De posible interés para los lectores de liblicense-l, aquí hay dos relatos sobre el reciente resultado en Alemania del [interminable] litigio ResearchGate/Elsevier-ACS. Los hechos son los hechos, pero las interpretaciones - varían. Ann Okerson
_____________________________-
1. De un Boersenblatt, una publicación semanal alemana, vía Google Translate:
https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyiL8K5zE$>
El tribunal prohíbe la divulgación de artículos
Researchgate pierde el litigio con Elsevier
8 de febrero de 2022
El Tribunal de Distrito de Múnich I ha condenado a la red de investigadores Researchgate a abstenerse de hacer accesibles en el futuro los artículos de revistas científicas de las publicaciones de Elsevier Verlag y de la American Chemical Society (ACS). Los artículos en cuestión se compartieron en la plataforma sin el consentimiento de la editorial.
Según un comunicado de prensa del Tribunal Regional de Múnich I, numerosos artículos especializados que son propiedad intelectual de los editores se han puesto a disposición en la plataforma. Varias editoriales científicas han demandado esta práctica y han solicitado que se prohíba su publicación en la plataforma. Aunque el tribunal prohibió la distribución de las publicaciones de las editoriales a través de Researchgate, denegó la demanda de los editores por daños y perjuicios.
Detrás de la demanda se encuentra la "Coalición para el Intercambio Responsable" (CfRS), fundada por varias editoriales científicas en 2017 y a la que también pertenecen las demandantes Elsevier y la Sociedad Química Americana (ACS), según un comunicado de la CfRS. La iniciativa, fundada por un total de cinco editoriales (además de Elsevier y ACS, se trata de Brill, Wiley y Wolters Kluwer), persigue el objetivo común de evitar lo que consideran una distribución inadmisible de artículos de las revistas especializadas de las editoriales. Un total de 13 editoriales científicas, entre las que se encuentran sociedades especializadas y empresas sin ánimo de lucro, pertenecen actualmente al CfRS. El objetivo principal de la CfRS es la red de investigadores Researchgate, que según la Coalición hace que más de cuatro millones de artículos sean accesibles ilegalmente en su plataforma.
[SNIP]
####
2. Del sitio de ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyItNqRW8$>
Declaración sobre el litigio en un tribunal alemán con las editoriales Elsevier y American Chemical Society
2 de febrero de 2022
Berlín, 2 de febrero de 2022. En una sentencia dictada el lunes, el Tribunal Regional de Múnich I desestimó las demandas por daños y perjuicios presentadas por las editoriales científicas Elsevier y la Sociedad Americana de Química (ACS) contra ResearchGate en 2017. Sorprendentemente, el tribunal consideró, basándose en numerosos dictámenes de expertos, que los acuerdos estándar de licencia de derechos de autor de las editoriales que se habían divulgado en la demanda -firmados normalmente por uno solo de los múltiples autores- eran insuficientes para demostrar su adquisición de derechos. En palabras del tribunal, esto "no debería ser difícil para una editorial, cuya base comercial es la adquisición legal de los derechos de uso de los autores publicados por ella".* Esta sentencia tiene implicaciones potencialmente trascendentales para la capacidad de los demandantes de hacer valer su propiedad de derechos de autor en el futuro.
Al cuestionar las prácticas de concesión de licencias de los demandantes, el tribunal dijo
[Los] demandantes no fueron capaces de presentar de forma exhaustiva la concesión de derechos ni siquiera en uno de los cincuenta casos en disputa. En general, la Sala tiene la impresión de que los demandantes, al invocar diversos indicios de su posición jurídica, tratan principalmente de encubrir la insuficiente documentación de la adquisición de derechos, lo que a veces les impide presentar las circunstancias de hecho necesarias para la posición jurídica afirmada.**
**************************************************
Of possible interest to liblicense-l readers, here are two accounts about the recent outcome in Germany of the [endless] ResearchGate/Elsevier-ACS litigation. The facts are the facts, but interpretations - vary. Ann Okerson
_____________________________-
1. From a Boersenblatt, a German weekly publication, via Google Translate:
https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyiL8K5zE$>
Court prohibits disclosure of articles
Researchgate loses litigation with Elsevier
February 8, 2022
The Munich I District Court has sentenced the Researchgate network of researchers to refrain from making scientific journal articles from publications by Elsevier Verlag and the American Chemical Society (ACS) accessible in the future. The articles in question were shared on the platform without the consent of the publisher.
According to a press release from the Munich I Regional Court, numerous specialist articles that are the intellectual property of publishers have been made available on the platform. Several scientific publishers have sued against this practice and have applied for a ban on publication on the platform. While the court prohibited the distribution of the publisher's publications through Researchgate, it denied the publishers' claim for damages.
