Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
[ The following text is in the UTF-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Charles You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls under an exemption and is perfectly legal. From there you get into the murkier water of trans-border 'law'. However, it seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to someone in the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific customs or ownership legislation to the contrary, for example as occurs with the receipt of banned drugs mailed from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law exists in respect of the holding of copyright works as far as I know. Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue is and how to resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I recognise that the law in some other countries is sometimes behind the times. However, you prompted me to look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29. Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works Introductory 28 Introductory provisions (1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which may be done in relation to copyright works notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright; they relate only to the question of infringement of copyright and do not affect any other right or obligation restricting the doing of any of the specified acts. (2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act does not infringe copyright, or may be done without infringing copyright, and no particular description of copyright work is mentioned, the act in question does not infringe the copyright in a work of any description. (3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of any act which may by virtue of this Chapter be done without infringing copyright as to the scope of the acts restricted by the copyright in any description of work. (4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed independently of each other, so that the fact that an act does not fall within one provision does not mean that it is not covered by another provision. General 29 Research and private study (1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographical arrangement. (2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) does not infringe any copyright in the arrangement. (3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself is not fair dealing ifÿÿ (a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works: restriction on multiple copies of same material), or (b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person at substantially the same time and for substantially the same purpose. While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems to me that: · Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption clauses. · Research copying is not restricted to the person doing the copying. Indeed the wording makes a distinction between ÿÿresearchÿÿ and ÿÿprivate studyÿÿ (Clause 29(1)). It does not even say ÿÿprivate researchÿÿ. All the ÿÿprivate studyÿÿ does actually is to prohibit copying for classes. · Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is not completely clear who the ÿÿresearcherÿÿ is: producer or consumer. However, assuming consumer ÿÿ the most restrictive case and the most probable interpretation - the law simply requires the producing researcher to be convinced that he is doing copying for a single consumer researcher and that it will not be disseminated further. The clause actually explicitly assumes third parties (librarians) might be involved. UK Law does not seem to be as prehistoric as you make out. I think there are old misunderstandings being rehearsed here. Fair dealing (in particular copying to facilitate research) was and remains legal as well as common practice, especially in the homeland of scientific journal. Arthur -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 5:21 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Authors Re-using Their Own Work I now understand why Arthur and I disagree. He is referring to Australian Copyright Law, and I am referring to UK law. I am happy to accept that Arthur's approach is accurate
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
and that it will not be disseminated further. The clause actually explicitly assumes third parties (librarians) might be involved. UK Law does not seem to be as prehistoric as you make out. I think there are old misunderstandings being rehearsed here. Fair dealing (in particular copying to facilitate research) was and remains legal as well as common practice, especially in the homeland of scientific journal. Arthur -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 5:21 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Authors Re-using Their Own Work I now understand why Arthur and I disagree. He is referring to Australian Copyright Law, and I am referring to UK law. I am happy to accept that Arthur's approach is accurate in Australian law. unfortunately in UK, and most of EU law, it isn't. In these countries, there is a clear distinction between the right of reproduction and the communication right and the law treats them differently. Thus, in the UK, it is legal for anyone to copy a work for themselves under fair dealing, but fair dealing does not apply to the communication right (i.e., providing things electronically to third parties). Thus, unfortunately, whilst Arthur may well be able to do what he suggests within Australia (and no doubt some other countries as well), what he cannot do is send such materials to the EU as the recipient would be breaking the law by importing an infringing copy. Arthur and others may well of course argue that this is such a trivial illegality that the risk can gbe taken, and I'd agree. But there's a world of difference between saying it's illegal, but the risk is trivial and saying it's absolutely legal. I am sure readers of the forum are by now totally bored by this topic so I don't intend to say anything more on it, other to remind them that there are numerous solutions to the problem anyway: to send a requestor an earlier version of the work before copyright was assigned; to assign copyright but make sure the publisher gives permission for you to send stuff electronically to requestors; or not to assign copyright at all to the publisher. Charles On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:15:16 +1000 Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Charles