This continues to be much ado about nothing: Fussing over "rights" when no real functionality at all is at stake in the online era! S.H.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Matthew Cockerill wrote: > "It seems to me that if what we want to do is make content available to > everyone, there's really no need to take away the author's traditional > rights under copyright law. " > > But Blackwell's/Springer are not the authors (nor the funders) of the > research, and yet they ending up with the exclusive rights to the final > version of the research. It's no surprise that the funders who actually > paid for the research (e.g. Wellcome) aren't happy. > > If you compare Springer and Blackwell on the one hand, to BioMed > Central and PLoS on the other hand, it seems clear that authors retain > more of their rights with the PLoS/BioMed Central model, no? > > Under the Springer model (and I believe for Blackwell too), the author > is required to transfer their copyright to the publisher, and the > *publisher* as a result has exclusive rights over the article, and > controls what the author of the article can and cannot do with the > final version of that article. > > Under the PLoS/BioMed Central model, authors retain copyright, but sign > a non-exclusive open access licensing agreement to the publisher (which > allows the publisher to redistribute the article under open access > model). > > Under the Springer/Blackwell model, the author has no special rights - > like everyone else, they can download his own personal copy of the > final version of the article from the publishers website (as long as > they agree not to distribute it to anyone). > > Under the PLoS/BioMed Central model, the author is free under the terms > of the open access license agreement to redistribute and reuse the > final version of the article to their heart's content, as is the rest > of the scientific community. > > As I say, it is difficult to see what additional rights the author is > retaining in the former case. The exclusive rights are being held onto > by the publisher, not the author. > > Matt > > > On 7 Mar 2005, at 21:21, Rick Anderson wrote: > > >> If publishers claim to offer 'Open Access', and are charging > >> authors for the > >> privilege, it really does not make sense for them to be reserving for > >> themselves these exclusive rights. > > > > This is where we get into the question of what "open access" means. > > If it means that the general public has a free and unrestricted right > > to access an article and use it within the bounds of fair use/fair > > dealing, then in fact Blackwell's policy is perfectly consonant with > > open access. > > > > If, on the other hand, you agree with the Barcelona, Bethesda and > > Berlin statements that access is only "open" when the copyright holder > > assigns what would normally be her exclusive rights (redistribution, > > reproduction, derivative works, etc.) to the general public, then no, > > what Blackwell is offering isn't "open access." But I think that > > definition is unnecessarily restrictive. It seems to me that if what > > we want to do is make content available to everyone, there's really no > > need to take away the author's traditional rights under copyright law. > > The latter stance seems to me almost like a conflation of "open > > access" with "open source." > > > > ---- > > Rick Anderson > > Dir. of Resource Acquisition > > University of Nevada, Reno Libraries > > (775) 784-6500 x273 > > rick...@unr.edu > > This email has been scanned by Postini. > For more information please visit http://www.postini.com >