24 New Co-sponsors Added to FRPAA!
Peter Suber
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR]
Rep Burton, Dan [R-IN]
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA]
Rep Carnahan, Russ [D-MO]
Rep Cole, Tom [R-OK]
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" [D-VA]
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [D-IL]
Rep Fleming, John [R-LA]
Rep Flores, Bill [R-TX]
Rep Franks, Trent [R-AZ]
Rep Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]
Rep Gowdy, Trey [R-SC]
Rep Holden, Tim [D-PA]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [R-IL]
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC]
Rep Paul, Ron [R-TX]
Rep Polis, Jared [D-CO]
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [D-NJ]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL]
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA]
Executive Director, SPARC
21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
+1 202 296 2296
hea...@arl.org
www.arl.org/sparc
Heather Morrison
Heather Morrison
Many thanks for your comments and the pointer to your blogpost. Here
is an excerpt which I comment on below:
Klaus Graf, 2008:
"There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid
copyright regimes without Fair Use.
Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html
It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if
(i) there are good reasons
and
(ii) there is no commercial goal ("keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient").
Your conclusion:
There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important
like a mantra):
* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
Comments: if German copyright law puts German researchers and
businesses at a relative disadvantage compared with other countries,
the solution is for Germans to change German copyright law. It is not
appropriate to ask every scholar in the world to give away their work
for commercial purposes to correct this problem. I argue that CC-BY,
much as on the surface it appears to match exactly the BBB definition
of open access, is actually a weak license likely to create problems
for OA downstream.
My comments on this topic, from my response to the RCUK new draft open
access policy:
Kudos to RCUK for adopting a leadership position on libre open
access. However, I would recommend against specifying the Creative
Commons CC-BY license. While many open access advocates understandably
see CC-BY as the expression of the BOAI definition of open access, my
considered opinion is that CC-BY is a weak license for libre OA which
fails to protect OA downstream and will not accomplish the Budapest
vision of open access,. My perspective is that the best license for
libre open access is Creative Commons - Attribution - Noncommercial -
Sharealike (CC-BY-NC-SA), as this protects OA downstream (recognizing
that the current CC NC definition is problematic, and noting that
commercial rights should be retained by authors, not publishers). As
one example of where open access might need such protection, because
CC-BY allows for resale of open access materials: if all of
PubMedCentral were CC-BY, a commercial company could copy the whole
thing, perhaps add some value, and sell their version of PMC. They
could not legally stop PMC from providing free access. However, I very
much doubt that CC-BY could prevent such a company from lobbying to
remove funding for the public version. If this sounds ludicrous and
unconscionable, may I present as evidence that just such a scenario is
realistic: 1) the efforts a few years ago by the American Chemical
Society to prevent the U.S. government from providing PubChem on the
grounds that this was competition with a private entity; 2) the
Research Works Act, and 3) the current anti-FRPAA lobbying in the
U.S., which, similarly to the Research Works Act, claims that
published research funded by the public is "private research works"
which should belong solely to the publisher.
Another reason for avoiding CC-BY is that while the contributions of
funders are very important, so are the contributions of scholar
authors. Many scholars do not wish to see others who have contributed
nothing to a scholarly work sell their work and pocket the money; I
certainly don't. For example, Peter Suber recently posted this note to
the SPARC Open Access Forum which expresses the distress of an author
who published CC-BY in a BMC journal and then found a bogus publisher
selling her article for $3. https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum/browse_thread/thread/fc977cabd0d59bcc
#. The more work that is published CC-BY, the more I believe we can
expect to see this kind of scam, and this risks turning researchers
off OA. Also, when faculty members develop their own open access
policies (e.g. Harvard, MIT), they insist that articles not be sold
for a profit. Links to these and other institutional repositories are
available through the Registry of Open Access Material Archiving
Policies (ROARMAP) at http://roarmap.eprints.org/.
To illustrate how CC-BY does not necessarily result in the Budapest
open access initative's vision of "sharing of the poor with the rich
and the rich with the poor": those who give away their work for
commercial purposes may not be able to afford the results. For
example, if a scholar from a poorer area gives away their medical
articles as CC-BY, images and other elements from these articles could
be used to develop point-of-care tools that could be sold at prices
that the health care professionals serving the scholar and their
families could not afford. That is, despite the best of intentions, CC-
BY could easily result in a one-way sharing of the poor with the rich.
