceptable to RCUK for journal articles
made open access on publication, but there is no reason why monograph authors
should not consider them.
12
What if my publisher will not offer a Creative Commons option?
Many monograph publishers do not yet offer a Creative Commons option for their
authors. Moving to an open access business model is a challenge for publishers
and many – particularly smaller and specialist publishers – have not yet found a
way to do so.
This might be one of the factors that you should consider when choosing a
publisher for your book, alongside the prestige of the publisher or imprint and
their ability to reach the target audience. If the publisher will not offer a Creative
Commons option and they do not wish to grant you the rights you would like to
retain in the work, you could seek another publisher for your book - although this
may not be an attractive alternative. However, if you are able to agree with the
publisher that the copyright reverts to you after a certain amount of time, or that
the contract allows you to do more with your monograph after a period of time,
you may be able to make the book available using a Creative Commons licence
once that amount of time has elapsed. You might also see whether the publisher
will allow you to make an earlier draft of the book available for example, through
an institutional repository, using a Creative Commons licence.
Who holds the copyright for a publication published under a Creative Commons
licence?
Under Creative Commons, the copyright remains with the licensor (usually the
author unless the publisher has been given the right to exercise copyright).
Publishers working with a Creative Commons licence do not usually ask the
author to assign the copyright to them, but they might ask the author to grant
them a Licence to Publish and under a Creative Commons licence the right to
identify themselves as the original publisher. As with many aspects of publishing,
however, this is all subject to the agreement between the publisher and the
author, and there is no reason why the author should not assign copyright to the
publisher on the condition that their work is subsequently licensed using Creative
Commons.
Can I change my mind about a Creative Commons licence after the work is
published?
Once your work is published under a Creative Commons licence, you cannot
13
prevent use under the terms of that licence. Creative Commons licences are
irrevocable for the duration of applicable copyright. You are not obligated, however,
to continue to maintain the Creative Commons licensed work online, and may stop
doing so at any time. You can make the work available under different terms and
conditions because you are the copyright owner and Creative Commons licences
are non-exclusive.
You can also waive the existing conditions or grant additional permissions that
are not covered by the Creative Commons licence that you used to publish the
work. For example, if you use a Creative Commons licence with a non-commercial
clause and are contacted by a publisher who wants to include a chapter of your
book in an edited collection which will be sold for profit, you can choose to permit
this. The best way of doing this is to apply the CC+ protocol (it can be used with
any of the licences). CC+ is a protocol providing a simple way for users to request
or agree rights beyond those granted by a certain Creative Commons licence. In
other words you can always grant more than you granted in the licence you used
to publish the work, but you cannot grant less.
Can my book still be sold if it is published under a Creative Commons licence?
Yes, your book can certainly still be sold if it is published under a CC BY licence.
Indeed, this may be at the heart of your publisher’s business model. Often, a PDF
will be made available for free, and the publisher will continue to charge for print
and other e-book versions, although some publishers will also make the e-book
available for free and only sell a print version, for example, Palgrave Open.10
If you license your work under a Creative Commons non-commercial (NC) licence,
your publisher will not actually be able to sell the book on your behalf unless you
choose to grant them permission to sell the book commercially.
10
For more information on Palgrave Open visit: http://www.palgrave.com/open/
Will my book still be made available in print if it is published under a Creative
Commons licence?
This will depend upon your publisher and what you agree with them during your
negotiations prior to signing a contract. As we have said, some publishers will
14
rely upon selling print versions of the open access book to support their business
model. Some are moving to a print-on-demand option for open access content,
but this should not affect the availability of your print book through, for example,
third parties such as Amazon.
Will I still get royalties from a Creative Commons book?
That will depend upon the agreement between you and your publisher, but in
principle there is no reason why you should not receive royalties on any sales
of a book published under a Creative Commons licence. However, in most open
access models, author royalties are not paid.
Initial research undertaken by the OAPEN-UK project found that royalties were
viewed as relatively unimportant by academics seeking to publish their work.
Issues such as reputation and prestige, which were closely tied to promotion and
grant awards, were more important. If you think your book is likely to produce
significant royalties, you should consider this in negotiations with your publisher.
If I publish a book in open access with a Creative Commons licence, will it still
be peer reviewed?
