
Elsevier sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article - simonster
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/03/06/elsevier-illegally-sold-me-a-creative-commons-non-commercial-licensed-article/
======
mdbco
It looks like the corresponding author of this article (Didier Raoult) is also
the Editor-in-Chief of the the journal (Clinical Microbiology and Infection),
so it seems entirely possible that he might have relicensed the article to
Elsevier when the journal moved over there from Wiley. This would be
permitted, since Creative Commons does allow for dual licensing.

~~~
delinka
In the case of the author licensing his work, he may license it in any way he
wants, to as many entities as he wants and the licenses don't care and
_cannot_ disallow this.

Your comment reminds me of the people who complain that a software author
released some code under GPL, then produced a second project based on their
own GPL'd code without releasing the source of the second project.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the case of the author licensing his work, he may license it in any way
> he wants, to as many entities as he wants and the licenses don't care and
> cannot disallow this.

Actually, its quite possible for licenses (though probably not gratuitous
licenses) to disallow this; a license can, for instance, by its terms be
either completely exclusive or include some exclusionary provisions. In fact,
such licenses are very important in quite a wide range of business scenarios.

~~~
delinka
If only the owner of the copyright can claim infringement (as is the case in
the US), then the point is moot. Is J. Doe going to sue herself for violating
a license by releasing under another license?

~~~
phkahler
One can contractually agree to make some else the exclusive source for
something while retaining the copyright. In which case, if you then offer it
to someone else then that "exclusive" party can sue you for breach of
contract. Of course this has nothing to do with any of the open source or CC
licenses.

~~~
delinka
Now we're off into contract law instead of copyright law.

~~~
jrochkind1
Licenses are contracts. That's what a license is.

------
legulere
This doesn't need to be illegal. Creative Commons doesn't forbid dual
licensing (content also being offered under another licence)

~~~
cstross
In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the
article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a
third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?

~~~
simonster
It's possible the authors signed a contract that allowed commercial use by
Wiley that somehow extends to Elsevier. (That seems a bit odd since they are
competitors, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.) Even if that's
the case and it's technically legal, it seems disingenuous to sell the
article, since the authors presumably paid a fee to make it freely available
to everyone.

------
anigbrowl
Just for accuracy's sake, it's not criminal unless you can show that it was
both willful and netted more than $1000 in any 180 day period:
[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506)

~~~
sp332
_if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;_

~~~
anigbrowl
That's cumulative with B or C.

~~~
sp332
I don't think so. The syntax is (A); (B); or (C).

~~~
anigbrowl
Yeah, you're right - I guess I misread it when I reopened the page again
earlier.

------
simonster
Mirror: [https://thewinnower.com/papers/elsevier-illegally-sold-
me-a-...](https://thewinnower.com/papers/elsevier-illegally-sold-me-a-
creative-commons-non-commercial-licensed-article)

------
marincounty
Why do I feel like this happens a lot?

I know a lot of individuals that scan documents, manuals, defunct school books
and sell them on Ebay. They just scan the document, and state they own the
copyright. They don't just claim ownership to the scanned usually PDF; they
claim they own the original copyright.

There's a Seller on Ebay who digitized Chicago School of Watchmaking(old trade
school closed down in 60's, or 70's?). He's been selling it for years. If he
sees competition from other sellers, or free versions online he claims
copyright infringement to Ebay, and to "offending" domain owners. Ebay takes
down alleged copy written item, and website owners usually cave in too. (It's
not easy to verify older copy written material.)

I wonder if it's a crime to state copyright ownership on a piece of work if
the original owner of copyright died, and didn't transfer the copyright? Or,
the work was never copy-written?

~~~
stox
He holds copyright to the container in which he put the scans. He also holds
copyright to the pattern of bits he scanned. If the free, and/or competitive
versions, are copies of his scans, he is correct. He does not hold copyright
to the words which his pattern of bits might conveniently translate to.

[http://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html](http://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html)

~~~
incompatible
Scanning doesn't generate a new copyright, in the USA at least, since it's not
considered "creative" enough. See for example
[http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-
copyright-...](http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-
scans-public-domain-works/)

------
czr80
I was a bit confused as to how an article published by Wiley could even be on
an Elsevier site, but it seems that the journal is transferring from Wiley to
Elsevier. Guess they messed up the licensing when transferring the articles.

------
matthewmacleod
It's not illegal, though it may be copyright infringement. But it also may not
be; the fact that something is licenced under CC-NC doesn't preclude it being
licensed under other terms too.

The author is a frequent and vociferous critic of commercial publishing. I
think we'd all like to see more open science, but I'm concerned that this sort
of shallow and poorly-researched accusation is doing the cause more harm than
good.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's not illegal, though it may be copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is illegal, so that sentence is self-contradictory.

~~~
shakethemonkey
Copyright infringement is a civil tort, not necessarily illegal. The law
defines infringement but does not prohibit it, but merely provides mechanisms
of civil remedy.

Fair use is not infringement.

You may be thinking of criminal copyright infringement. That is a different
matter entirely and would fall under what people consider as "illegal."

~~~
dragonwriter
> Copyright infringement is a civil tort, not necessarily illegal.

Civil torts are illegal, even though they are not criminal.

> The law defines infringement but does not prohibit it, but merely provides
> mechanisms of civil remedy.

That is incorrect, the law prohibits torts like infringement as much it
prohibits criminal offenses. (It may do so by simply specifying the
consequence of violation of the prohibition without separately stating the
prohibition independently, but this is typical of _criminal_ laws as well --
which are often phrased as "whoever does <prohibited act> shall be punished
with <punishment>", so if we accepted the prohibition/consequence distinction
for torts, we'd have to do so for crimes as well, and say crimes are not
"illegal".)

> Fair use is not infringement.

Sure, but that's a non-sequitur.

> You may be thinking of criminal copyright infringement.

No, I'm just not falsely limiting "illegal" to "criminal".

~~~
shakethemonkey
Sorry, civil torts are most definitely not illegal. By "illegal" one means
prohibited or punishable by the state. They are not.

Copyright infringement is defined in 17 USC 501. Nowhere is ordinary
infringement prohibited, but civil remedies are provided in 17 USC 502-505.
There are _many_ circumstances under which civil claims may not be pursued,
but also much lower standards of proof.

17 USC 506 makes willful infringement punishable under certain specific
circumstances, which are a small subset of infringements.

> No, I'm just not falsely limiting "illegal" to "criminal".

Neither was I.

------
rossmounce
Update: Another day, another Elsevier website illegally selling articles
[https://thewinnower.com/papers/another-day-another-
elsevier-...](https://thewinnower.com/papers/another-day-another-elsevier-
website-illegally-selling-articles)

------
spiritplumber
Notify the author and coordinate action with them (legal, social, military, up
to you). Ultimately it's their call.