The Australian Act makes no mention of who does the reproduction. Whether I make a reproduction/copy (say electronic by email, or photocopy my manuscript or the journal, or some other form of copy) of my article to give to my PhD student, or he/she does it personally from a CD I lend or a journal issue they borrow, makes no difference. I can even ask an administrative assistant to make the copy for me and deliver it. What matters is that the copy is for the purpose of research or study. Exactly the same applies to a remote researcher who asks me for a copy of my article. I left out sections 1A and 1B of Section 40 but they (amongst other things) even make provision for reproductions of journal articles to be provided to [multiple] off-campus students engaged in a course of study. The Australian Act simply recognises that research thrives on dissemination. I might add that it is equally sensible in other areas, such as photography of copyright works located permanently or temporarily in public places. But Stevan is right. The law is not the issue. I merely pointed out that the Australian Act is more sensible than most in that it legitimises what is common practice, so common indeed as to be hardly worth remarking on except when people query it. The facts are that researchers have practised copying of research articles and sending copies to fellow researchers for a long time, and they continue to do so. My memory of this goes back to when I started work as an academic in 1961, 48 years ago. My publishers then even asked me how many reprints I wanted - not necessary these days. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 10:31 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Authors Re-using Their Own Work The Austrlain Act does indeed permit fair dealing for one's own research or private study; but it doesn't permit copying for distribution to third parties. I am slightly alarmed
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
Arthur You seem to be using an out-of-date copy of the UK Act. The text you quote is the original 1988 version. Important changes were made in 2003. It has some implications for what you say, obviously in discussing legal issues it's best to use an up-to-date version of the legal provisions being discussed. Also, the literal wording of any Act is only one step in this process. All of these defences are subject to interpretations by the courts and as the Act makes clear, any dealing with another's copyright work is subject to a test of fairness as applied by the courts. Therefore, it is incomplete to consider these issues divorced from the context of whether of not each dealing is fair. I agree with much of what Charles has said on this matter. Laurence Laurence Bebbington Faculty Team Leader (Social Sciences, Law and Education) Information Services The University of Nottingham From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Arthur Sale Sent: Tue 04/08/2009 03:30 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work Charles You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls under an exemption and is perfectly legal. From there you get into the murkier water of trans-border 'law'. However, it seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to someone in the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific customs or ownership legislation to the contrary, for example as occurs with the receipt of banned drugs mailed from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law exists in respect of the holding of copyright works as far as I know. Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue is and how to resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I recognise that the law in some other countries is sometimes behind the times. However, you prompted me to look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29. Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works Introductory 28 Introductory provisions (1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which may be done in relation to copyright works notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright; they relate only to the question of infringement of copyright and do not affect any other right or obligation restricting the doing of any of the specified acts. (2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act does not infringe copyright, or may be done without infringing copyright, and no particular description of copyright work is mentioned, the act in question does not infringe the copyright in a work of any description. (3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of any act which may by virtue of this Chapter be done without infringing copyright as to the scope of the acts restricted by the copyright in any description of work. (4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed independently of each other, so that the fact that an act does not fall within one provision does not mean that it is not covered by another provision. General 29 Research and private study (1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographical arrangement. (2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) does not infringe any copyright in the arrangement. (3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself is not fair dealing if- (a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works: restriction on multiple copies of same material), or (b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person at substantially the same time and for substantially the same purpose. While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems to me that: · Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption clauses. · Research copying is not restricted to the person doing the copying. Indeed the wording makes a distinction between `research' and `private study' (Clause 29(1)). It does not even say `private research'. All the `private study' does actually is to prohibit copying for classes. · Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is not completely clear who the `researcher' is: producer or consumer. However, assuming consumer - the most restrictive case and the most probable interpretation - the law simply requires the producing researcher to be convinced that he is doing copying
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On 1-Aug-09, at 6:15 PM, Arthur Sale wrote: Charles The Australian Act makes no mention of who does the reproduction. Whether I make a reproduction/copy (say electronic by email, or photocopy my manuscript or the journal, or some other form of copy) of my article to give to my PhD student, or he/she does it personally from a CD I lend or a journal issue they borrow, makes no difference. I can even ask an administrative assistant to make the copy for me and deliver it. What matters is that the copy is for the purpose of research or study. Exactly the same applies to a remote researcher who asks me for a copy of my article. Comment: In Canada, a decision in recent years in which the Supreme Court sided with the Law Society of Canada on a similar matter against CCH, supports this view. In brief, under Canadian law, if the user has rights under fair dealing, a library as intermediary has the right to provide services to help the user to make use of such rights. The reprint button is a similar matter. While I am not an expert on copyright law, my reading is that this not only supports author re- distribution of their works (arguably common law, since as Stevan and others have pointed out this has been common practice for many years), but also automating responses to e-print requests, at least in Canada. Copyright law is evolving at an international level. It is important for all groups with a stake to ensure their voices are heard, including academics and librarians. Otherwise, we may end up with laws that do not suit our needs at all, such as laws that forbid tampering with technological protection measures (TPMs), even for legal purposes, one of the nastier provisions of last year's attempt at reform of Canadian copyright law. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On 2-Aug-09, at 11:26 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: (If any service is facilitating fulfillment in the case of the Button, it is computational services, via the IR software, rather than library services!) Comment: this depends on which department is managing the IR. In Canada, this is generally the library. As reported by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, over 80% of CARL libraries have an operational IR, with more in development. ARL's 2006 SPEC Kit on Institutional Repositories (by Charles Bailey), found that 30% already had an operational IR at that time, and the majority were expected to have implemented an IR by the end of 2007. These figures are obviously out-to-date given the rapid growth of OA by self- archiving. More recent figures would be welcome. However, clearly in more than one country, IRs are most commonly managed by libraries. Other management options may be more common in other countries, of course. Links: CARL Institutional Repository Program: http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/ institutional_repositories-e.html Bailey, Charles. Institutional Repositories. July 2006. SPEC Kit 292. Association of Research Libraries. Downloadable from: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/complete.shtml Please note that I am not necessarily advocating implementation of automated e-print request responses, rather pointing out that we might be excessively conservative in assessing what our rights actually are. For Canadians: please note that there is copyright consultation currently underway. Now is the time to advocate for things like fair copyright, elimination of Crown Copyright which would free up access to a great many taxpayer-funded research reports, and against draconian measures that will limit our access, such as making it illegal to break a technological protection measure to enjoy a perfectly legal use of a work. The Canadian consultation site can be found at: http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ Michael Geist's blog is a great way to catch up on the consultation: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ For everyone: there is considerably lobbying at an international level for changes to copyright law, largely coming from those who would like to make as much money from IP as possible (e.g., the entertainment industry, some of the very high profit commercial publishers). It is essential that academia has a strong voice in these discussions, to ensure that scholarship benefits from the potential of the Internet, and that we do not lose some of the rights that we already enjoy. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
May I confirm and endorse Marc Couture's very valid comments. The Australian Copyright Act as amended up to date says as follows. Note in particular clause (1) and clause (3). It really could not be much more clearly stated! [My comments are in red and in square brackets.] Indeed the Australian Act does not allow the copyright owner to object to fair dealing of a journal article on the grounds that it might affect the potential market. The Request-a-copy button rests on firm legal ground in the Antipodes. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 40 Fair dealing for purpose of research or study (1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, for the purpose of research or study does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work. [ahjs: 1A and 1B omitted, not relevant, deal with lecture notes.] (2) For the purposes of this Act, the matters to which regard shall be had, in determining whether a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, being a dealing by way of reproducing the whole or a part of the work or adaptation, constitutes a fair dealing with the work or adaptation for the purpose of research or study include: (a) the purpose and character of the dealing; (b) the nature of the work or adaptation; (c) the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; (d) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or adaptation; and (e) in a case where part only of the work or adaptation is reproduced--the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or adaptation. (3) Despite subsection (2), a reproduction, for the purpose of research or study, of all or part of a literary, dramatic or musical work, or of an adaptation of such a work, contained in an article in a periodical publication is taken to be a fair dealing with the work or adaptation for the purpose of research or study. (4) Subsection (3) does not apply if another article in the publication is also reproduced for the purpose of different research or a different course of study. (5) Despite subsection (2), a reproduction, for the purpose of research or study, of not more than a reasonable portion of a work