This is one of the reasons why I strongly recommend that the
developing world avoid CC-BY.
I cover this topic in more depth in the third chapter of my draft
thesis - from the link below, search for open access and creative
commons:
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/chapter-3-open-access-as-solution-to-the-enclosure-of-knowledge/
My full response to RCUK can be found here:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/03/research-councils-uk-draft-new-open.html
best,
Heather Morrison
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
On 20-Mar-12, at 5:34 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> I have written on this topic in 2008:
>
> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4851871/
>
> OA is a global movement and it isn't helpful to call European laws
> "odd".
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> 2012/3/20 Heather Morrison <hgmo...@sfu.ca>:
Heather Morrison
Re-publishing a work in a venue that the author finds objectionable likely violates the author's moral rights (depending on whether your country recognizes moral rights - mine does). The perspective of the author and that of the re-publisher may be different on this matter. This situation could make for an interesting legal case.
best,
Heather Morrison
On 2012-03-21, at 3:17 PM, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
> Another possibility, which the CC-BY license does not protect against, is the republication of an article in a commercial anthology whose publisher may be using it for purposes, ideological or otherwise, that the author finds objectionable. As long as the article is properly attributed to its author, the author would have no legal grounds for preventing its use in such a context. This may be less of a concern to scientists (though some areas of science, like climate science, can be both very controversial and highly ideological), but it would be of great concern to authors of articles in the humanities and social sciences.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> At 7:21 PM -0700 3/20/12, Heather Morrison wrote:
>> Klaus,
>>
>> Many thanks for your comments and the pointer to your blogpost. Here is an excerpt which I comment on below:
>>
>> Klaus Graf, 2008:
>> "There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid copyright regimes without Fair Use.
>> Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law:
>> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html
>>
>> It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if
>> (i) there are good reasons
>> and
>> (ii) there is no commercial goal ("keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient").
>>
>> Your conclusion:
>> There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important like a mantra):
>>
>> * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
>> * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
>> * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
>>
>> Comments: if German copyright law puts German researchers and businesses at a relative disadvantage compared with other countries, the solution is for Germans to change German copyright law. It is not appropriate to ask every scholar in the world to give away their work for commercial purposes to correct this problem. I argue that CC-BY, much as on the surface it appears to match exactly the BBB definition of open access, is actually a weak license likely to create problems for OA downstream.
>>
>> My comments on this topic, from my response to the RCUK new draft open access policy:
>>
>> Kudos to RCUK for adopting a leadership position on libre open access. However, I would recommend against specifying the Creative Commons CC-BY license. While many open access advocates understandably see CC-BY as the expression of the BOAI definition of open access, my considered opinion is that CC-BY is a weak license for libre OA which fails to protect OA downstream and will not accomplish the Budapest vision of open access,. My perspective is that the best license for libre open access is Creative Commons - Attribution - Noncommercial - Sharealike (CC-BY-NC-SA), as this protects OA downstream (recognizing that the current CC NC definition is problematic, and noting that commercial rights should be retained by authors, not publishers). As one example of where open access might need such protection, because CC-BY allows for resale of open access materials: if all of PubMedCentral were CC-BY, a commercial company could copy the whole thing, perhaps add some value, and sell their version of PMC. They could not legally stop PMC from providing free access. However, I very much doubt that CC-BY could prevent such a company from lobbying to remove funding for the public version. If this sounds ludicrous and unconscionable, may I present as evidence that just such a scenario is realistic: 1) the efforts a few years ago by the American Chemical Society to prevent the U.S. government from providing PubChem on the grounds that this was competition with a private entity; 2) the Research Works Act, and 3) the current anti-FRPAA lobbying in the U.S., which, similarly to the Research Works Act, claims that published research funded by the public is "private research works" which should belong solely to the publisher.
