Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
Jan: Further on the question of open access by potential authors. A few questions re: BioMed Central waivers ( of the $500 article-processing charge); a) What does BioMed consider a "low income country"which may mean the author from such a country may potentially have the fee waived? For example, do you use the WTO's list of the 50 least developed countries? b) What percentage of articles published in BioMed Central receive a full ($US500)waiver of the article processing charges? How many of such articles have been from authors in low income countries? c) Do you have a quota on how many full waivers can annually be granted and how are such waivers financed by BioMed? d) What, specifically, are the criteria used to waive charges, including from low income countries? Regards Alan Story -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 17:36 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy BioMed Central waives charges for those who cannot stump up the $500 and make a reasonable case for that. Jan Velterop
Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
I agree that there are distinctions to be made between the two systems, Fytton. What I object to is one system that charges for the ability to be "speak" dissing a system that charges for the right to "listen"( or perhaps more accurately, the right to produce and read accessible information)on the grounds that the former is in favour of open access and that the latter is not. Both are against it, albeit in different ways. Many researchers, academic and otherwise, in many parts of the world have lots worth saying, but simply cannot "stump up" $US500 each time that they --- and peer reviewers agree they have something worthwhile/important to say as the BioMed model requires. Sitting here in our well-funded universities in the US and Europe -- or well-founded compared to many parts of the world -- we tend to forget that many such researchers work at institutions where "of course" they don't have the funds to pay their staff for access to BioMed as a contributor...and not merely as a reader. Alan Story Kent Law School -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Fytton Rowland Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 15:33 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy Every information system has to be paid for somehow, since it has unavoidable costs. The only way that you can (appear to) charge nobody is to have some kind of operating subsidy from somewhere. In discussion and analysis, it is helpful, in my view, to make a clear distinction between systems that charge the creator of the information and systems that charge the reader (or their respective institutions, of course). So I find the rather negative comment below a bit unhelpful. Fytton Rowland. - Original Message - From: "Alan Story" To: Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > Yes, but speaking of "nothing new at all": how can BioMed claim to be the > "gold standard" and say it believes in "open access" when there is a flat > fee of US$500 ( a.k.a. the article-processing charge) for admission to the > "open access" club in the first place. BioMed's user-pay toll-gate has just > been moved further up the information superhighway. > > Alan Story > Kent Law School > Canterbury UK > > > > > -Original Message- > From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum > [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf > Of Jan > Velterop > Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 10:06 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a > 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the > 'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR exercise. Clever PR, > to be sure, but certainly nothing like the "[Nature]...again led the > planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals in introducing the optimal and > inevitable copyright policy for the online era..." as Stevan would have it. > For a start, the 90 or so peer-reviewed journals published by BioMed Central > have a copyright and licensing policy that can truly be seen as leading: > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license. No restrictions on > self-archiving and further dissemination whatsoever. That should be the > 'gold-standard', not Nature's feeble attempt to look good without delivering > any substance worth mentioning. Congratulating Nature for putting a new > gloss on basically an old stance seems unnecessary sycophancy to me. > > Decribing the new Nature licence as a 'gift horse' that shouldn't be looked > in the mouth (in one of Stevan's earlier messages on this topic) is giving > the wrong impression that the scholarly community should really sit back, be > patient, shut up, swim on, wait what's being given to them and then be > grateful for beads and mirrors. They should simply expect more from > publishing, and demand the right to self-determination of what can be done > with their articles. Besides, there would be no point in looking a dead > horse in the mouth anyway, apart from performing an autopsy. > > Of course, authors could always re-format their papers and flip into > 'subversive mode' again. They could always do that anyway, and Nature's new > formulation of their restrictions doesn't make that any different. > > There is a lot to be cheerful and optimistic about with regard to open &g
Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
Yes, but speaking of "nothing new at all": how can BioMed claim to be the "gold standard" and say it believes in "open access" when there is a flat fee of US$500 ( a.k.a. the article-processing charge) for admission to the "open access" club in the first place. BioMed's user-pay toll-gate has just been moved further up the information superhighway. Alan Story Kent Law School Canterbury UK -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 10:06 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the 'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR exercise. Clever PR, to be sure, but certainly nothing like the "[Nature]...again led the planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals in introducing the optimal and inevitable copyright policy for the online era..." as Stevan would have it. For a start, the 90 or so peer-reviewed journals published by BioMed Central have a copyright and licensing policy that can truly be seen as leading: http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license. No restrictions on self-archiving and further dissemination whatsoever. That should be the 'gold-standard', not Nature's feeble attempt to look good without delivering any substance worth mentioning. Congratulating Nature for putting a new gloss on basically an old stance seems unnecessary sycophancy to me. Decribing the new Nature licence as a 'gift horse' that shouldn't be looked in the mouth (in one of Stevan's earlier messages on this topic) is giving the wrong impression that the scholarly community should really sit back, be patient, shut up, swim on, wait what's being given to them and then be grateful for beads and mirrors. They should simply expect more from publishing, and demand the right to self-determination of what can be done with their articles. Besides, there would be no point in looking a dead horse in the mouth anyway, apart from performing an autopsy. Of course, authors could always re-format their papers and flip into 'subversive mode' again. They could always do that anyway, and Nature's new formulation of their restrictions doesn't make that any different. There is a lot to be cheerful and optimistic about with regard to open access, but Nature's copyright licence ain't amongst it. The question remains, if Nature really permits self-archiving (which is what Stevan seems to believe), why don't they make their research papers available in open access or at least freely available after a short time (say a month or two)? There's nothing to be lost for them that cannot be compensated by the gains they could make from such a policy, in my view. Open access advocates should keep up the pressure instead of relenting when offered a cigar from their own box. Jan > -Original Message- > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 January 2003 03:32 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Eisen wrote: > > > NATURE: "How can I show my article to my colleagues? By > sending a link > > to the paper on your website. You may not distribute the > PDF by email, > > on listservs or on open archives. Please remember that > although the > > content of the article is your copyright, its > presentation (i.e. its > > typographical layout as a printed page) remains our copyright." > > That's just fine! Run the PDF through a PDF-to-HTML > converter, reformat it > trivially, and the layout is yours! (These details are > utterly *trivial*, > Mike, whereas the nontrivial, substantive part -- you may put your > refereed postprint on the web -- is *all* that was ever needed!) > > But I do believe they must have stopped giving lawyers logic > courses any > more as part of their degree! "You may not distribute the PDF > by email. > Send a link to it on your website instead." Gimme a break! > > And "You may not put it in an 'open archive' but only on a personal > website?" So my personal website is not allowed to be OAI-compliant? > > This is all papyrophilic juribabble based on defunct anlogies > with bygone > days and ways! It makes no sense. It is as technologically innocent > as it is blissfully free of logic. How can anyone even pretend to take > it seriously? > > "Your honour, the defend
Positive/progressive policies, please.