Publishing a book in open access, with or without a Creative Commons licence,
has no effect on the peer review process. Established publishers using a Creative
Commons licence or reputable open access publishers should follow the
traditional publishing workflow, which includes peer review. Authors may wish to
seek a different publisher if peer review is not part of the manuscript submission
process.
I thought that the point of Creative Commons was to give authors flexibility:
why am I being forced to use a Creative Commons licence that I do not agree
with?
At present, the only requirement for researchers to use a Creative Commons
licence for their monographs is from the Wellcome Trust and although they prefer
use of a CC BY licence, other Creative Commons licences are accepted. Even if
other research funders such as RCUK and HEFCE do decide to support open
access for monographs, there is no guarantee that they will select a Creative
Commons licence to enable this, although it seems likely that they will.
15
Funding bodies are entitled to set such terms as a condition of funding, just as
publishers do as a condition of publishing. Researchers can choose whether or
not to accept these conditions when the funding is offered and can, in theory,
decline the funding if they disagree with the terms.
If major funders such as HEFCE decided to move towards supporting Creative
Commons licences, there would be very little choice for researchers who did not
want to use them. Ultimately the funder is free to decide how it wants the outputs
of its investment to be made available as a condition of contract.
It is clear from our work with OAPEN-UK that many researchers feel their
considerable investment in a book justifies more negotiations with funders
when it comes to licence terms. This is something that researchers and their
representatives still have an opportunity to consider, as open access for books is
not required by all funders.
How can I share a book that has been published under a Creative Commons
licence?
You have lots of options for sharing a book that has been published using a
Creative Commons licence. Your publisher will probably make it available via their
website and through third parties so that it will appear in library catalogues and
web scale discovery systems such as Summon, Primo and Google Books. They
might also make it available via a specialised open access book aggregator such
as the OAPEN library11, a collection of open access books from across Europe,
and the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB)12, a directory for peer reviewed
books in open access. A Creative Commons licence will also allow you to make
the book available in a university or subject repository.
11
he OAPEN Library is a central platform that contains freely accessible academic books,
T
mainly in the area of humanities and social sciences. http://www.oapen.org/home
12
The primary aim of DOAB is to increase discoverability of peer reviewed open access books.
It provides a central location to see which publishers offer an open access option.
http://www.doabooks.org/
16
Questions about repercussions for scholarship
The photo ‘Dominos’ is © 2010 koocbor,
used under a CC BY-SA licence.
I am worried about third party rights: what if I cannot get permission for text or
images to be published under a Creative Commons licence in my book?
This is seen by some researchers as a problem which only affects researchers
in the humanities and social sciences, as they might be using images and text
owned by third parties who need to protect their commercial interests. In fact,
open access science publishers have been facing this challenge for some time.
If a researcher wants to use a graph or diagram from an article that was not
published in open access, they need to get permission from the person – often a
publisher – who holds the rights.
It is important to understand that a Creative Commons licence only covers a new
piece of scholarship, as an author can only license their own work, not that of
others. Third party content is therefore excluded from the scope of the Creative
Commons licence. Even if an author includes in their work a piece of third party
content, such as an image, that has been licensed under CC BY, the image is
excluded from the Creative Commons licence that the author applies to their work.
This is because the image has been licensed under a separate Creative Commons
17
licence –granted by the image creator. Therefore all third party content, including
content which the author has permission to use in a monograph published with
a Creative Commons licence, must be clearly marked - in a similar way to a
traditional monograph, which would also recognise third party content.
Marking by the author ensures that users understand the different licence
conditions which apply to the third party content. An example from the Creative
Commons wiki illustrates this:
Example of marking your own work:
Except otherwise noted, this blog is © 2009 Greg Grossmeier, under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.
Example of marking the differently licensed item:
The photo X is © 2009 Jane Park, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
Clearly marking the excluded elements and stating the terms under which third
party content has been made available, means that anybody who reuses that
content without permission from the original rights holder may be violating the
third party’s copyright, even if they found the content in an open access publication.
This measure protects third parties to some extent, but it may not remove all
their concerns. The aim of open access is to ensure that more people can read
and reuse academic publications. So even though exclusions may ensure that
third party material is protected, there could be a much bigger audience for that
material, and therefore a perception on the part of third party rights holders
that there are more opportunities for illegal misuse. Third parties may also be
concerned that inclusion of their content may undermine their business model/
revenue streams. For example, a poet may not give permission for their poem to
be included if they are worried that fewer people will buy the poetry, however, this
is more a question for open access than Creative Commons. It is by no means
certain that making content such as poems more widely available will reduce
sales, indeed it could have quite the opposite effect. This is a decision for the
rights holder to make about the inclusion of their work. Some of these concerns
are already in evidence in relation to traditional publishing business models – for
example, the reluctance of some third party rights holders to allow their content
to be used in e-books.
18
If you are unable to get agreement from the rights holders to include content in
a publication with a Creative Commons licence, you would either have to choose
an alternative licence, or alternative content. Again, this is no different to current
practice for third party content in traditional publishing.
I have some ethical concerns about including data I have collected from human
subjects within a Creative Commons licence for my book: how can I deal with that?
Some scholars in the humanities and social sciences are working with human
subjects. Their consent agreements with these subjects may include permission
to publish on their research, but not permission to allow others to reuse or
reanalyse the data that they share in publications.
The question of reuse of this data is a similar one to the use of third party content
and could be dealt with using the same process (described above). Allowing
others to reanalyse data is a more difficult issue, particularly as in many cases
it is difficult to separate out data and analysis in humanities and social sciences
writing. Again, this is not specifically a question for open access or Creative
Commons licensing, as there is nothing to stop others re-analysing data contained
in a printed book. If there are genuine ethical concerns about the use of such data
then the data probably shouldn’t be made public in this way, regardless of licence
or media.
Will Creative Commons licences discourage international authors from
publishing books with UK publishers?
There is no reason to assume that Creative Commons licensing would discourage
international authors from publishing with UK publishers. In most cases, Creative
Commons licences are one of several licensing options offered by publishers,
including more traditional choices such as Transfer of Copyright Agreements
or Licences to Publish. International authors are perfectly free to choose any of
these licences.
It may turn out that UK publishers who offer Creative Commons licences become
more attractive to international authors who want to publish using Creative
Commons licences but do not have this option in their country.
19
In cases where joint authors may be from more than one country, for example in
an edited work, a Creative Commons international licence (those not ported to
individual jurisdictions) would be appropriate.
Will Creative Commons licences make it harder for UK researchers to publish
books with international publishers?
If an author chooses to publish with a Creative Commons licence then clearly they
should choose a publisher that offers this option. Some publishers, particularly
small companies both in the UK and internationally, do not, although there is
nothing stopping the author from negotiating this. The Directory of Open Access
Books13 is a growing resource of international open access monograph publishers.
Since, at present, there is no obligation to publish monographs with a Creative
Commons licence, authors who wish to work with a publisher who does not offer
this option can choose an alternative licence.
13
OAB contains over 1,400 academic peer-reviewed books from over 45 publishers.
D
Visit: Directory of Open Access Books http://doabooks.org/
Will Creative Commons licences encourage plagiarism?
It is important to begin by stating that plagiarism is primarily an issue of academic
ethics rather than the law. It has some crossover with copyright, but content can
be plagiarised regardless of how it is licensed, even after it is out of copyright. In
addition, sanctions for plagiarism, in academia, are usually carried out through
institutions and via employment decisions, rather than through the courts.
The purpose of Creative Commons licences is to allow copyright holders to
offer their works to the public on conditions expressed in the selected licence.
All Creative Commons licences require that the original author is attributed,
meaning that any plagiaristic use is unacceptable; failure to attribute constitutes
copyright infringement. The author can also require users to cite the original
publisher of the work. Users must also provide a link to the original version of
the work, if the author has made this available - this makes it easier to discern
changes that have been made.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
20
As with the issue of third party rights, mentioned above, the problem of
plagiarism is related to enforcement rather than protection. Plagiarism remains
a serious issue of academic misconduct as it always has been. What changes is
that suddenly many more people are able to see the book, because it has been
distributed so widely. Therefore there is a perception that the potential pool of
‘plagiarisers’ is much greater, but, if plagiarism is detected, the author retains
every right to enforce sanctions.
Again, this is not a new problem and relates to all forms of publishing rather than
specifically to Creative Commons licences. On a more positive note, if a work is
openly available it should also become more traceable in a plagiarism case. It
is also worth noting that there is no evidence than open access leads to more
plagiarism.
Can I pursue a breach of a Creative Commons licence in a court of law?
The Creative Commons website is very clear about this14 - Creative Commons
licences are drafted to be enforceable around the world, and have been upheld
in court in various jurisdictions. To Creative Commons’ knowledge, the licences
have never been held unenforceable or invalid15.
14
ind out more by exploring the FAQ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_
F
Questions#Are_Creative_Commons_licenses_enforceable_in_a_court_of_law.3F or
15
the case law database http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law
Aren’t these principles and mechanisms more relevant to the sciences than to
humanities or social sciences?
Although Creative Commons licences have been used extensively in scientific
open access publishing, they have been developed to cover a much broader
area including data, databases, photography and the written word, regardless of
discipline.
There are considerable advantages in research funders mandating a single type
of licence for open access content, not least to support interdisciplinary work.
21
If I am reading a book which has been licensed using Creative Commons, how
do I know I am reading the author’s original version and not one that has been
changed and made available by another user?
Any adaptations or derivative works based upon a Creative Commons licensed
work must clearly state that they are not the original work. They are also required
to provide a link to the original work (unless the author has asked that this be
removed or did not supply a link). So you should be able to track back and see
whether you are reading the original version or one that has been amended.
Organisations such as CrossRef are investigating ways to help researchers
understand which version of an open access publication they are using.
22
Questions about derivatives and reuse
The photo ‘Cross processed?’ is © 2005 aartj,
used under a CC BY-NC-SA licence.
Does a CC BY licence mean that anyone can reuse my work however they want
to? What about my moral rights?
A CC BY licence means that anyone can use your work, but they must abide by
certain conditions. They must attribute you (unless you have specifically said that
you do not want to be attributed). They must also clearly indicate that changes
have been made to your original work. And they must not imply that you endorse
or support the changes that they have made or the new work that they have
produced.
In other words, your moral rights are specifically protected by the Creative
Commons licences. Moral rights vary by jurisdiction, but usually include the right
to be identified as the author of the work, the right to have a work published
anonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.
What happens if somebody uses my work in a way I do not condone or support?
If your work is adapted or used in a way that you do not agree with, for example,
23
because it is incorrect, or because you do not support the stance of the users,
you have several options. The simplest is to waive your right to attribution for that
specific instance of use: the user must then remove the attribution or they will be
in breach of the Creative Commons licence.
Creative Commons licences all contain a ‘no endorsement, no sponsorship’
clause, which explicitly says that users may not imply that the original author
supports or endorses their reuse of the work. If they violate this clause, they are
in breach of the Creative Commons licence and must stop using the work. In
such cases of violation, the violator becomes liable to action under copyright law.
Users must also be very clear about any changes they have made to the work –
for example, removing words – or they will be in breach of the Creative Commons
licence.
As with plagiarism, above, misuse of academic research is a longstanding and
recognised problem. Nothing in a Creative Commons licence makes it acceptable
for a user to misrepresent or misuse an author’s work. With open access, more
people will be able to find academic content because it is no longer behind a pay
wall and unfortunately, some of these people may put the content to uses that
are not acceptable to the original author. The issue is again one of enforcement.
Can I specifically ask not to be attributed for a certain piece of work?
Yes, you can. If you do not want to be associated with a certain piece of work, you
can ask for your attribution to be removed and the user must comply if reasonably
practical.
What is text and data mining and why is it relevant to me?
Text and data mining are algorithmic techniques for processing bodies of texts
or other types of data in ways, and at scales, that would not be viable manually.
For example, a historian may wish to examine instances and contexts of a specific
phrase across all digitised documents within a collection. With works that are still
in copyright, this may not be possible. Under the Creative Commons Attribution
licence (and some other of the licences), however, this type of work may be
undertaken.
24
Academic work forms a similar corpus that people may wish to study. For instance,
a researcher might wish to examine the ways in which a specific issue has been
represented throughout academic journal articles in the past fifty years. Deploying
computational methodologies on these bodies of works may not be possible
unless more permissive licensing arrangements, such as those offered by Creative
Commons licences, are put into place.
