Thanks for drawing my attention to this interesting paper, Marc. I think it
clearly shows that universities have often held back from claiming rights
over academic writings based on pragmatic reflections - ("universities tend
to be averse to litigation, especially against their own faculty
members.They are loath to disturb institutional traditions and spark
uprisings on their campuses and in their communities"). This was my main
point - and one of Prof Oppenheim's.Maybe I was too affirmative in saying that "most" academic work is work for hire - as the Strauss paper shows, this is being disputed by a number of actors in a number of ways. But, as you say, without a definitive conclusion.. Best, Chris Zielinski On 11 February 2014 22:21, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> wrote: > Chris Zielinski wrote: > > > > > > > Let's not forget that it is precisely such pragmatism that stops > universities from claiming the copyrights to all published academic work as > work for hire, which of course most of it is... > > > > > > > Well, I wouldn't be so affirmative. There is also something called the > "academic exception", according to which the work-for-hire doctrine may not > apply in the academe. Much has been written in the past decade about this > issue, with no definitive conclusion; see, for instance, this recent paper: > > > > Strauss, N. S. (2011). Anything but academic: How copyright's > work-for-hire doctrine affects professors, graduate students, and K-12 > teachers in the information age. *Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, > 18*(1). http://jolt.richmond.edu/v18i1/article4.pdf > > > > Marc Couture > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