I have been asked to draft a new copyright policy statement and resulting policies/ regulations for the University of Kent (Canterbury, UK). Obviously no point in re-inventing the wheel. If anyone knows of a particularly positive statement on copyright --- positive meaning the active endorsement/ promotion of open access, freeing the academic literature for research and study purposes, etc. --- by a university, I would appreciate receiving a copy. Regards Alan Alan Story Kent Law School University of Kent Canterbury Kent United Kingdom CT2 7NS a...@ukc.ac.uk + 44 (0)1227 823316
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Stevan: So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship", unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage? Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list. Alan Story Kent Law School
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
I am not sure that you really want to get into this terrain but " Moral rights" essentially do not exist in US copyright law ( except for visual artists and in certain cirsumstances where they are not called moral rights.); indeed, US law is essentially hostile to moral rights and was able to force though a section of the TRIPS agreement exempting moral rights as a requirement for national statutory protection. Moral rights are derived from author's rights systems in Contintental Europe. They do exist in the UK by statute. " Moral rights" should NOT be conflated with intellectual property...and it is no more of a transparent term. Indeed " moral rights" is a bad translation of the French word " droits moraux", roughly personal rights. Alan Story Kent Law School Canterbury UK -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Monday 22 July 2002 15:07 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote: > whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I still > retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to be > changed, etc. Yes, that's my understanding too. Perhaps "moral right" is a more transparent term than "intellectual property." I think we need to hear from Charles Oppenheim on this... (Also, what becomes of the moral right if a text is put in the public domain?) Stevan
Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist
Graham: On your point about " different circumstances", I would suggest that the " Creative Commons" project --- see the link that "Arthur" passed on this a.m.--- is worth further study and commentary. Regards Alan Story -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Graham P Cornish Sent: Tuesday 12 February 2002 12:24 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist I seems to me that the problem with copyright is that you have it whether or not you want to use it. Those who want to use what you own have no way of telling whether or not you want to enforce your rights or not, or to what degree you might wish to enforce or waive them. What is needed is an internationally recognised system for indicating just what owners are happy to allowin different circumstances. I hope to be working with an international agency on thisissue shortly. GrahamP Cornish Copyright consultant gra...@copyrightcircle.co.uk www.coyrightcircle.co.uk - Original Message - From: "Bernard Lang" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:03 AM Subject: Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist > I do agree that toll-free access is the only essential issue, at this > time, and that mixing it with free software or open-content licences can > only muddle the issues ... at least where public discussions are > concerned, and current public action. > > Considering alternative licences is however an interesting topic, > and ON A PERSONAL BASIS, authors can well chose to grant even more > freedom than called for by advocates of toll-free access to the > peer-reviewed research literature. I personally do allow people to > modify my papers, as long as it is clear who wrote what. Basically, > it allows for direct reuse of fragments of papers in other work. Just > my choice. > > I am also concerned with fighting the data-base legislation, which > can also get in the way. > > My licence is at: > > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/licence/v1/fddl.html > > If you are interested in variations and analyses of licences, for > text and other types of resources ... see > > http://aful.org/presentations/licences/ > > The page is in French, but it refers to documents in French and > English. I unfortunately cannot handle other languages. It has four > sections: licences for software, licences for text and/or for artistic > content, references to other sites, references to documents analyzing > licences. > > I would like to point out that for textbooks, when the author is > WILLING, the situation is much like software. Textbooks are often > complex, and there are documents and management tools very similar to > what would constitute source code. Also, textbook often need > maintenance, to correct mistakes, make addition, follow the evolution > of the field, adapt to a specific teaching situation. > Free-software-like licences are then very useful. > > I do know one case of an author fighting to get his textbook out of > the clutches of the publisher. The reason is that the textbook needs > maintenance to survive, and he no longer has the time to do it > himself, nor has anyone else, given the huge size of the book. The only > manageable solution is to let experts separately improve the sections > for which they are competent: This is pretty much an encyclopedia of > internet programming. Encyclopedias are actually a good example of > cooperative creation in the text world. > > More generally, similar issues arise regarding the creation, evolution > and maintenance of educational resources. > > But I do agree that these are problems quite different from the specific > on of toll-free access to the refereed research literature. > > Bernard > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:21:39PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > > > Okay. As long as you're dealing with expressive wholes, > > > you're standing on legal precedent. > > > > > > It would help if some stipulations were made to assure that > > > it's clear you're talking about the original presentations, > > > presentations to which the author asserts authoritative > > > origin, and presentations of originality that may be false. > > > The factual elements of any expressive work are fair game. > > > This is essential from the standpoint of free online > > > collaboration. > > > > Here is a good rule of thumb for advocates of toll-free access to the > > peer-reviewed research literature: > > >
Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist
Seth: Indeed, you were starting to sound like SOME lawyers...and in fact, on the one hand, many legal "precedents" are completely unhelpful and/or easily manipulated (see the comments of Lord Denning on " fair dealing" in the 1972 UK case of Hubbard (as in Chairman Ron of Scientology) v. Vosper, and, on the other hand, numbers of supposed "precedents", including in the field of copyright, are regularly bent or ignored. The process goes by the name of "distingishing" cases. Best wishes Alan Story Kent Law School Canterbury UK -Original Message- From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Seth Johnson Sent: Sunday 10 February 2002 14:51 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist Okay. As long as you're dealing with expressive wholes, you're standing on legal precedent. It would help if some stipulations were made to assure that it's clear you're talking about the original presentations, presentations to which the author asserts authoritative origin, and presentations of originality that may be false. The factual elements of any expressive work are fair game. This is essential from the standpoint of free online collaboration. Now, much as I might sound like it, I am not a lawyer. Seth Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Toll-free access to the full text means you do not have to pay to read > it, print it out, use it in your further research -- not even to > republish or try to sell it (though lots of luck selling it, given its > feely accessible already!). > > But what you may not do is: > > (1) claim to have written it yourself > > (2) publish it omitting the name of the author(s) and original > locus of publication (if any) > > (3) publish it with any changes in the text (or without noting > abbreviations).
