My experience with publishers and signed rights to content they publish might be anomalous, but I suspect it is not.
One of my articles, appearing in a Pergramon journal (taken over of course by Elsevier and then sold recently to Taylor and Francis) plus experience with Bill Cohen's licensing procedures would raise some doubts that Reller knows what he thinks he knows, or that Elsevier's demands of takedowns have the force of finality that Elsevier is claiming. The Pergamon article from 1987 has an interesting statistic implied in the numbers I provided for subscriptions at Louisiana State University germane to today's situation. If you add together the complete spend between Pergamon and Elsevier in 1987 at LSU,it comes to about 13% of LSU's serials budget back then. If you compare that with today's spend for Elsevier for many academic librariesl, after decades of cancellations and then "big deal" negotiations the similar percentage for many academic libraries today is in the 13% to 15% range today. The 1987 article was a piece I delivered at the Charleston Conference. At no point did Pergamon ask for a signed copyright transfer. My memory is it never happened. I don't' think this is anomalous for conference reports. I believe I'm free to post that article anywhere I choose. Would T&F issue a takedown notice. I would guess they would. Or would Elsevier (the article is on both the Elsevier retrospective run and on T&F)? Then there's Bill Cohen, who I hope speaks up. His contracts with authors throughout much of the 80's had a delightful statement to the effect that that any changes to the contract would make it void. I routinely changed those contracts, wrote in from about 1986 on in every signed contract with all publishers, that I retained the right for electronic distribution. I doubt Elsevier, (now Taylor and Francis) has a retrievable archive of the Pergamon contracts, or lack thereof, and T&F with Haworth Press content now, lacks the same. I would not be surprised if discovery with Elsevier's takedown notice articles revealed the same issue, contracts changed by hand by authors and modified, non existent contracts, the panoply of non standard content in those contracts IF they even still are accessible. And I seriously doubt Elsevier went to each of those contracts to determine its "rights" before the recent spate of takedown notices. I also note Reller's Connect contortions have an option to comment, but no comments have been posted. Chuck Hamaker UNC Charlotte ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Richard Poynder [ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:08 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Fwd: Elsevier's Unforced Error It might be worth pointing out that Elsevier is also asking its own service provider Mendeley to take down PDFs, although the details are sketchy. See here: https://twitter.com/TomReller/status/411173848596217856 And here: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/411215635968847872 And here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam Sent: 15 December 2013 05:42 To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); bytesforall_read...@yahoogroups.com; LIS-Forum; oadl Subject: [GOAL] Fwd: Elsevier's Unforced Error If, after all this, the scientists of the world do not unite now and revive the 'Boycott Elsevier' movement, we cannot blame the publisher hereafter. How can governments and funding bodies which support research remain silent spectators and let publishing companies hijack the copyright to the research results? Arun ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com<mailto:liblice...@gmail.com>> Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:43 AM Subject: Elsevier's Unforced Error To: liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu<mailto:liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <caham...@uncc.edu<mailto:caham...@uncc.edu>> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:11:37 http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ For those who are unhappy with decades of Elsevier's policies, practices, pricing, and even their recent purchase of Mendeley, their unforced error in issuing take-down notices is an amazing, mistaken and ultimately self-destructive decision on Elsevier's part. Anyone who has any disagreement with Elsevier on any issue: copyright, OA policies, hybrid journals, OA pricing, pricing in general, control of backfiles, text mining, any of a myriad of issues including, their crazy if you mandate it you can't do it IR policy and their standard refusal to permit re-printing "their" research, should publicize this far and wide. Elsevier, no matter what they say, has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt in this action, their limited understanding of their remit, their control of scholarly research, They are nobody's friend's except their shareholders. They have demonstrated their DNA, their belief in their right to control the content scholars and researchers create and publish with Elsevier. They are wrong. What copyright law says is irrelevant in this, what authors want to do with their own research is paramount. It might have been masked before under the guise of impact factors and collegial editorial board meetings in locations worldwide and smart as a whip editors, and outreach at conferences, and invitations to "publish your research with us" and PR, and more or less "green" OA policies, and excellent inhouse readings of directions in future trends, and all the other trappings and expertise they have in academic publishing which is at the top of its game. Those trapping are insufficient. Elsevier and its cynical relationship with authors and institutions, has been demonstrated by Elsevier itself. No one could have done this to them but themselves. The tide of OA, of authors making sure people who need to see it, get to read their research, OA in all its guises, is inexorable and if handled correctly even by such behemoths as Elsevier, will lift all boats in the publishing stream, despite the scaremongers and naysayers in publishing, or the mistaken advice of some in libraries, or even among OA advocates themselves. It's logic is persuasive, its goals commensurate ultimately with what authors want for their own research. To put up and enforce barriers to what scholars want to distribute that they themselves produce is antediluvian. Elsevier's unforced error may be more effective than any boycott. Chuck Hamaker ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6920 - Release Date: 12/14/13
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
