Permissions

[Melissa37]

No description provided.

[Melissa37]

To be reviewed. Points to review:

• If content is licensed under CCO there is no copyright information allowed, so those fields should not be mandatory for this license

[Melissa37]

Another point of clarity required:

I wanted to reach out to ask if you could help (or could pass us onto someone else who can) as we were having some trouble with how to implement the JATS ALI tag for non open access articles. Regarding the tag <ali:license_ref> the JATS4R website says 'If a license is defined by a URI (for example, any of the Creative Commons licenses), this should be the sole place that a machine (or anyone) should need to look for the license URI'. However for our non open access content what URl would be used as these are protect by the usual copyright law? Alternatively is there a different way of tagging this? Or is our current tagging as included below enough I include our standard tagging below

<permissions>
<copyright-statement>
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
</permissions>

I think the recommendation requires more clarity.

Refreshing my memory...
Looking at the JATS4R recommendation and samples, and the JATS documentation, my understanding is that you don't use the <ali:license_ref> because you are not using a "public license or waiver. By “public”, NISO means that the offer is generally and not privately offered" (also see example 2 from the JATS4R recommendation). JATS4R (and others) have talked about having a URI for copyrighted material that becomes a resolvable url that is machine-readable and standardized, which all publishers could use for this purpose. However, nobody has organized this - presumably because publishers have specific wants and needs around the wording and feel a web page on their own site is good enough.

[Melissa37]

From the peer review materials working group:
Discomfort for some publishers (eg PLOS, SciELO and Rockefeller University Press) that the main article license might be read and not go further into the document. If there is content further down the XML tree that has a more restrictive (or less restrictive) license then this could be missed. The suggestion is that other licenses need to be indicated at the top too so that it's clear from the outset.
Needs to be easy to add - overarching copyright and that there are some parts that differ (even potentially hook them out too)