Re: Call for Commentary: http://www.text-e.org/debats/
Dear Herve: On your second strand, breaking publishers' monopoly and the question of assignment of copyright ( which as Stevan points out is complimentary).and here speaking from the perspective of the UK. The "assignment as a condition of publication" contracts that publishers require academic authors to sign are "unreasonable", defining "unreasonable" as meaning "exorbitant", "immoderate", " arbitrary", or "confiscatory " (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition). Here is the nature of the unreasonable economic exchange that occurs: the publisher receives at no cost a copy of the article, increasingly in a proof-read and digitalised format, and acquires all rights in that work, including first publication, copyright, re-publication and digitalisation rights. All that, in fact, is needed is first publication rights. The author receives no direct financial compensation, though certainly indirect financial rewards in the form of possible career advancement and a higher salary. Further, not only does not the author lose all control over the further use of or access to this work ( in fact, a teacher in the UK must charge a copyright royalty fee to her/his own classroom students if she/he wishes to distribute to them her/his own article), but universities, who have paid the salary of the academic author, must buy back from publishers and reproduction rights organisation (RROs) what they have given away for free. Indeed, under the terms of copyright licensing schemes for universities in the UK, they must buy back what they have given away for free as many as four times: first, to purchase of the actual book or journal; second, to allow "fair dealing" photocopying by students and teachers in a university library (and it should be added that why a university has to pay for the right to undertake "fair dealing" with a work remains controversial, to say the least); third, to place a photocopy in a university short-loan collection; and fourth, to use the material in a non-profit classroom course pack printed at a non-profit university print centre. Not only is this a rather questionable business model for universities--- to understate the absurdity of this situation --- for the production and distribution of knowledge, but it also dramatically decreases access to and use of that knowledge. And it is the signing of an "unreasonable" contract that lies at the centre of this tangled and inequitable web of copyright power relations and limitations on access. But here is the problem and one possible solution: in the UK, as in many other jurisdictions,"unreasonable contracts" are considered as contracts that are contrary to public policy and "unreasonable" terms in such contracts are unenforceable, that is, they can be breached without penalty. The UK legislation governing such contracts is The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Parties who consider that they have signed an "unreasonable" contract can, if necessary, commence a legal action to have "unreasonable" terms in such a contract declared unenforceable. ( See S. 3 (2) (b) and S. 11). Initially then The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 might seem to provide the statutory basis for a challenge as to the "reasonableness" of certain contracts which most authors are required to sign with publishers. There is, however, a key exemption (or colloquially, a "loop-hole") that prevents such challenges: Section 1 (c) of Schedule 1 of the Act states that Section 3 of the Act does not extend to any contract that relates to the "creation or transfer of a right or interest in. copyright"(or other types of intellectual property) Hence, such contracts cannot be challenged by aggrieved authors. Working to amend the Schedule 1 of this Act and to bring contracts dealing with the transfer of copyright within the scope of this Unfair Contract Terms act would be one way to allow academics to challenge such contracts. Mind you, there are others Certainly not an easy battle --- here in the UK or in France or elsewhere --- but, if won, it would have potential to open up both self-archiving further and also challenge the publisher's monopolies. Best wishes Alan Story Kent Law School Canterbury UK. - Original Message - From: "Hervé Le Crosnier" To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:15 PM Subject: Re: Call for Commentary: http://www.text-e.org/debats/ > Hello Stevan, > > I feel you've misinterpreted my proposition on the text-e forum. > http://text-e.org/debats/index.cfm?conftext_ID=7 > > I do feel you're right to say that self-archiving is something good to > do NOW. > > My problem is that monopolistic publishers ALREADY have science under > their control. So we have two ways of fighting for freedom of science: > > - one is se
Re: FOS Newsletter Excerpts
Michael: Instead of using emotive words like "shame" and "cynical", perhaps you might address the issues I have raised: a) who is actually doing the giving? b) the "free now, charge later" philosophy behind this scheme. c) use of non proprietary/open source software for accessing the materials d) financial assistance for academic contributors from countries of the South. To use your own emotive, I just don't see the "sacrifice" involved. Regards Alan Alan Story Kent Law School University of Kent Canterbury Kent U.K CT2 7NS. a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk 44 (0)1227 823316 - Original Message - From: "Michael Kay" To: "'Alan Story'" ; Cc: "Istvan Rev" ; "Anna Maria Balogh" Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 11:11 AM Subject: Re: FOS Newsletter Excerpts > It is a shame that you should write this in such a cynical tone. Yes the > publishers do stand to gain in the long term, but at last they are willing > to "sacrifice" something at least . I have been working with them for some > time on exactly these sorts of projects and they do realise that unless they > do something to "look better" that their battle will be even harder. > Naturally they are more than concerned about the current debate and their > futures. But at the end of the day, they are now coughing with excellent > deals for countries that our network serves - the financially disadvantaged. > And just for the record not all publishers are inherently evil people - > believe it or not. > > Michael Kay > Director eIFL (Soros Foundation Network) > http://www.eifl.net >
Re: FOS Newsletter Excerpts
A few comments on "this gift" : 1) The " giving" is actually be done by the authors of the medical journal articles, not the publishers. The publishers are only passing on what they got for free from authors. 2) Such benevolence on the part of publishers! Give away what you get for free and pass it on to others without invoking any extra distribution costs. And then, down the road, when you have a created a market for online journals in third world countries or those countries increase their per capita income, you then start charging them. A roughly similar model is used by Lexis and Westlaw at law schools; while at law school, students get almost unlimited and "free" access (mind you, the law schools pay a whopping per capita licence fee!) and the students, not surprisingly, get "hooked" on the wonders of electronic legal research. And then when they become lawyers, the students start charging their clients an hourly rate --- a few years ago it was $75 an hour --- for online legal research. Such fees rapidly pay back "the subsidy" handed out during law school. And the winners are? Lexis and Westlaw. 3) I assume this benevolence will also include full access to non-proprietary open source software so that these third world universities, to get access to this information, will not have to rely on Microsoft and pay the absolutely scandalous rates that Microsoft charges. Did you know that a rich university such as Harvard pays exactly the same software licensing fees per desk to Microsoft as does the University of Zimbabwe? But then we read that the Gates Foundation is one of the big backers of this benevolence...and we quickly see that this benevolence is all about creating a second market, this for computer software. 4) And finally I assume that this benevolence will also include significant financial assistance so that scholars at third world universities can increase their contributions to these journals and others. The governing assumption behind this project is that scholars and students at third world universities will be merely the consumers of information/ knowledge from the "advanced countries", never or seldom the producers. Regards Alan Alan Story Kent Law School University of Kent Canterbury Kent U.K CT2 7NS. a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk 44 (0)1227 823316
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
As soon as someone suggests " you know it really is a crazy system under which commercial publishers acquire, at no cost, all intellectual property rights to the work of authors which is produced by the often-unpaid labour of academics (because they love their subject area) and by the money of taxpayers (academic salaries, fellowships, libraries, prior education, etc.) and student tuition fees" you get accused of taking "clearly an anti-library anti-science position." Not at all clear to me, Albert, just as it was not clear to a lot of people some centuries that the earth was flat just because people said it was. Alan Story Kent Law School Original Message - From: "Albert Henderson" To: Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:47 PM Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story wrote: > The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be > called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence." > > Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the > publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined) > ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication > rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work. > > Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's > "subversive proposal"), the publisher has the right to prevent any "open > archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the > students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit > educational use of that article. > > In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with > most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era. > > Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy > publication right. And not a tad more. Clearly an anti-library anti-science position. It was the outspoken interest in electronic formats by major science research libraries, more than any other group, that encouraged science publishers to invest in digital dissemination. Albert Henderson <70244.1...@compuserve.com>