>>
>> Another reason for avoiding CC-BY is that while the contributions of funders are very important, so are the contributions of scholar authors. Many scholars do not wish to see others who have contributed nothing to a scholarly work sell their work and pocket the money; I certainly don't. For example, Peter Suber recently posted this note to the SPARC Open Access Forum which expresses the distress of an author who published CC-BY in a BMC journal and then found a bogus publisher selling her article for $3. https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum/browse_thread/thread/fc977cabd0d59bcc#. The more work that is published CC-BY, the more I believe we can expect to see this kind of scam, and this risks turning researchers off OA. Also, when faculty members develop their own open access policies (e.g. Harvard, MIT), they insist that articles not be sold for a profit. Links to these and other institutional repositories are available through the Registry of Open Access Material Archiving Policies (ROARMAP) at http://roarmap.eprints.org/.
>>
>> To illustrate how CC-BY does not necessarily result in the Budapest open access initative's vision of "sharing of the poor with the rich and the rich with the poor": those who give away their work for commercial purposes may not be able to afford the results. For example, if a scholar from a poorer area gives away their medical articles as CC-BY, images and other elements from these articles could be used to develop point-of-care tools that could be sold at prices that the health care professionals serving the scholar and their families could not afford. That is, despite the best of intentions, CC-BY could easily result in a one-way sharing of the poor with the rich. This is one of the reasons why I strongly recommend that the developing world avoid CC-BY.
>>
>> I cover this topic in more depth in the third chapter of my draft thesis - from the link below, search for open access and creative commons:
>> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/chapter-3-open-access-as-solution-to-the-enclosure-of-knowledge/
>>
>> My full response to RCUK can be found here:
>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/03/research-councils-uk-draft-new-open.html
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20-Mar-12, at 5:34 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
>>
>>> I have written on this topic in 2008:
>>>
>>> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4851871/
>>>
>>> OA is a global movement and it isn't helpful to call European laws "odd".
>>>
>>> Klaus Graf
>>>
>>> 2012/3/20 Heather Morrison <hgmo...@sfu.ca>:
>>>> A post on libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual
>>>> property matters. In brief, I argue that text and data mining materials on
>>>> the open web does not require special permissions. This has implications for
>>>> understanding what needs to happen to make libre open access a reality.
>>>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/03/copyright-for-expression-of-ideas.html
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome.
>
>
> --
> Sanford G. Thatcher
> 8201 Edgewater Drive
> Frisco, TX 75034-5514
> e-mail: sandy.t...@alumni.princeton.edu
> Phone: (214) 705-1939
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher
>
> "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)
>
> "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
>
Daniel Mietchen
republished in dubious places is a justification for imposing any
restriction in addition to attribution.
Suppose your article from a CC BY journal is republished by some of
the predators. In that case, they have to obey the licensing
requirements and clearly identify the source and the license of the
source, in which case it would be clearly visible that that is just a
copy, and nobody would suspect you of taking the light road of
publishing your research there.
If they do not meet the requirements of the license, that would be a
copyright violation. Adding restrictions to the licensing of the
source would not change any of that and just add complexity.
Daniel
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sparc-...@arl.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sparc-oaforu...@arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
Dorothea Salo
lawsuits against Emerald and Elsevier (among others). We haven't.
Their republishing practices were opposed via name-and-shame -- and it
worked.
Therefore I see no negative repercussions from CC-BY. Name-and-shame
is still an available tactic.
Dorothea
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sparc-...@arl.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sparc-oaforu...@arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
--
Dorothea Salo sa...@wisc.edu
Heather Morrison
Thank you for your comments. It is good to know that we have the tool of name and shame. This may well work with commercial publishers for whom reputation is key to their profits, as is arguably the case with publishers like Emerald and Elsevier.
This may not help with companies like Newsrx. As Peter Suber posted recently on SOAF, this company appears to be taking articles published in OA journals such as BMC and selling them behind a paywall. At least one author is very concerned about this, and apparently there was quite a discussion on a scholarly listserv. Whether this is a viable business model or not can be a matter for debate. However, I would suggest that when authors express concern that their OA publishing as CC-BY does not protect them from this kind of situation, I think we should listen carefully, as here it is the reputation of open access publishing that is at stake.
