Till Grallert
@tillgrallert@digitalcourage.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago
@christof @ElenLeFoll @proghist @creativecommons

After reading through the CC BY license I am none the wiser whether one has to clearly indicate that the material in question had been originally published somewhere else. The DOI as provided by #ProQuest reveals this fact but only after manually parsing the string with a resolver. Readers unfamiliar with the Programming Historian are made to believe that ProQuest is the original publisher or the platform officially hosting the original content.

However, ProQuest clearly violates the attribution requirements by modifying the layout and removing images. The CC BY license explicitly states that “You must […] indicate if You modified the Licensed Material”.

#AcademicPublishing#PredatoryPublishing#OpenLicenses#CreativeCommons#DigitalHumanities
Till Grallert
@tillgrallert@digitalcourage.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago
@christof @ElenLeFoll @proghist @creativecommons @dingemansemark

This is getting worse by the minute. I followed @christof|s hint concerning the reproduction of articles from #DHQ / @DHQuarterly looking for one of my own papers (https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000593/000593.html).

In this case #ProQuest blatantly violates the CC BY-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) by

- not mentioning the license
- producing a derivative
- not linking to the original

I am very much in favour of @adho.org, as the publisher of @DHQuarterly, follows the path outlined by @dingemansemark. I will also log a complaint with #ProQuest through my employer.

#AcademicPublishing#Licensing#Piracy#PlatformCapitalism#PredatoryPublishing