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Steve: I am sorry;I am too pressed at this time...and in any event I do not need more any lectures from Stevan. ( see post below). The teaching issues/problems (in the UK) are explained in detail at: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/copyright/ Alan Story Stevan: Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list. And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response. If you do not want copyight-related posts, then don't put them on in the first place. And no lectures, thank you. Alan Story - Original Message - From: "Steve Hitchcock" To: Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > Alan,For the benefit of authors who may have little knowledge > of different rights but have probably heard of copyright, can you explain > briefly what copyright is and why retaining it may be of little use to the > author, as you suggest, in this example? Most authors will probably assume > that if they are allowed to retain copyright they are covered for uses such > self-archiving, class use, etc. > > Comment on hard-copy rights below. > > At 10:30 22/06/01 +0100, Alan Story wrote: > >The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be > >called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence." > > > >Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the > >publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined) > >ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication > >rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work. > > > >Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's > >"subversive proposal"), the publisher has the right to prevent any "open > >archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the > >students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit > >educational use of that article. > > > >In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with > >most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era. > > > >Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy > >publication right. And not a tad more. > > Now that most print journals have e-replicas, I assume such journals would > be unable to publish those papers for which they were granted only first > hard-copy right. Correct? > > Steve > > > > >Alan Story > >Lecturer in IP Law > >Kent Law School > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Sally Morris" > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM > >Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > > > > > > > Perhaps I can set the record straight. > > > > > > ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright > > > policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of > > > journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a mixture > > > of commercial and non-commercial journals. We asked, among other things, > > > what they thought about copyright retention. 38.1% felt that copyright > > > should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full redistribution > > > rights retained by the author. 38% felt that copyright should be > >retained > > > by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or other > > > publisher. 23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the author, > >and > > > only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher. 4.8% > >felt > > > copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full publishing > > > rights granted to the society/publisher; 2.8% were for copyright > >retention > > > by employer, limited rights > > > to society/publisher. 2.3% were for copyright retention by funding body, > > > full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright > >retention > > > by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher. Interestingly, an > > > overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement > >with > > > publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their > >publishing > > > objectives. There is information about the study, links to presentations > > > and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at > > > http://www.alps
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Stevan: Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list. And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response. If you do not want copyight-related posts, then don't put them on the first place. And no lectures, thank you. Alan Story . - Original Message - From: "Stevan Harnad" To: Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:38 AM Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alan Story wrote: > > > The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be > > called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence." > > > > Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the > > publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined) > > ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication > > rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work. > > > > Hence, AFTER hard copy publication (and hence not conflicting with Harnad's > > "subversive proposal"), the publisher has the right to prevent any "open > > archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the > > students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit > > educational use of that article. > > Please see my original comments on the ALPSP "model license" when it was > announced in this Forum in 1999 (the URL is long and may truncate in > your mailer, so you may have to use the mouse rather than just clicking > on it): > > http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind99&L=september98-forum&F= l#6 > > To clarify the Subversive Proposal: > > http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/ > > The ONLY thing that the authors of refereed research papers want or > need is the right to self-archive publicly online in perpetuo. **That > is all!** The rest is taken care of by the nature of the Web itself. A > publicly archived document is accessible to anyone and everyone with > access to the Net/Web. > > Please do not conflate this very important and clearcut right, unique to > the refereed research literature, which is and always has been an author > give-away, with other copyright concerns, having to do with "fair use", > "intellectual property," etc. Those are all worthy causes but NOT the > same as what is the primary focus of this Forum, which is the refereed > research literature, written by researchers, for researchers, and for > research itself. > > If we mix up the two (for-research/for-teaching, or > give-away/non-give-away), we not only cloud the picture, but we delay > the optimal/inevitable outcome (for the refereed research literature): > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5 > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1 > > The following is all that is needed in a copyright statement for the > refereed research literature (but ALPSP alas does not seem to > quite provide it)(from: http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/copyright.html): > > "I hereby transfer to [publisher or journal] all rights to sell or > lease the text (paper and online) of [paper-title]. I retain only > the right to distribute it for free for scholarly/scientific or > educational purposes, in particular, the right to self-archive it > publicly online on the Web." > > The American Physical Society version of this same basic arrangement is > at ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc : > > "The author(s) shall have the following rights: The author(s) > agree that all copies of the Article made under any of these > following rights shall include notice of the APS copyright... > > > > (3) The right, after publication by APS, to use all or part of > the Article without revision or modification, including the > APS-formatted version, in personal compilations or other > publications of the author's own works, including the author's > personal web home page, and to make copies of all or part of the > Article for the author's use for lecture or classroom purposes. > > (4) The right to post and update the Article on e-print servers > as long as files prepared and/or formatted by APS or its vendors > are not used for that purpose. Any such posting made or updated > after acceptance of the Article for publication shall include a > link to the online abstract in the APS journal or to the entry > page of the journal. > > [I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page" > and
