3

I want to submit a paper to Elsevier (yes, I know, evil me - there are specific reasons). Elsevier allows sharing preprints "anywhere at any time". Later, one is allowed to "update a preprint with the accepted manuscript", provided the accepted manuscript is under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. There is no discussion of which license the preprint should be under. (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing)

My questions is this: is it 1) technically possible on arxiv, 2) legally valid and 3) reasonable to submit a preprint with a more permissible license - say, CC-BY - and then switch the license to CC-BY-NC-ND upon updating the preprint with the accepted manuscript?

Previous questions on similar topics include [1], [2], but they do not discuss this specific issue.

Eike P.
  • 1,172
  • 11
  • 15
  • Generally speaking, a permissive license needs to be honored going forward. You can't take away rights you previously granted. Not an answer since IANAL. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 12:33
  • And "ND" for a license for scientific work seems weird to me. How can you claim to prevent extensions of a scientific work? Mickey Mouse, fine. Mathematics, not fine. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 12:41
  • 2
    @Buffy Hmm... but I am not really taking away any rights, am I? The preprint would still be available under CC-BY; it's only the accepted version that would be under the more restrictive license. Sorry if that doesn't make sense at all, I find this whole topic spectacularly confusing. – Eike P. Jul 16 '21 at 12:46
  • You said "update" which seems to imply "replace". IANAL, but it seems wise to me to retain rights until you get published, since some publishers are fussy about it. And, moreover, I don't use arXiv myself (retired) so don't know the ins and outs there. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 12:51
  • @Buffy Concerning the "ND": obviously totally not an expert, but the CC-BY-NC-ND license seems to be somewhat standard with publishers. PNAS, IOP, OUP all have it. One explanation I found was this: "What does CC BY allow that CC BY-ND does not? Allowing derivative works, as CC BY does, opens up new ways of representing scholarly articles through text-mining and visualization techniques." I guess "intellectual derivatives" like future articles building on a paper do not count as "derivatives", whereas, e.g., a modified reproduction of a figure would. – Eike P. Jul 16 '21 at 12:52
  • 1
    I don't know the answer to your question, but looking at the "Quick Definitions" section in your Elsevier link suggests that the existing arXiv version is a "Preprint" and the one you update after review would be an "Accepted Manuscript", so Elsevier will probably be fine with what you propose. Whether it would comply with the license of the existing version is an interesting question. – GoodDeeds Jul 16 '21 at 12:54
  • I see, sorry for the confusion. On arxiv, previous versions always stay available. So the earlier preprint would still be accessible. – Eike P. Jul 16 '21 at 12:54
  • 1
    @GoodDeeds, it might be wise to ask Elsevier. I think they are a bit fussy. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 12:57
  • Hmmm, answers here aren't normally an emergent property of comments. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 12:58
  • I contacted Elsevier with this question a few days ago, but they have not yet replied. I also just asked a specific question on law.SX concerning the "license downgrading", see here: https://law.stackexchange.com/q/67771/34162 – Eike P. Jul 16 '21 at 13:18
  • 1
    @Buffy Here's an answer on law.SX concerning the non-derivative question. Apparently, the license really forbids the usual way of working with an article, but copyright law may allow it nevertheless as "fair use": https://law.stackexchange.com/q/51333/34162. – Eike P. Jul 16 '21 at 13:25
  • @jhin I am not an expert, but I don't think you, the author, are bound by the terms of the license, since you retain the copyright when uploading on arXiv. It is arXiv and people who download it from there who would have to follow its terms. – GoodDeeds Jul 16 '21 at 21:02
  • @Buffy The ND part is about the work itself, not the ideas in it. An example of a derivative work might be taking the paper and editing the grammar and then posting this to your "Better Papers By Buffy" website. Without the -ND, someone could do this to your paper, even if they end up changing the meaning, as long as they acknowledge the authors and source of the original version. – Bryan Krause Jul 16 '21 at 23:03
  • @BryanKrause, that makes sense, but I think the actual situation is different: https://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/. In particular "NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.". But as the OP says in a comment, taking that literally would "break" fair use. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 23:08
  • @Buffy I interpret it a bit differently, though the result is the same...basically, the license doesn't apply and can't apply to anything that isn't copyrightable. So, for example, a mathematical theorem that someone might build on isn't something you can copyright. You can copyright the manuscript that describes it, sure, but not the theorem itself, nor the conceptual ideas behind a proof. So the ND part just doesn't apply to the academic process on building on prior work at all, because the parts of prior work that academics build on are not subject to copyright. – Bryan Krause Jul 16 '21 at 23:10
  • @BryanKrause, bingo. Thanks. – Buffy Jul 16 '21 at 23:15

1 Answers1

2

(Disclaimer: IANAL. Well, in the UK, lawyer isn't a regulated profession, only solicitor and barrister are, so I can claim I'm a lawyer all I want.)

Short answer: You can do whatever you want with later versions of the manuscript, but previous versions will stay with the licence you gave them.

This is seen a lot with open-source computer programs. To change the licence they need to contact all of the people responsible for the code, to request the change in licence. In your case, there is only one person to ask---you---and you presumably agree. You are the copyright holder, so you can decide.

So later versions of the article can be under a more restrictive licence, or in the case of the typeset versions of the article with the journal's markup, no CC licence at all. But v1 that you posted on the arXiv will forever be CC-BY. Notice that the descriptions on the arXiv website talk about reusers. Since you are not assigning copyright to someone else, you still hold the copyright, you just allow (depending on licence) others to do stuff with your work.

I personally always choose arXiv perpetual non-exclusive licence at the v1 stage, to keep my options open, as it's easier to free a paper than to enclose it.

David A. Craven
  • 1,378
  • 7
  • 11
  • Interesting. So you choose the arXiv perpetual non-exclusive license and then, later on, switch to a different license for that very same document? That might actually be a good idea. This way I can wait to see what Elsevier makes me sign and then, later on, switch to a more permissive license for the preprint, if there's nothing that prevents me from doing so. – Eike P. Jul 17 '21 at 11:38
  • @jhin I rarely need to switch, to be honest. It's not often that journals require a different licence, you can licence the same work differently to the arXiv and the journal, and in mathematics there's not much to gain for others from going from standard copyright terms and CC-BY. – David A. Craven Jul 17 '21 at 21:09
  • Ah right, for pure maths I can imagine it's not super relevant. I'm mostly concerned about the figures in the paper, which I would like people to be able to reuse freely. (Especially after I recently contacted several journals for permissions to reuse figures, and most did not even respond...) – Eike P. Jul 17 '21 at 21:45
  • I've not needed to worry about this, true. Images could be released into the public domain separately from the rest of the paper, and that might even be a good idea. Some journals are a bit snippy about the text being CCed, but images are generally not that much of an issue, because often the author does not hold the copyright for them anyway. – David A. Craven Jul 17 '21 at 21:49