[Humanist] 26.909 open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Mar 25 07:27:44 CET 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 909.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:17:01 +0000
        From: John Levin <john at anterotesis.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 26.903 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130323073910.3A8E32DD9 at digitalhumanities.org>

On 23/03/2013 07:39, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
>                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 903.
>              Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                         www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                  Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>          Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:50:45 +0000
>          From: "James O'Sullivan" <josullivan.c at gmail.com>
>          Subject: Re:  26.899 open access?
>          In-Reply-To: <20130322061922.817272CCB at digitalhumanities.org>
>

I'd like to pick up on the first point:

>
> 1. Many people who champion open access have not actually had something to
> release as open access. It's all well and good to state that you would make
> your intellectual property open access, but when a scholarly pursuit /
> project / development does come to fruition, many people, unfortunately,
> change their mind on open access when faced with the actual products of
> their labours. Excuse the poor analogy, but it reminds me of Lord of the
> Rings. After the arduous journey, lots of people do eventually conclude:
> "It's mine, why shouldn't I hold onto it?"
>

I disagree with this in four ways.

Firstly, I can't think of any champion, academic or otherwise, of open 
access that doesn't have something to release on such terms, or hasn't 
done so already.

Secondly, open licenses are fairly often chosen by people with something 
to release: Flikr is a fine example of this on a grand scale, not least 
because they make it quite easy to chose creative commons licenses. For 
academia, my impression (not done a survey, nor know of one) is that CC 
licenses are very popular for individual academics' blogs.

Thirdly, and again Flickr is a good example, people often have something 
to release. That's not just testimony to the way digital photography has 
taken off; it's also about how people think about what they are 
producing and how they want to share. A photo on flickr becomes part of 
something larger. My photos of plaques are of little interest alone, but 
in the context of openplaques.org they become more useful, gain context, 
etc.

In the academic context, I feel that many academics aren't aware of what 
they have produced, and the value of it and its re-use: think course 
bibliographies, or data sets, not just finished articles and perfected 
books. This is all useful material were it shared. In the case of data, 
I think it essential that it be freely released, for otherwise how can 
we check the work based upon it?

Finally, the question "It's mine, why shouldn't I hold onto it?" applies 
even more to those publishing with journals that demand copyright being 
alienated without payment as a condition of publication.

John

-- 
John Levin
http://www.anterotesis.com
http://twitter.com/anterotesis





More information about the Humanist mailing list