Behind the lawsuit is the "Coalition for Responsible Sharing" (CfRS), which was founded by several scientific publishers in 2017 and to which the plaintiffs Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) also belong, according to a statement by the CfRS. The initiative, founded by a total of five publishers (in addition to Elsevier and ACS, these are Brill, Wiley and Wolters Kluwer), pursues the common goal of preventing what they consider to be inadmissible distribution of articles from the publishers' trade journals. A total of 13 scientific publishers, including specialist societies and non-profit companies, now belong to the CfRS. The primary goal of the CfRS is the researcher network Researchgate, which the Coalition estimates makes more than four million articles illegally accessible on its platform.
[SNIP]
####
2. From the ResearchGate site:
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyItNqRW8$>
Statement on litigation in German court with publishers Elsevier and American Chemical Society
2nd February 2022
Berlin, February 2, 2022. In a judgment Monday, the Regional Court of Munich I dismissed the damages claims filed by the scientific publishers Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) against ResearchGate in 2017. Remarkably, the court found, based on numerous expert opinions, that the publishers’ standard copyright licensing agreements disclosed in the suit–typically signed by only one of multiple authors–were insufficient to demonstrate their acquisition of rights. In the words of the court, this “should not be difficult for a publisher, whose business basis is the legal acquisition of rights of use of the authors published by it”.* This ruling has potentially far-reaching implications for the plaintiffs’ ability to assert their copyright ownership in the future.
In questioning the plaintiffs’ licensing practices, the court said:
[The] plaintiffs were not able to comprehensively present the granting of rights in even one of the fifty cases in dispute. Overall, the Board has the impression that the plaintiffs, by invoking various indications of their legal position, are primarily trying to cover up the insufficient documentation of the acquisition of rights, which sometimes makes it impossible for them to present the necessary factual circumstances for the asserted legal position.**
_____________________________-
1. From a Boersenblatt, a German weekly publication, via Google Translate:
https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.boersenblatt.net/news/researchgate-unterliegt-im-rechtsstreit-mit-elsevier-226227__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyiL8K5zE$>
Court prohibits disclosure of articles
Researchgate loses litigation with Elsevier
February 8, 2022
The Munich I District Court has sentenced the Researchgate network of researchers to refrain from making scientific journal articles from publications by Elsevier Verlag and the American Chemical Society (ACS) accessible in the future. The articles in question were shared on the platform without the consent of the publisher.
According to a press release from the Munich I Regional Court, numerous specialist articles that are the intellectual property of publishers have been made available on the platform. Several scientific publishers have sued against this practice and have applied for a ban on publication on the platform. While the court prohibited the distribution of the publisher's publications through Researchgate, it denied the publishers' claim for damages.
Behind the lawsuit is the "Coalition for Responsible Sharing" (CfRS), which was founded by several scientific publishers in 2017 and to which the plaintiffs Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) also belong, according to a statement by the CfRS. The initiative, founded by a total of five publishers (in addition to Elsevier and ACS, these are Brill, Wiley and Wolters Kluwer), pursues the common goal of preventing what they consider to be inadmissible distribution of articles from the publishers' trade journals. A total of 13 scientific publishers, including specialist societies and non-profit companies, now belong to the CfRS. The primary goal of the CfRS is the researcher network Researchgate, which the Coalition estimates makes more than four million articles illegally accessible on its platform.
[SNIP]
####
2. From the ResearchGate site:
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/statement-on-litigation-in-german-court-with-publishers-elsevier-and-american-chemical-society__;!!DZ3fjg!qND7-gS-MNk_k0yt2Ab7v_VfZ0LT0u1RTT1uyk1ALE2nwpAMyN7TESSa5wyyItNqRW8$>
Statement on litigation in German court with publishers Elsevier and American Chemical Society
2nd February 2022
Berlin, February 2, 2022. In a judgment Monday, the Regional Court of Munich I dismissed the damages claims filed by the scientific publishers Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) against ResearchGate in 2017. Remarkably, the court found, based on numerous expert opinions, that the publishers’ standard copyright licensing agreements disclosed in the suit–typically signed by only one of multiple authors–were insufficient to demonstrate their acquisition of rights. In the words of the court, this “should not be difficult for a publisher, whose business basis is the legal acquisition of rights of use of the authors published by it”.* This ruling has potentially far-reaching implications for the plaintiffs’ ability to assert their copyright ownership in the future.
In questioning the plaintiffs’ licensing practices, the court said:
[The] plaintiffs were not able to comprehensively present the granting of rights in even one of the fifty cases in dispute. Overall, the Board has the impression that the plaintiffs, by invoking various indications of their legal position, are primarily trying to cover up the insufficient documentation of the acquisition of rights, which sometimes makes it impossible for them to present the necessary factual circumstances for the asserted legal position.**
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario