Last Thursday we published a letter with 57 other organisations calling on the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers to withdraw their model licences and work within the Creative Commons framework.
Since last Thursday, another
15 19 organisations have added their names to the letter (main letter & list, & pdf of original signatories) including Universities UK, the International Coalition of Library Consortia and the UK HE International Unit. The growing list and momentum shows that organisations from institutions to publishers, technology providers and civil society organisations are united in their desire for established, consistent and proven legal tools to enable the sharing and re-use of scholarly content.
In addition to the posts here on PLOS Opens (both about the letter and within the context of Wikimania2014), many of the signatories have individually posted about why they are opposing the STM licences, including Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation, SPARC, the Association of Research Libraries, Copyright4Creativity, OpenForum Europe, EIFL, ScienceOpen, Kennisland, and Authors Alliance.
Opposition to the STM model licences is also coming from other sources, most notably the Wellcome Trust. Chris Bird (Senior Legal Counsel) and Robert Kiley (Head of Digital Services) outlined in a post on Friday why they think the STM licences are not helpful:
“Put simply, we see no value in these new licences, and believe that if a publisher wishes to restrict how content can be used (excluding Wellcome funded, OA papers which must always be published under the CC-BY licence), the existing Creative Commons licences (e.g. CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-ND) are more than adequate.”
The STM Association have also published a response to our letter.