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence." Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined) ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work. Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's "subversive proposal"), the publisher has the right to prevent any "open archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit educational use of that article. In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era. Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy publication right. And not a tad more. Regards Alan Story Lecturer in IP Law Kent Law School - Original Message - From: "Sally Morris" To: Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > Perhaps I can set the record straight. > > ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright > policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of > journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a mixture > of commercial and non-commercial journals. We asked, among other things, > what they thought about copyright retention. 38.1% felt that copyright > should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full redistribution > rights retained by the author. 38% felt that copyright should be retained > by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or other > publisher. 23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the author, and > only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher. 4.8% felt > copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full publishing > rights granted to the society/publisher; 2.8% were for copyright retention > by employer, limited rights > to society/publisher. 2.3% were for copyright retention by funding body, > full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright retention > by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher. Interestingly, an > overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement with > publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their publishing > objectives. There is information about the study, links to presentations > and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at > http://www.alpsp.org/pub1.htm > > As a result, however, of the indication that more than 60% of authors (more, > in fact, in the Humanities than in the Sciences) felt the author should > retain copyright, ALPSP has since developed and published a model 'grant of > licence' document which publishers might use to enable authors to retain > copyright, while granting to the publisher all the rights it needs. This > document can be found at http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf, and an editorial > about it at > http://www.alpsp.org/cpyauth.pdf. > > Sally > > > > Sally Morris, Secretary-General > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK > > Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-...@alpsp.org > ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org > > Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at > www.learned-publishing.org > > - Original Message - > From: "Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez" > To: > Sent: 31 May 2001 20:59 > Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > > > > Fytton Rowland wrote: > > > A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional > Society > > > Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the > journals > > > surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly > > > asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author > > > insisted on granting only a right of first publication. > > > > Could you provide us with the reference of the original paper? > > Thanks, > > > > Guillermo > > > > Dr Guillermo J Padron > > Executive Editor > > Elfos Scientiae > > P.O. Box 6072 > > Havana 6, Cuba > > Telephones: (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8008 > > Fax (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8070 > > E-mail: g...@cigb.edu.cu <mailto:g...@cigb.edu.cu> > > URL: http://www.elfosscientiae.com.cu >
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
And the percentage of commercial publishers, which dominate in the academic journal field in the UK? I don't have survey data at hand, but the figures are very different...and a majority do require assignment of copyright to publishers, which particularly impacts on young academics and non-super stars who have much less bargaining power over copyright matters. Alan Story Kent Law School - Original Message - From: "Stevan Harnad" To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:43 PM Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research > A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional Society > Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals > surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly > asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author > insisted on granting only a right of first publication. > > Fytton Rowland. > > > ** > Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer, > Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and > Programme Tutor for Publishing with English, > Department of Information Science, > Loughborough University, > Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK. > > Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039 Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053 > E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk > http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html > ** >
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
In a recent posting, Stevan Harnad wrote: "The goal is to free the refereed literature for one and all online. That is what self-archiving does." I am correct in assuming, I take it, that this "freeing" of the academic literature also "frees" it from certain copyright restrictions and, in particular, allows such articles to be downloaded, printed, and distributed by academics to own students at the cost of printing, that is, allows non-profit educational uses of this literature without permission. This matter is seldom, if ever mentioned, on the list...but anything less does not free the literature. Regards Alan Story Alan Story Kent Law School University of Kent Canterbury Kent U.K CT2 7NS. a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk 44 (0)1227 823316
Re: Two layers of research literature
George and List Members: An interesting list and indeed some are free. But certainly not all.The American Journal of Surgical Pathology (AJSP) site informs us that..."Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is pleased to announce the addition of full text content to The American Journal of Surgical Pathology web site. Beginning in September 2000, all of the content printed in the Journal will also be accessible on this web site. Full-text content will be provided in both HTML and PDF formats with all associated images and will be fully searchable and free to all site visitors though December 2000. Sounds great! But then there is the big, HOWEVER "Beginning in January 2001, access to full-text article content will be restricted to subscribers only. If you do not currently receive AJSP, start your subscription today at the LWW Online Store." The subscription rates track the usual rates of many journals, that is, in the hundreds of dollars. This journal, at least, is not freeing the academic literature, only offering a loss leader to bring in the paying punters. Alan Story - Original Message - From: "George Lundberg" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Two layers of research literature > i would like to call the attention of this list serve group to an internet site > called www.freemedicaljournals.com > there you can find a list of a large (and rapidly growing )number of actually > free on-line medical journals > there is a burgeoning feast that should obviate/alleviate a great deal of > the famed S Harnad angst about delay/repression/profit/etc > george lundberg editor in chief Medscape > > > > > Jim Till on 10/31/2000 02:55:20 PM > > Please respond to September 1998 American Scientist Forum > > > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > cc:(bcc: George Lundberg/Medscape) > > Subject: Two layers of research literature > > > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, J.W.T.Smith wrote [in part, on the Subject: > Re: Workshop on Open Archives Initiative in Europe]: > > > Yes, I still believe there > > will be subscription services but these services will be paid for their > > skills in locating and organising relevant information for their > > subscribers not because they 'own' any of this information. > > It seems to me that one needs to bear in mind two major types of research > literature: 1) the 'primary' literature (original data and/or novel > conceptual contributions); and, 2) the 'secondary' literature (layered > over the primary literature, e.g. as editorials, reviews, meta-analyses, > commentaries, etc.). The 'secondary' literature requires skills in > locating and organizing relevant information. > > I hope that the time will soon come when much of the high-quality > 'primary' AND 'secondary' literature will be freely available online. > > For example, many 'signpost' websites (ones that locate and organize URLs) > already exist on the web. Some have editorial boards responsible for > monitoring their contents, and some don't. It seems to me that at least > some of them could/should be regarded a valuable part of the 'secondary' > literature. There are also very many that could/should be regarded only > as 'popular' or even 'vanity' literature, and some that are in the gray > area in between. Most such 'signpost' websites are currently under a > cloud of poor prestige and/or lack of recognition (the 'clouded' > literature!) from the perspective of traditional academia. > > It seems obvious to me that, as the research literature is freed from the > constraints imposed by the traditional printed journals, at least some of > these 'signpost' websites, designed to locate and organize noteworthy > online information, will make increasingly important contributions to the > 'secondary' literature, as well as to the 'popular' literature intended > for non-academic readers [see also a short invited commentary, at: > http://www.cancerlynx.com/internet_contributions.html]. > > Jim Till > University of Toronto >
Copyright Tribunal
