Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - #springergate: SpringerImages should be closed down until they mend it. « petermr's blog

[Use the link to access the complete blog post as well as the comments section where debate continues.]  “Five days ago I wrote to Springer about violations of copyright on their site, SpringerImages. Since then I have documented everything on this blog and those who want to know more details can read recent blogs. I have made it clear that I consider the current practice is unacceptable, morally, legally, and ethically.  Springer rang me yesterday , agreed to put out a factual statement about the site. They then contacted me and asked me to retract what I had said and its implications. I said I would retract the word ‘theft’. Much of the rest of what I have said is fact. Springer have not yet explained the problem.  The current position is summarised by Mike Taylor http://svpow.com/2012/06/05/springer-are-digging-themselves-deeper-into-a-hole/... Springer have a grotesque attribution, licencing and copyright problem on their Images site, whether by design or accident, which results in their gaining revenue from material that is not theirs. And they intend to continue profiting from it for another month. Not acceptable! At the very least, the Springer Images site should immediately be modified to show a prominent banner stating “the copyright and licence information pertaining to these resources is wrong: contact the original creators for permissions” until the mistakes are all fixed.  That is the least they can do. Since I may be asked to RETRACT opinions I shall stick to FACTs and labelled HYPOTHESES. I shall also deal ONLY with non-OA content. (The problem that alerted me was in the mislabelling of my OA CC-BY material.)  I would welcome correction of what follows:  [1] FACT: SpringerImages are still listing my content as “copyright BMC”, 5 days after my reporting it. [2] FACT The site is a commercial site (confirmed by Bettina Goerner). As an example, if an academic wishes to use a Springer image in a course pack it will cost USD60. [3] FACT Individual (non-corporate) membership costs USD595 (presumably per year) from the site [4] FACT: Many of the licensing algorithms (and I found it very difficult to get quotes) refer to “agents of a commercial organization” and “member of the pharmaceutical industry”. HYPOTHESIS: they also sell to industry and generate income. [5] HYPOTHESIS: Much (probably most) of the SpringerImages site is taken from Non-OA material sources, [6] FACT much of it is copyrighted ‘Springer’ (various Springer companies such as Springer Verlag, Springer Medizin, etc.) [7] FACT the visitor to the site is told that they require a subscription to view the images. [8] FACT I looked for apparent, alleged, violations of third party copyright (such as Wikipedia). Out of the first ten examples I looked at all were copyrighted Springer. [9] HYPOTHESIS Some of the authors of these materials have not given Springer explicit permission to include them in Springer Images, change the copyright and resell them. [10] FACT after 5 days I have been unable to find any changes to the site as a result of reporting the problem(s). [11] FACT Springer are aware that there are images on the site that are mislabelled. [12] FACT They are continuing to sell them [13] FACT Springer have made no public announcement to customers of SpringerImages. [14] HYPOTHESIS some customers will pay for material that Springer does not have the right to sell to them [15] HYPOTHESIS some customers will pay for material that should be branded as FREE (gratis and libre)...”