Who is responsible for enforcing the Creative Commons licence?
The parties to a Creative Commons licence are the ‘Licensor’ and ‘You’. The
Licensor is defined as the individual or entity that offers the work under the terms
of the Creative Commons licence. In the event that the publisher has the authority
to licence the work to the public it will be the publisher that is responsible for
enforcement and in the event that the author is the ‘Licensor’ and licenses the
work to the public, it will be the author. In short, it depends upon the agreement
between the author and the publisher, and should be subject to negotiation.
25
Questions about commercial use
The photo ‘Money Tree in the Lake District’ is © 2010
Pondspider, used under a CC BY-NC-SA licence.
Why should somebody else be allowed to make money out of my research,
which is my intellectual property?
Data suggests that research monographs are not, in general, very profitable –
indeed, this is at the root of the monograph ‘crisis’ identified in the introduction to
this guide. Furthermore, authors, when surveyed by the OAPEN-UK project, did
not rate monetary compensation as an important reason to publish a scholarly
monograph. In general, researchers do not make a great deal of money from sales
of their books, and in many cases the publishers do not either. Creative Commons
licences may offer researchers new opportunities to make money. For example,
open access may make their work visible to commercial or media companies who
subsequently seek partnerships with the academics (for example, for a television
documentary).
You may find it galling to think that somebody else might be making a profit from
your work without passing any of that back to you. Ultimately the issue comes
down to funding. If you enter into a contract with a funder or organisation, which
requires you to publish findings from your funded research in a certain way, you
26
must either abide by that or negotiate to change the conditions of your funding or
employment.
Will using Creative Commons licences for my books make me less attractive to
commercial funders who support my research?
This is currently unknown. However, having used Creative Commons licences in
the past does not mean that they must be used for future projects. The best advice
to be offered here is to check with the funder and to ask them for a statement
clarifying their position.
Why can’t I use a non-commercial Creative Commons licence?
The definition of ‘non-commercial’ in Creative Commons is open to interpretation.
It is difficult to know what constitutes commercial reuse – for example, if someone
posted a copy of your book on an educational website that generates even a small
amount of revenue from advertising, it could be considered a commercial reuse.
There is some debate about whether non-commercial means not-for-profit. A
study commissioned by Creative Commons16 into the interpretation of ‘commercial’
and ‘non-commercial’ by creators and users indicated that uses for charitable
purposes are considered less commercial but not decidedly non-commercial.
Therefore, reuse of your book could prohibit organisations that make a profit from
redistributing the work – this could have the negative impact of discouraging the
commercial funders discussed above. Permitting all commercial reuse removes
this problem, and allows people to reuse the work without worrying about whether
they may unintentionally make money from it.
It is also worth noting that supporting UK economic development and growth is a
key reason for the Government’s support for open access publishing.
16
urther information on the study and the work of Creative Commons on the definition of
F
non-commercial for version 4 of the licenses is available at: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/
Defining_Noncommercial
27
Questions about benefits
The photo ‘good-bad-ugly-17th-surf_272’ is
© 2007 mikebaird, used under a CC BY licence.
What are the benefits of publishing with a Creative Commons licence?
We hope that this guide has gone some way to dispel some of the myths
surrounding Creative Commons licences. In summary the benefits of using a
Creative Commons licence include:
• The author keeps ownership of copyright
• The six Creative Commons licences are flexible enough to say exactly what
is and what is not allowed
• They enable an author to modify copyright terms to best suit their needs
• They ensure that authors get the credit they deserve for their work
• Although once a Creative Commons licence is applied it cannot be altered,
the author can waive the existing conditions or grant additional permissions
• The author is not prevented from selling the work or making a profit, unless
otherwise specified in their contract with the publisher
• Creative Commons does not affect the format of the publication; print copies
can still be produced
• Depending on the agreement between you and your publisher, royalties -
where received - are not affected
28
• The peer review process is also unaffected
• Third party content can be included in a work published under a Creative
Commons licence subject to the content owner’s agreement
• The Creative Commons licence can be applied as an international licence
• Breach of a Creative Commons licence can be pursued in a court of law
• An author’s moral rights are unaffected
• An author can waive their right to attribution if the work is adapted or used
in a way that they do not like
How will Creative Commons content affect my teaching?