Stevan: F.Y.I. - I thought you might be interested in this "post" to the "copyrights" list yesterday. Interesting debates on Forum 98.... Cheers Alan Story Dear "Copyrights" List Members: In the most significant development in HE (and FE) copyright licensing for the last 10 years, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) has just informed the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) that it will ask the Copyright Tribunal (CT) to determine the terms, costs, and conditions of the future licence and HECA agreement. Under the terms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Tribunal has the statutory power to vary or to confirm the terms of a copyright licensing scheme such as that operated by the CLA. If the CT decides to hear the CVCP's reference, the rate structures and provisions of the existing license, set to expire in January 2001, will continue until the Tribunal makes its decision. The CT's decision will be binding on both parties, although either side can ask for judicial review on points of law. The existing three-year licence, agreed in 1998, is more restrictive towards users than any previous agreements. The stakes are high for the CLA. The CLA's various licences with the educational sector provide it with 90 per cent of its revenues and are the largest copyright licensing schemes in the UK, excepting music copyright schemes. Last year, the CLA's revenues from HE increased by 27 per cent over the previous year. Only 10 per cent of the CLA's revenues from the photocopying of copyright-protected materials is derived from government and business The CVCP will shortly submit its formal Statement of Claim in the case and will ask that a wide number of issues -- costs, per page charges, access, exemptions, course pack provision, the DACS protocol and other issues --- be reviewed by the Tribunal. This reference is distinctly different from most other cases heard by the CT in that the authors of much of the copyright-protected and licensed material --- principally academics, including UK academics --- are also the main users, as teachers, of this material. Copyright tribunals operate in numerous countries because of concerns about the potential abuse of copyright, due to the monopoly powers of collecting and licensing agencies, and because of the recognition that proper access and use of knowledge and information is a matter of critical public interest. In this sense, then, the UK Tribunal plays the same role as other government agencies that regulate the provision of water, electricity, television, and railways. The CVCP's decision to refer the terms of the licence to the CT represents a serious setback for the CLA and provides an indication of the widespread dissatisfaction with the licence across the whole of Higher Education community from cash-strapped students who cannot afford the high copyright royalties charged for course packs to lectures who are being prevented from teaching the best possible courses to universities administrators who have been questioning the costs and benefits of the current arrangements. Copyright royalties fees, most of which go to publishers, often account for 70 per cent of the total cost of a course pack. Ten days ago, Peter Shepherd, chief executive of the CLA, said in a widely-distributed statement that he expected there would be "a smooth and painless rollover" from the existing licence to the next licence. But,in fact, dissatisfaction about the overall philosophy, the day-to-day operation, and the costs of the current scheme has been building in the HE community over the past few years. The disagreement has been exacerbated by the CLA's restrictive attitude towards what photocopying is permitted as "fair dealing", and by the CLA's unilateral modification of the licence by purporting to exclude illustrations, published in licensed publications, for which an additional licence and payment to the CLA would be necessary (the DACS protocol). Earlier this month the CLA changed course by offering to postpone introduction of this additional DACS licence until the main licence is renewed in January 2001. However, this offer was subject to conditions that the CVCP accept renewal of the main Licence with no substantial changes, and with an `uplift' (additional payment) for artistic works. Observers viewed it as merely an attempt to lock universities into an agreement which they had already clearly told CLA required fundamental renegotiation. The CVCP's decision to refer the terms of the licence to the Tribunal was therefore the only possible riposte in the face of the CLA's continuing intransigence. A CVCP spokesperson was recently quoted in the Times Higher as saying that the current scheme requires a "root-and-branch review." The decision of the CT on the CVCP's reference will also likely have important ramifica
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
Stevan: I found your note very interesting, but to reply in detail would take more time than I have at the moment. I wish you and your colleagues the best in your efforts...and I hope that you succeed. But I guess that I come from a different political tradition than you; and without trying to sound like "a veteran", the political tradition I come from has, at its core, several key tactical and strategical precepts: 1) unite all who can be united; 2) don't unnecessarily antogonize potential allies; 3) unite the many to defeat the few. Of course, these are very general and must be applied to each particular circumstance...and I will not try here to apply them to battle you are waging. But your foes are also the foes of others ( sometimes for the same reasons, sometime for different reasons) and I would suggest that rather than saying "don't raise these issues, this just confuses things,etc.", you took the approach " here is how your interests will be forwarded as well, here is how your fight (eg. against the UK's Higher Education Copying Accord) relates to ours, let's establish joint principles (such as free access)and let's all work to weaken those ---such as our current particular foe, Reed Elsevier---who block and undermine these principles", that we would all have a better chance of winning in the end. In any event, best of luck with your proposal. Regards, Alan Story On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:43:22 +0000 Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Alan Story wrote: > > > 1. It may well be that "securing paper copies for teachers > > and students is not the focus of this Forum." Fine. But if > > those who have initiated this list and support the > > self-archiving proposal ( and I think, as well, that it > has > a number of merits) wish self archiving to have a > > practical future outside the confines of this list, I > think > that you do need to provide some answers to the > type of > questions that I and others have asked. > > Alan, all researchers want their give-away refereed > research to be available free for educational purposes too. > And that will definitely be a spin-off of the open > archiving initiative. But at this point, when there are > still so many confusions and conflicts-of-interest, and > the status quo is still firmly entrenched, it is extremely > important to sort out the immediate, relevant, justifiable > and implementable DRIVERS of this transition. Otherwise it > will be wrapped into vaguer and more general "information > democracy" views -- with which most of us also happen to > sympathize, but which are up against much sterner > market forces than the self-archiving initiative for the > the give-away research literature faces today. > > So, please, let us not talk here about paper and xeroxing > costs and copyright-clearance fees for xeroxing, and about > books, and about access to computers for students and the > third world, etc. That simply is not our remit. Our remit > is the refereed research literature. (And this American > Scientist Forum encompasses not just the subscribers to this > list, but all researchers, scientists and scholars alike.) > Our immediate objective is to make that refereed research > literature available, free for all, online. We have direct, > research-based interests and justification for this move. > It is highly desirable in the interests of the conduct and > progress of the research itself, which it the reason we are > publishing it in the first place. > > Spin-offs -- such as remedying the library serials crisis, > reducing educational costs, enfranchising the third world > -- are all extremely welcome, but they would not in > themselves directly justify what we are trying to do. To > see this, just try to translate this into the terms of the > NON-giveaway literature (paper journals, textbooks, > monographs, educational materials, including multimedia). > The critical factor is that the material must be a GIVEAWAY > from the author's standpoint, and there must be a way of > covering essential costs. Apart from the refereed journal > literature online, little else meets this criterion (in > general: there is always a "vanity press" lure for > beginners and self-promoters, and self-funded altruists, > but in general, non-giveaway authors are out to make a > buck). > > Nor would the rationale for freeing the refereed literature > be sound if it were based on educational rather than > research considerations. If research were well-served by > toll-gated access, few researchers could be persuaded to > bother with self-archiving for educational purposes > (because so little of the refereed journal literature is > ever relevant to educationa
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
