Jeffrey Beall wrote: > There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. >
I must disagree here. One the one hand, it's clear that the publisher then owns the copyright in the work. On the other hand, as someone who has many times tried, mostly at the request of puzzled colleagues, to decipher the terms of the permissions (or "author rights") publishers give back to the authors who have just lost the ownership of copyright, I have to say that it's often very hard to understand exactly what authors are allowed to do and when, notably regarding self-archiving. SHERPA / RoMEO makes a somewhat good job in harmonising the terminology (preprint, postprint, submitted manuscript, proof, final version, publisher's version, version of record, etc.), but it only goes so far. More often than not, one faces contradictory, incompatible, or simply unclear statements. Marc Couture -----Message d'origine----- De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Beall, Jeffrey Envoyé : 13 avril 2015 10:45 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: Sharing and reuse - not within a commercial economy, but within a sharing economy Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following: 1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations 2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing contentiousness and debate, even among experts. 3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time. I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in J-STOR and will be preserved. My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option and for many authors may be the best option. Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Communications Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver 1100 Lawrence St. Denver, Colo. 80204 USA (303) 556-5936 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu _______________________________________________ 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