One of the biggest hurdles to those wishing to use ‘Open Educational Resources’
(digital materials that can be used, re-used and repurposed for teaching, learning
and research and made freely available online) is the content licensed from third
parties and the lack of agreed pricing structure from publishers of such content
to use the material for open access purposes.
By licensing your work under Creative Commons licences, you ensure that you
and others can teach using your scholarly outputs. As noted above, certain
forms of existing copyright transfer can interfere with this practice, fair-dealing
provisions notwithstanding.
Licensing academic content under Creative Commons licences implies
awareness that the web facilitates sharing and reuse. Books made available
online and licensed with Creative Commons licences pose fewer restrictions for
their distribution and access, therefore potentially increasing the likelihood of an
impact outside higher education.
29
Conclusion
The photo ‘Empty Tunnel’ is © 2005 Patrix,
used under a CC BY licence.
M
any concerns about Creative Commons licensing have been expressed
in response to the findings of the Finch Report and the subsequent RCUK
policy. These are apparent in public evidence given by researchers,
learned societies and publishers to inquiries in the House of Commons and the
House of Lords.
Researchers feel strongly about their intellectual output, and especially
monographs, which are often the culmination of years of work. Creative Commons
licences offer what appear to be significant changes in the way that work is made
available to the public. It is understandable that this leads to some apprehension.
As this guide has attempted to show, there are some misunderstandings about
what is permitted by the Creative Commons licences. Plagiarism and misuse
of content, for example, are expressly prohibited by the terms of all Creative
Commons licences. In many cases, the real concern is about what happens
when breaches of these prohibitions occur, and this is where effort needs to be
focused. Open access makes content available to a much wider audience, many
of whom are not familiar with the conventions of academia. CC BY licences give
30
greater rights to reuse work, while still protecting the author’s moral rights. As a
consequence there may be some users who do not respect the terms of the CC
BY or other Creative Commons licences, either through malice or just through
lack of comprehension, but this would be the same with any licence and terms
and conditions of use. The main issue is to ensure that authors and publishers
have agreed how these licence terms will be enforced.
Many academic conventions around scholarly communication have developed to
accommodate changes in the way that researchers communicate their knowledge.
For example, the conventions which govern citation of online work are relatively
new, developed from existing behaviours for print work but with added elements
to make them robust in an online world. With Creative Commons licences, we
need to ensure that the right conventions grow up around areas where there are
potential problems, such as identifying changes made within derivative works
and acknowledging the original source of the content. Students and researchers
will need to learn to be critical and discerning about the version of the source that
they use, as well as the source itself (as they are currently taught to be).
Understanding new ways to share and communicate information, and securing
enforcement when things go wrong, are key to developing new business models.
For more information on Creative Commons, please refer to the website http://
creativecommons.org and wiki http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Main_Page
This guide does not provide legal advice. Always consult a lawyer when in doubt about the meaning
of provisions in or consequences of using a Creative Commons licence.
31
This guide is an output of the OAPEN-UK project
managed by JISC Collections and is available
online at:
http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/ccguide/
Developed by:
Ellen Collins,
Research Consultant, Research Information Network
Caren Milloy,
Head of Projects, JISC Collections
Graham Stone,
Information Resources Manager, University of Huddersfield
Edited by:
James Baker,
Digital Curator, British Library
Martin Paul Eve,
Lecturer, Faculty of Media Humanities and Performance,
University of Lincoln
Ernesto Priego,
Lecturer in Library Science, City University London
With special thanks to
Diane Peters,
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Emanuella Giavarra LLM,
Chambers of Prof. Mark Watson-Gandy
For enquiries please contact
Caren Milloy, Head of Projects, JISC Collections on
c.milloy@jisc-collections.ac.uk
Except where otherwise noted, this
work ‘Guide to Creative Commons for
Humanities and Social Science Monograph
Authors’ by JISC Collections is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Unported License.
The photo ‘empty’ is © 2006 eirikso and is
used under a CC BY-SA licence. A colour
hue has been added for this publication.