This is a response to Stevan's message (below) as well as posts from Christopher Green (of York U.) and Marvin Margoshes. I concentrates primarily on some access and political and economic issues. 1. It may well be that "securing paper copies for teachers and students is not the focus of this Forum." Fine. But if those who have initiated this list and support the self-archiving proposal ( and I think, as well, that it has a number of merits) wish self archiving to have a practical future outside the confines of this list, I think that you do need to provide some answers to the type of questions that I and others have asked. In other words, what I assume to be central to the self-archiving proposal is the creation of a non-tollgated public domain of academic writing...or, in property terms,making such material, in part, common property (though reserving and preserving the important right of attribution, the right to include where this material came fromor who created it and how it became common property.) This right of attribution is much more important than the infringement questions I raised; I take some of Stevan's points on this matter. I raised them because traditionally infringement questions have been much more central to IP and copyright in Anglo-US IP law (where moral rights/right of attribution have had a decidedly second place.)What you are seeking, I take it, is the creation of common property that is not fenced in and not commodified ( "giveaway texts") and that is "freely accessible to all." 2. So the first question is, who makes up this "all"? From my reading of list, I take it your first priority is online access by researchers,those who produce for archives and those who wish to use archives in their own research. (call them Group A) Again fine. But what about others? That is, teachers who want to use such material for teaching purposes, students, those who want to make paper copies, those without personal online access, those in GROUP A who are also teachers(call them Group B). Unless A can convince B that this proposal is a good one, that is, also in their interest, and unite A &B to oppose the opponents of self-archiving (and your forum has contained plenty of details on these "baddies"), this proposal will have a short shelf life and never catch on,I suggest, beyond A. 3. In this regard, C. Green statement that "soon we'll simply expect students" to have "hand-held devices that access the web remotely e.g. from the classroom" is interesting. I ask: who will pay for them? individuals? the state (that is, taxpayers)? And where? In affluent 1st world countries? In poorer 3rd world countries? This is a question this list needs to address, I think. And if you don't and do not take into account the trends in higher education finance in the UK, the US and elsewhere, you face the danger of creating a further "information rich" / " information poor" divide. I assume, in other words, that you actually do want to create an information democracy and not reproduce the current and unjust market-based and property-based (that is, private property based) system in information. And although hard copy is already on the decline, it still will be around for some time I suggest and in some places, for much longer than others. It will be a very long time before university students in Zimbabwe (Group B) have hand-held web access devices. Will Group A simply be researcher + the richest students in 1st world countries? So such access issues must be examined. 4. Marvin writes" UK law may differ, but in the US it is okay to make copies of copyright material for teaching." They certainly do differ; Charles Oppenheim and others in the UK lis-copyseek discussion group spend literally hundreds of hours trying to work through the interpretative ins and outs of the UK's nightmarish Higher Education Copying Accord (HECA).And I am a member of another group, the Copyright in Higher Education Workgroup (CHEW) that is working for the dramatic overhauling/repeal of HECA. So the copyright issue for teaching purposes (e.g. student study packs), for libraries ( e.g. short loan or reserve collections) is a very real one here. Which is exactly one of the main reasons why I am interested in seeing what "self-archiving" proposal. And even in the US, Marvin, copyright IS AN ISSUE for teaching purposes. 5. Marvin, yes I understand that "copyright is property." I have taught IP for 5 years and have written extensively on property law ( Modern Law Review, Journal of Political Philosophy.) This was the particularly "non-collegial" comment that got "up my nose." 6. I want to applaud a number of comments in Stevan's first response to my original note. A good spirit, I think. At the same time, some of the legal issues are, in my opinion, somewhat mor
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
Perhaps I don't know who the moderator of Sept.98 is. It was the comment I got from a person named "Marvin" that I did not find collegial. Cheers Alan Story On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:41:09 + Charles Oppenheim wrote: > Alan Story wrote: > >1. On March 10 2000 at 3:00 p.m., an academic (A)completes > >article (X) on "Why Ken Livingstone Should be Mayor of > >London." > > > >2. At 3:10 p.m. (A) posts (X) on her/his personal web > >archives. > > > >As soon as this is done, (A) will have copyright (C) in (X) > >as is meets copyright requirements (e.g. originality, work, > >fixation in tangible form, available to public, etc.) which > >subsists until death of the (A)+70 years. (A) can > >allow anyone to use X (e.g. for non-profit educuational > >purposes). > > > >3. At 3:15 p.m. on 10 March (A) posts (X) to > >publisher(P)...who passes it on to a referee. > > > >4. On the basis of the referees comments, A edits X...which > >nows become X1. (though, see below, the > >differences between X and X1 may not matter for copyright > >infringement purposes) > > > >5. (B) requires that (A) assigns all copyright, > >re-publication, digitalization rights in X1 to (B). (A) > >agrees and signs the publisher's standard form contract. > >The copyright (C1)(and all other rights) in X1 are owned by > >(P). > > > >6. On 30 March (assume a very speedy (R),(A) and (P)), > >(P) simultaneously publishes X1 in its hard-copy > >journal and its digital journal. > > > >7. On 1 April, nasty (I) allegedly infringes copyright in > >the article by photocopying a substantial part for use in a > >student course pack (ie. no permission sought, no fee > >paid, no attribution etc.) Unless X and X1 are very > >dramatically different, we can assume that the alleged > >infringement by (I)would be in relation to both X and X1. > > > >Which then raises the following questions > > > >1) In the above scenario, what happens to (A)'s copyright > >(C)in X? That is, would A have a cause of action against > >(I)? Or would only (P)? Or would both of them? > > Depends which thing was copied. If it was X that was > copied, then A sues. If it was X1 that was copied, it is P > who sues. the law has always been clear that it is what > was copied that decides. To give you an analogy - imagine > you and I both take a photo of Big Ben at the same time > side by side, and two photos result that are almost > identical. Someone takes my picture and illegally scans it > in to a PC. I can sue; you cannot even though what is > scanned looks like it is from your picture. > > >2)In the proposed scheme, does (A) also assign (C) to (P)? > >(which, unless there were additional contractual clauses > > as in the American Physical Society form--- would mean > >that (A)no longer has any rights over X.) > > No, A only assigns C1 to P. > > > >3) If (A) does NOT assign C to (P)and then (P) does > >something with X1 that (A) doesn't like ( e.g. > >allows a crummy journal (CJ) to publish another version > >(now X3) without attribution to (A),) does (A) have a cause > >of action against (P) and (CJ)for copyright infringement? > > In general, once someone has assigned copyright (in this > case in X1) then (s)he has no further say in what happens > to it. Analogy is - you sell your house to someone. That > person promptly paints your old house a disgusting green > colour. You cannot complain as you have no further rights > in the house. > > >That is, although (CJ) has used X1 to publish X3, X3 may > >also likely infringes X...which would give (A) a cause > of >action against (CJ) as the primary infringer and against > >(P) as the secondary infringer. > > X3 is derived from X1, and A has assigned copyright in X1 > to P, so no problem arises. Only P can sue. > > In short, existing law happily caters with your scenario. > > Professor Charles Oppenheim > Dept of Information Science Loughborough University > Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU > > Tel 01509-223065 > Fax 01509-223053 > > -- Alan Story Kent Law School Eliot College University of Kent Canterbury Kent UK CT2 7NS a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk Ph. 01227 823316 Fax 01227 827831
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
Thanks for the reply, Stevan. I am indeed a friendly critic. Rushed for time, but one to make one point in response to your comment: " there is no interest whatsoever in photocopying by 3rd parties... in fact, there is no particular interest in any form of print on paper." Until every desk in every university classroom has its own web-accessible computer (still some way off...), there will be an interest in paper copies by university teachers. Paper copies are indispensable in the form student course packs for study and discussion and debate in class by reference to words in a text that everyone see in front of them. Hard copy is not dead yet for instructional purposes. Cheers Alan Story On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:37:08 + Stevan Harnad wrote: > Alan Story is a friendly critic, so I will reply on the assumption that > we are both looking for a favorable outcome: something that frees the > givaeway literature (consisting mainly of refereed journal papers) from > all access-blocking tolls. > > Let us make one important distinction first: > > There are (at least) 2 functions of copyright, but their motivations and > implications (in the special case of the giveaway literature) are > radically different: > > (CT) Protection from theft of text (not sought by giveaway authors). > > (CA) Protection from theft of authorship (sought by virtually all > authors). > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Alan Story wrote: > > > 1. On March 10 2000 at 3:00 p.m., an academic (A)completes > > article (X) on "Why Ken Livingstone Should be Mayor of > London." > > > 2. At 3:10 p.m. (A) posts (X) on her/his personal web archives. > > Note that (as Ken Weiss recently put it), the genie has now > been let out of the bottle, for there is no such thing as a > "personal" archive on the web. Wherever a paper is > archived, it is "public," in the sense of being publicly > accessible by anyone and everyone on the web (except if the > website is firewalled, pass-word protected, and/or > encrypted -- and that is not what is meant by > self-archiving in this Forum). The publicly self-archived > documents can and will be cached in multiple sites, > harvested, copied and linked-to in ways that are completely > out