I think publishers would publish texts to which the copyright owner gave them an irrevocable nonexclusive license to publish in all media, which is all they need for STM journals. Subsidiary rights do not come into play for the sort of material we are discussing, nor does the possibility that someone else might distribute the author's text at a later date. For scholarly journals, it's the first publication that counts.
I suggest we may be making s serious mistake to extend the work-for-hire concept. I suggest we have extended it too far already in this field when it apply it to government authors. (I am not now talking about patent rights, just copyright) In a sense all intellectual work in a university is supported by the public, either by direct grants or by tax exemptions. But this support, though surely essential, is merely the provision and maintenance of the facilities, and the salaries of the people. The public does not do the creative work. The creator should own the copyright, and the terms of support, or perhaps the law itself, should limit the rights he can transfer. (I realize I am not talking about slight changes in the Anglo-American copyright system as now interpreted, so the lawyers in the audience will please excuse me for not providing details.) Similarly, I suggest we should not permit academic institutions or research institutes to claim ownership of their faculty's lectures, online or otherwise. The lectures can and should belong solely to the faculty; as do their books and papers. The faculty are hired on the expectation they will produce them, and will not be retained if they do not. The university employer gets its share by having the faculty deliver the lectures, or publish the books and papers from the institution's address, thus enhancing its reputation and attracting junior scholars. If the faculty leave, their course material goes with them. A new faculty member can and should be expected to prepare his own. The University of Phoenix model is not appropriate to an institution of higher learning, and its analogies are not suitable for academic research. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor, Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University, Brookville, NY dgood...@liu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morris [mailto:sec-...@alpsp.org]=20 Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 9:17 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) Stevan Harnad wrote: "Most of the existing 24,000 journals would not accept to publish public-domain texts" I think this is probably inaccurate. I would guess that practically all of those journals do publish works which are currently governed by the Public Domain status of US Government works. To my mind, the question really is whether either the authors or their employer actually do anything to avail themselves of the works' Public Domain status. No one seems to have been able to answer this question. If they don't, why should the Sabo Bill's extension of identical status to Federally funded works, in itself, be expected to achieve anything for the Open Access agenda? Sally Sally Morris, Secretary-General Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org