Here is a link to the article Peter posted:
https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum/browse_thread/thread/fc977cabd0d59bcc
There may be arguments that this company is violating the author's moral rights. Scholarly authors are choosy about where they publish, and this author does not wish to be associated with a company like Newsrx. This could be an interesting case, especially since moral rights vary in different countries. Also, whether the author's moral rights were violated could be a matter of perspective. However, if the author had published using one of the CC noncommercial licenses, I argue that this situation is less likely to occur in the first place. Honest resellers will not resell works that they know are not available for commercial use. Dishonest resellers with any concern about being sued will be more likely to avoid using these materials than ones that are licensed CC-BY. If this happens anyways, the NC license would give at least an additional means of legally fighting back, and it seems that there would be a much more clear-cut argument with NC than with moral rights.
best,
Heather Morrison
Heather Morrison
Many thanks for your comments.
Regarding the "remote possibility of something being republished in dubious places", may I draw your attention to this post Peter Suber forward to SOAF? This is from an author expressing concern about her BMC article apparently being re-sold, along with many others, behind a paywall by a company called Newsrx:
https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum/browse_thread/thread/fc977cabd0d59bcc
The scholarly journal publishing industry is currently worth approximately $8 - $10 billion annually. When an industry with this kind of revenue begins to get shaken up, new profit-seekers are very likely to be attracted. Beall's list of predatory open access publishers, I argue, show us the tip of the iceberg of what we might see over the next few years:
http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355
The reason I argue that this trend is likely to increase in the near future is because currently most of the $8 - $10 billion is still tied up paying for the big deals of the major commercial publishers. The more successful open access and subsequent competition in the scholarly publishing industry becomes, the more new entrants will be attracted. Some of these will be awesome and an improvement over what we have now - others will deserve to be on Beall's list.
best,
Heather Morrison
Heather Morrison
Many thanks for your comments and all of your work for OA.
Regarding this phrase from CC-BY you quote below:
"When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."
My reading of this phrase in relation to paywalling CC-BY articles is that a paywall is a technological protection measure (TPM) that the user encounters BEFORE they get to the work. This phrase applies to the recipient of the Work - it only comes into effect if TPMs are added to the actual copy that the recipient receives.
best,
Heather Morrison
On 2012-03-23, at 8:50 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> May I again point to:
>
> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/64979561/
>
> I think it is a very stupid argument that some misuse is discrediting
> use. Is the existence of so called "predatory OA publisher's"
> discrediting OA?
>
> It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall. See the
> legal code of CC-BY: "When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the
> Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
> Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
> License."
>
> If it's illegal the author can fight against it - in and outside the courts.
>
> Who has ever said that CC misuses are'nt possible?
>
> It remains a "remote possibility".
>
> Klaus Graf
>
>
> 2012/3/23 Heather Morrison <hgmo...@sfu.ca>:
Heather Morrison
Thank you for providing this text. My reading of this is still that it is, at best, less than clear that paywalled sales are prohibited. The Newsrx example (see below) suggests that at least one company is interpreting CC-BY as permitting paywall sales. I am not a lawyer, and my understanding of copyright law is that it is very complex and issues like this tend to be settled by case law, on a country-by-country basis. It might be helpful to have someone with legal expertise, perhaps someone from Creative Commons, comment on whether CC-BY is intended to, or effectively does, prohibit paywalled sales. My understanding is that it is the Sharealike element which is required to enforce open access downstream.
best,
Heather Morrison
On 2012-03-23, at 9:19 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> You should read the whole text:
>
> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms
> of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource
> Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You
> Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms
> on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of
> the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that
> recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the
> Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and
> to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You
> Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly
> Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological
> measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the
> Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under
> the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as
> incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection
> apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this
> License. If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You
> must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit
> as required by Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an
> Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent
> practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by
> Section 4(b), as requested."
>
> I cannot see that this legitimates a paywalled use. It's absolutely
> not helpful to distribute misunderstandings of CC.
Heather Morrison
> On this point, I do agree with Klaus and not Heather: CC-BY does prohibit any paywalls to access.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
I hope you are right, Sandy! But still not sure. People ARE selling CC-BY articles behind paywalls. Would this apply to derivatives as well? If so, I am wondering how CC-BY differs from CC-BY-SA?
I would still very much like to hear a legal / official Creative Commons reponse to this question (whether CC-BY permits or forbids paywalls).
best,
Heather
Wilhelmina Randtke
The human readable definition of the CC-BY license is posted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ and reads: "This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials."