of the author's control. For the giveaway author, this > is exactly what he wants to happen. > > > As soon as this is done, (A) will have copyright (C) in > (X) > as it meets copyright requirements (e.g. originality, > work, > fixation in tangible form, available to public, > etc.) which > subsists until death of the (A)+70 years. (A) > can > allow anyone to use X (e.g. for non-profit > educuational > purposes). > > Fine. That protects the work for CA; no "protection" from > CT is sought. > > > 3. At 3:15 p.m. on 10 March (A) posts (X) to > > publisher(P)...who passes it on to a referee. > > > > 4. On the basis of the referees comments, A edits > X...which > nows become X1. (though, see below, the > > differences between X and X1 may not matter for > copyright > infringement purposes) > > > 5. (B) requires that (A) assigns all copyright, > > re-publication, digitalization rights in X1 to (B). (A) > > agrees and signs the publisher's standard form contract. > > The copyright (C1)(and all other rights) in X1 are owned > by > (P). > > Authors are advised to retain web self-archiving rights, > but if the publisher does not agree, the rights to the > final draft (X1) can be signed over; the first draft (X1) > is already publicly accessible, and copyright cannot be > violated retroactively. > > > 6. On 30 March (assume a very speedy (R),(A) and (P)), > > (P) simultaneously publishes X1 in its hard-copy > > journal and its digital journal. > > > > 7. On 1 April, nasty (I) allegedly infringes copyright in > > the article by photocopying a substantial part for use in > a > student course pack (ie. no permission sought, no fee > > paid, no attribution etc.) Unless X and X1 are very > > dramatically different, we can assume that the alleged > > infringement by (I) would be in relation to both X and X1. > > There is no interest whatsoever in photocopying by 3rd > parties in this scenario. In fact, there is no particular > interest in any form of print on paper. A copy of the > original text, X, has been publicly archived for one and > all, and can be (and has been) called up on > countless people's screens. Whether they commit a crime in > printing it off (and whether that crime is enforceable) is > of no interest. The only potential "criminal" at issue > here, is the giveaway author (A), not a web user (I). > > M
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
Charles: Thank you for the collegial tone of your response. Rather different, I must say that the response I got from the list's moderator. A few responses... 1) To change the facts slightly from my earlier scenario, let's assume that X and X1 are exactly the same. Or, to keep the same facts from my earlier post, assume that CJ copies a section (a substantial part) that is the same in X and X1. I take your point about the importance of the question" from where was it copied?" In an infringement situation, there would be an interesting evidentiary problem as whether CJ actually copied from X or X1. I am not a expert in computer technicalities, but CJ might want to/ be able to disguise the fact as to where it got the material from as P would be in a significantly stronger position to enforce rights than A. 2) I assume you agree with my point that once A posts X on an archives (and I take Stevan's comment that it is not a private archives), copyright in X would subsist...with A as the rights holder. So if P asked A, does copyright already subsist in this work X, A would have to answer yes. And if P asked A, am I getting rights to an original work? (that is, has it been copied from somewhere else?), A would have to answer, "no, it has been copied" ( though not perhaps the best word, perhaps better would be " no, it is a copy of an original work, mine.") All of which raises the question: would publishers consent to the "self-archiving" stance...which ultimately will be a question of power and economics. A question for another day. 3) Again, assume for simplicity that X and X1 are exactly the same, copyright would subsist simultaneously with A and P in the same work once P acquired rights to it.An interesting notion indeed...it would be interesting to see how courts would react. And I have to think about this further myself. I come back to the question: would subsist in X1? Would it meet the criteria of an "ORIGINAL literary work"? I will ponder this on the weekend. 4) On your house painting analogy: Yes, when you sell your house to someone, you have no rights as to how that person paints it. You have alienated all of your rights. But,in my scenario (A retains copyright in X), A also still retains rights in the work. That is, the existence of dual copyright (held by A and P) would both give them rights...which is different than a typical house sale. ( In some house sales, they are two owners, for example, and you have to buy rights from both to acquire all of the rights). To continue the analogy, when someone acquired "rights" in a literary work owned by two people, they would not acquire all of the rights if they only purchased them from one owner. Must leave work to look after my kids Cheers Alan Story On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:41:09 + Charles Oppenheim wrote: > Alan Story wrote: > >1. On March 10 2000 at 3:00 p.m., an academic (A)completes > >article (X) on "Why Ken Livingstone Should be Mayor of > >London." > > > >2. At 3:10 p.m. (A) posts (X) on her/his personal web > >archives. > > > >As soon as this is done, (A) will have copyright (C) in (X) > >as is meets copyright requirements (e.g. originality, work, > >fixation in tangible form, available to public, etc.) which > >subsists until death of the (A)+70 years. (A) can > >allow anyone to use X (e.g. for non-profit educuational > >purposes). > > > >3. At 3:15 p.m. on 10 March (A) posts (X) to > >publisher(P)...who passes it on to a referee. > > > >4. On the basis of the referees comments, A edits X...which > >nows become X1. (though, see below, the > >differences between X and X1 may not matter for copyright > >infringement purposes) > > > >5. (B) requires that (A) assigns all copyright, > >re-publication, digitalization rights in X1 to (B). (A) > >agrees and signs the publisher's standard form contract. > >The copyright (C1)(and all other rights) in X1 are owned by > >(P). > > > >6. On 30 March (assume a very speedy (R),(A) and (P)), > >(P) simultaneously publishes X1 in its hard-copy > >journal and its digital journal. > > > >7. On 1 April, nasty (I) allegedly infringes copyright in > >the article by photocopying a substantial part for use in a > >student course pack (ie. no permission sought, no fee > >paid, no attribution etc.) Unless X and X1 are very > >dramatically different, we can assume that the alleged > >infringement by (I)would be in relation to both X and X1. > > > >Which then raises the following questions > > > >1) In the above scenario, what happens to (A)'s copyright > >(C)in X? That is, would A have a cause of action against > >(I)? Or would only (P)?
Re: Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts
I have just joined this list and perhaps may not understand all of the details of the "self-archiving" proposal. Responding to Charles Oppenheim's 22 Feb. message, let me put forward the following hypothetical (assuming the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) to see if I understand it 1. On March 10 2000 at 3:00 p.m., an academic (A)completes article (X) on "Why Ken Livingstone Should be Mayor of London." 2. At 3:10 p.m. (A) posts (X) on her/his personal web archives. As soon as this is done, (A) will have copyright (C) in (X) as is meets copyright requirements (e.g. originality, work, fixation in tangible form, available to public, etc.) which subsists until death of the (A)+70 years. (A) can allow anyone to use X (e.g. for non-profit educuational purposes). 3. At 3:15 p.m. on 10 March (A) posts (X) to publisher(P)...who passes it on to a referee. 4. On the basis of the referees comments, A edits X...which nows become X1. (though, see below, the differences between X and X1 may not matter for copyright infringement purposes) 5. (B) requires that (A) assigns all copyright, re-publication, digitalization rights in X1 to (B). (A) agrees and signs the publisher's standard form contract. The copyright (C1)(and all other rights) in X1 are owned by (P). 6. On 30 March (assume a very speedy (R),(A) and (P)), (P) simultaneously publishes X1 in its hard-copy journal and its digital journal. 7. On 1 April, nasty (I) allegedly infringes copyright in the article by photocopying a substantial part for use in a student course pack (ie. no permission sought, no fee paid, no attribution etc.) Unless X and X1 are very dramatically different, we can assume that the alleged infringement by (I)would be in relation to both X and X1. Which then raises the following questions 1) In the above scenario, what happens to (A)'s copyright (C)in X? That is, would A have a cause of action against (I)? Or would only (P)? Or would both of them? 2)In the proposed scheme, does (A) also assign (C) to (P)? (which, unless there were additional contractual clauses as in the American Physical Society form--- would mean that (A)no longer has any rights over X.) 3) If (A) does NOT assign C to (P)and then (P) does something with X1 that (A) doesn't like ( e.g. allows a crummy journal (CJ) to publish another version (now X3) without attribution to (A),) does (A) have a cause of action against (P) and (CJ)for copyright infringement? That is, although (CJ) has used X1 to publish X3, X3 may also likely infringes X...which would give (A) a cause of action against (CJ) as the primary infringer and against (P) as the secondary infringer. There are other questions, but let's leave it at that for now. Perhaps, of course, I have missed something along the line. And, to be clear, I am a friendly critic and do want to work towards tearing down the the current copyright user-pay tollgates. Regards Alan Story -- Alan Story Kent Law School Eliot College University of Kent Canterbury Kent UK CT2 7NS a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk Ph. 01227 823316 Fax 01227 827831
