Timeline for When can I safely use CC-BY license on arXiv?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2020 at 11:52 | comment | added | silvado | @wimi in principle I think it would be the same, but if publishers explicitly state that prior submission to arXiv is ok then I would interpret that in the sense that they are ok with authors having granted arXiv a license to publish the paper. That may even be part of what is usually called "retained rights" in the copyright transfer. | |
| Sep 7, 2020 at 21:03 | comment | added | wimi | Does anything in this answer change if the default "arXiv perpetual" license is chosen instead of CC? The "arXiv perpetual" license is also a non-exclusive license. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 11:51 | comment | added | Raphael | Certainly. It's not quite the same, though. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 10:00 | comment | added | silvado | @Raphael I don't think it's void. AFAIK it would be interpreted as granting an exclusive license, which you can do also under German copyright. | |
| Jan 28, 2017 at 9:21 | comment | added | Raphael | Note that "transfer of copyright" is not even a thing in some jurisdictions (e.g. in Germany). If German researchers sign something like this for US publishers, afaik, the passage is void. | |
| Sep 21, 2013 at 16:09 | comment | added | silvado | @RussellO'Connor In my view, transfer of copyright and exclusive license are equivalent. In my case, I can't even transfer copyright (it's a non-transferable right where I live). I don't have an explicit source know, but I remember publishers claiming that when I sign a copyright transfer agreement, it's essentially equivalent to an exclusive license for me. And the key point is that you cannot give an exclusive license after you gave a non-exclusive one, such as CC-BY. | |
| Sep 20, 2013 at 18:13 | comment | added | Russell O'Connor | A "transfer of copyright" is completely different from an exclusive license, and I am not aware of any reason why you cannot perform a typical academic copyright after having made the document available under an open licence. BTW, I have performed steps 1 and 2 on every paper I've submitted and I only have ever had trouble with the ACM because they have an on-line only copyright transfer form. | |
| Jun 15, 2013 at 11:07 | vote | accept | Piotr Migdal | ||
| May 1, 2013 at 18:34 | comment | added | silvado | @MikaelVejdemo-Johansson Thanks for the link. I can understand that they like public domain even less than CC-BY... | |
| Apr 30, 2013 at 22:18 | comment | added | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | There is at least one case of ACM dropping a paper from a proceedings replacing it with a one-line note linking to the arXiv copy in this case. See: r6.ca/blog/20110930T012533Z.html | |
| Apr 30, 2013 at 20:31 | comment | added | Anonymous Mathematician | I wouldn't try using a CC license and then submitting unless you are seriously willing to find another journal if it doesn't work (since it may very well not work). Also, even non-profit publishers often ask for terms in compatible with some or all CC licenses. | |
| Apr 30, 2013 at 18:28 | history | answered | silvado | CC BY-SA 3.0 |