Unlike traditional scholarly journals, Wikipedia and open access journals do not ask contributors to sign away their rights. Contributors to these venues retain the right to copy, distribute, and reuse their own words and works. This presentation takes a careful look at the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (used by Wikipedia) and the Creative Commons Attribution License (used by many open access publishers).

1. Whose to Use? And Use As They Choose?
Creative Commons Licenses in
Wikipedia and Scholarly Publishing
Jill Cirasella
jcirasella@gc.cuny.edu
Associate Librarian for
Public Services & Scholarly Communication
The Graduate Center, CUNY
Slides at: tinyurl.com/WhoseToUse

2. “Sign here!”
http://youtu.be/GMIY_4t-DR0

3. Yes, many subscription-based scholarly
journals require authors to sign away
their rights to their own articles.
JAMA’s transfer agreement:

4. No, authors don’t always fully read and
understand what they’re required to sign.
Wiley’s transfer agreement:

5. Wikipedia does not ask contributors
to sign away their rights.
Nor do open access journals.
Contributors to these venues
retain the right to copy, distribute,
and reuse their own words/works.

6. Wikipedia does not ask contributors
to sign away their rights.
Nor do open access journals.
Contributors to these venues
retain the right to copy, distribute,
and reuse their own words/works.
Unimpressed by these seemingly basic rights?
Remember that some journals leave authors with essentially
no rights to their own works, not even the right to copy and share!

7. But if all rights to a contribution
were held only by the contributor…
Others could not copy, share, or reuse it.
Wikipedia and open access journals
would not be what they are or
have the impact they have.

8. So…
We want contributors to retain their rights,
but we also need them to grant
some rights to others.
But not just to the publisher.
To everyone — to all potential users.

9. Creative Commons licenses to the rescue!
Creative Commons licenses leave copyright
with the creator but also grant
some rights to others.
Note: Creative Commons licenses are not “alternatives” to copyright.
They are attached to copyrighted works and compatible with copyright.

10. Creative Commons licenses to the rescue!
They’re not the only way to grant rights beyond
what’s allowed by copyright, but they’re the
emerging standard for text, images, etc.
They make it easy for creators to communicate
which rights they do and don’t give to others.
Of course, users can always ask for special permission to do
something additional — if they can find and contact the creator…

11. Creative Commons Spectrum

12. Making Sense of CC Licenses

13. Wikipedia Uses CC BY-SA
Wikipedia uses CC BY-SA and communicates this
fact frequently to readers and contributors:
On every page: “Text is available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.”
Before every edit: “Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used,
and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.”

14. What Do OA Journals Use?
Among OA journals,
every CC license is represented.
Examples:
• CC BY: PLOS ONE
• CC BY-NC: Journal of Legal Analysis
• CC BY-SA: Journal of Information Policy
• CC BY-ND: Translational Psychiatry
• CC BY-NC-SA: Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy
• CC BY-NC-ND: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

15. But What Are the Trends?
Among CC-licensed OA journals,
CC BY is by far the most common.
According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (5/27/2014):
• CC BY: 1997 journals
• CC BY-NC-ND: 737 journals
• CC BY-NC: 674 journals
• CC BY-NC-SA: 263 journals
• CC BY-SA: 51 journals
• CC BY-ND: 44 journals
• Missing information or none of the above: 6006 journals
(DOAJ is taking steps to fill in missing information)

16. CC BY Is
Exploding
Source: http://oaspa.org/growth-of-
fully-oa-journals-using-a-cc-by-license/

17. Wikipedia’s Argument for CC BY-SA
From Wikimedia’s Terms of Use:
To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture,
all users contributing to the Projects are required to grant
broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and
re-use their contributions freely, so long as that use is
properly attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-
distribute is granted to any derivative works. In keeping
with our goal of providing free information to the widest
possible audience, we require that when necessary all
submitted content be licensed so that it is freely reusable by
anyone who cares to access it.
Source: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content

18. OASPA’s Argument for CC BY
From OASPA’s “Why CC BY”:
To fully realise that potential of open access to research literature,
barriers to reuse need to be removed. . . .
The most liberal Creative Commons license is CC-BY, which allows for
unrestricted reuse of content, subject only to the requirement that
the source work is appropriately attributed. Other Creative Commons
licenses allow for three possible restrictions to be imposed. . . . But
the emerging consensus on the adoption of CC-BY reflects the fact
that any of these restrictions needlessly limits the possible reuse
of published research.
Source: http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/

19. OASPA’s Argument against SA
From OASPA’s “Why CC BY”:
. . . while [Share-Alike] licenses can be extremely helpful in building up
a collection of content, they also have downsides in terms of the
limitations they place on reuse. For example, material distributed
within a Share-Alike article could only be combined and redistributed
with other share-alike content. In contrast, CC-BY content can be
combined with any content, and redistributed according to the terms
of that other content, as long as CC-BY’s own attribution requirement
is respected. This makes CC-BY something like a Universal Donor
blood-type in that it has maximal compatibility.
. . . OASPA includes, and will currently still admit, members who use
the NC restriction (but not the SA or ND restrictions).
Source: http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/

20. CC BY vs. CC BY-SA: Which Is Better?
Which is better for readers?
No difference.

21. CC BY vs. CC BY-SA: Which Is Better?
Which is better for reuse?
It depends.
CC BY is less restrictive, making reuse easier.
CC BY-SA is copyleft, ensures reusability of derivative works.

22. CC BY vs. CC BY-SA: Which Is Better?
Which is better for authors?
Depends on author’s priorities.
CC BY facilitates broad impact, but some creators
of open works want derivative works to be open as well.

23. CC BY vs. CC BY-SA: Which Is Better?
Which is better for openness?
Big debate!
CC BY makes a given work more open, more reusable.
CC BY-SA builds the commons, fosters openness.

24. Which Do I Think Is Better?
Philosophically:
Wikipedia and CC BY-SA
Practically:
OASPA and CC BY
Upshot? I’m practical.
I think maximum reuse rights will do more than
copyleft requirements to maximize OA.
Therefore, I prefer CC BY.

25. Which Do I Think Is Better?
All that said…
Yes, I prefer some CC licenses to others.
But I embrace all of them as improvements on
traditional copyright for scholarly communication.
Advice to scholarly authors:
Publish in the best venue for you and your career,
but also think about the implications of
publishers’ copyright/licensing policies.
(And if you don’t like the terms, negotiate!)

26. Thank you!
Questions?
Jill Cirasella
jcirasella@gc.cuny.edu
Associate Librarian for
Public Services & Scholarly Communication
The Graduate Center, CUNY
Slides at: tinyurl.com/WhoseToUse