I work with primarily legal documents (laws, statutes, rules, etc) which are public domain. Databases in this field are high priced, and have eager customers because good search saves time. Another time save is that the ability to check for whether that law has changed is built into pay databases. One click in the pay database gives me certainty which hours of Googling cannot. A reputable, well organized, comprehensive collection of CC-BY materials could legally and morally charge a fee. That fee could subsidize two things: good search (obvious to customers and why they will pay) and digital preservation (something a company will force itself to do if it anticipates making money into the future).
This is legal because it does not violate the license. This is moral because good search done right and good preservation done right are goals we might all strive for. To boot, moral rights countries may restrict destruction of art by the copyright holder. For example, colorized Asphalt Jungle was banned in France, even though director John Huston's heirs requested that the colorized version be shown. Similarly, a publisher of CC-BY works, which does not index those works for good exposure and access and does not check for decay or inaccessibility developing in the technology which stores those files, is mishandling those works. Such a publisher may be found less true to moral rights than a publisher which puts those files behind a pay wall but presents them in a professional manner and cares for the integrity of the documents into the future.
The way to prevent someone republishing your CC-BY stuff behind a paywall is to make your free-of-charge copy easy to find. ie. Do it right, so a private company won't be able to profitably capture that market.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
Uhlir, Paul
I believe that a CC-BY license would make the re-selling legal, if not also accompanied by a CC-NC or CC-SA license (or both). However, if there is no economic harm and the article is freely available from several sources, I would not worry about it. The unauthorized re-sellers are easy to spot and will surely get the public opprobrium that they deserve.
Paul
________________________________________
From: Heather Morrison [hgmo...@sfu.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Sandy Thatcher
Cc: Klaus Graf; Daniel Mietchen; SOAF post; open-science; scho...@ala.org Communication T.F.
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
Uhlir, Paul
Cheers,
Paul
________________________________________
From: Sandy Thatcher [sandy.t...@alumni.princeton.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:18 PM
To: Uhlir, Paul; Heather Morrison
Cc: Klaus Graf; Daniel Mietchen; SOAF post; open-science; scho...@ala.org Communication T.F.
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
Would you be upset if your article were published in an anthology in
a foreign country in a poor translation?
Sandy Thatcher
Wilhelmina Randtke
As to the human readable license summary, "even commercial" means all uses are allowed, including commercial uses. "Only commercial" would be a different matter. When Creative Commons deprecated the CC-PD license, part of the justification was that CC-BY would allow all the same reuse rights as long as there was attribution. So, years ago, CC-BY was presented as a suitable alternative to CC-PD. While I'm guarded about saying that "commercial + noncommercial = everything", the license grants all uses. I am saying with certainty that "all uses (ie. everything) + commercial uses = everything".
License for a database and search system is different from license for articles included in database and search system.
The CC-BY license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode showing that CC-BY on an article does not force a database containing that article to be CC-BY.
CC-BY(1)(b) states, ""Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined above) for the purposes of this License." A database of articles is a Collection under the CC-BY license.
CC-BY(4)(a) states, "This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License." So, a database of CC-BY articles doesn't have any restrictions on how it licenses its search.
Charging money for access to a CC-BY work by someone else is perfectly permissible
Even if something is CC-BY, that's the grant of copyright from the original author. Grant of reproduction rights, distribution rights, etc is independent of fees charged for access. You get lots of free-of-charge services, like email, facebook, etc which are free of charge but highly restricted. You can also buy copyright free books on Amazon. You can be charged for a book by Charles Dickens, who has been dead so long, that copyright is not the basis of the fee. Let me remind you, I am able to charge a fee for access to a CC-BY article, so long as I leave the CC-BY tag on the article. It would be a bit stupid to do this, because if I'm selling at the article level, then anyone who buys from me can free-of-charge distribute copies (thanks to CC-BY license) and presumably could free of charge get the article from elsewhere (since release under CC-BY so far culturally aligns with free-of-charge distribution). So a customer would be stupid to buy from me (unless my copy was the only one which was easy and convenient to find - hint, hint, search matters).
-Wilhelmina Randtke
One of the problems with the CC license scheme is that "commercial" is never clearly defined anywhere, so we really don't know what the reference to "commercial" reuse of CC-BY material means, and whether some "commercial" reuses--like including an article in a print anthology--might be acceptable under the CC-BY terms while others--such as inclusion in a database that can only be accessed by payment of a license fee--cannot.Sandy Thatcher