Charles Oppenheim, supported by Law (Derek), wrote: > > I suspect they [editors] never noticed the change in wording, but that's > their problem, not mine. > I commend that approach. >
It seems to me that what Charles Oppenheim suggests (relying upon publishers' oversight) is not really, at least on moral grounds, different from what he condemned (ignoring somewhat confusing, and arguably abusive conditions). My guess is that if that approach became prevalent, publishers would indeed start scrutinizing copyright agreements received from authors, in the same way Elsevier changed its copyright policy in the wake of the recent increase in the number of mandates. Personally, I am particularly outraged by Elsevierâs last move. I consider that it breaks a fragile common understanding which had made acceptable to authors the total transfer of copyright required by editors. Editorsâ tolerance (or oversight), then explicit recognition of the need (or wish) of these give-away authors to make their works more available, were seen as a form of compensation, analogous to financial retribution (royalties) in non-academic publishing. But what remains of this common understanding when an editor uses the rights it has acquired for free, from an author who is paid by an university, to oppose a decision made by the same university, especially if this decision is not made in the universityâs own immediate interests, but rather for the common good? This I call abusive, on moral as well as legal grounds. And I think it should be the burden of the editor which writes the entirety (and modifies unilaterally) its copyright contract to have a court establish its validity. For my part, I would simply ignore these questionable clauses, and consider hiring a lawyer only if I decide to keep an article in my universityâs repository after the editor writes me that, according to him, keeping it there violates that contract. Marc Couture