or adaptation that is described in an item of the table and is not contained in an article in a periodical publication is taken to be a fair dealing with the work or adaptation for the purpose of research or study. For this purpose, reasonable portion means the amount described in the item. [ahjs: this applies to non-article works, for example books. The section goes on to describe reasonable portion.] [Sections 41-44F go on to describe other acts not constituting copyright infringement, such as reproduction for reporting, satire, etc.] From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 5:22 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Authors Re-using Their Own Work On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than those things listed as permitted by Sage. One should stress that no copyright owner can prevent a user doing something that is allowed under one of the so-called exceptions which are part of copyright laws, like fair use (in US) and fair dealing (in Canada, UK and Australia). For instance, US Copyright law (§107) states : [...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In the all the jurisdictions I mentioned, the exceptions allow for distribution of copies (and note that copy is in no way restricted to print copy) on an individual basis for research purposes, as embodied in the traditional practice referred to by Harnad or, more recently, in the request button, It is true that some criteria must be met for such a use to be considered fair, most
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, C.Oppenheimc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: Yes of course fair use and similar exceptions to copyright allow one to make a copy of item whose copyright is owned by someone else for oneself for research or private study as long as that copying does not damage the legitimate commercial interests of the copyright owner. But they do NOT allow you to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them - that right always remains with the copyright owner. Depending on the country's legal systemm this is called publication, communication to the public, issuing copies to the public and so on, and is always ifringement. Fair dealing/fair use is for one's own private use. All I can do is repeat what I said earlier, which is almost certainly the real, practical truth of the matter here, regardless of the formal exegetics, tried and tested through a half-century of actual researcher practice: SH: there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. For a researcher to mail or email reprints or eprints to individual researchers who request copies of his work for research purposes is not to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them. CO: That's why my simple solution - don't assign copyright to the publisher in the first case - helps. It is always desirable to reserve copyright where the researcher/author can successfully do so, but that is not the case that is at issue here. The case at issue here is the c. 37% of peer-reviewed research journal articles for which the researcher/author is either unsuccessful or uncertain about getting his work published with his journal of choice if he does not assign copyright to the publisher: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php This author-worry is the main obstacle to both 100% spontaneous self-archiving and to achieving 100% consensus on the adoption of self-archiving mandates. This is what the ID/OA mandate as well as the email eprint request Button were designed for; http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html The worry that the 50-year old uncontested research-author practice of mailing or emailing reprints or eprints to individual researchers who request copies of their work for research purposes would be prosecutable on the grounds that is it illegal to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them is groundless, both intrinsically and on the basis of a half century of practical precedent. It is Open Access that would constitute distributing copies to anyone who asks for them. Authors fulfilling individual requests for research purposes constitutes normal research practice. Open Access is of course the optimal and inevitable goal of research and the research community in the online era; but where publishers use copyright assignment to try to prevent or delay reaching that optimal and inevitable goal (as the 37% of journals that embargo OA are trying to do), ID/OA mandates and the email eprint request Button are the practical interim solution, providing 63% OA and 37% Almost-OA to tide over research needs during any access embargo. Stevan Harnad PS Although I abstain advisedly from any legal exegetics, I do note that a law that does not make a distinction between the author of a work (and not a work for hire) and a 3rd party user (neither the author nor the publisher) is a curious law indeed, particularly when it comes to research writing and research usage. It does not follow, however, that research practice should wait for a formal customization. Actual concrete research practice has already trumped the many odd theoretical construals and misconstruals that such an ill-fitting law would support if the only thing we were interested in were abstract hermeneutics rather than research progress.
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Stevan and others are of course correct that IN PRACTICE there is little a publisher can do to stop this sort of activity, but that doesn't make it any more legal. I agree that there is a significant minority of cases where authors cannot get rights to redisseminate back from publishers, but the initial query was in respect to Sage, who let authors retain copyright if the author asks for it. The law indeed does not distinguish authors works from other works when that author has given their rights to the publisher - and rightly so. To draw an analogy - if you sell your house, unless you built into the sale agreement a clause which allowed you to use that house, you lose all rights to the use of that house. the fact that you once owned it is neither here nor there. The law treats copyright in the same way. the fact that you once owned it is irrelevant once you give away the copyright. My view, for what it is worth, is that authors should submit articles only to a green or gold publisher and should boycott publishers who don't give permissions to self-archive or to forward copies to colleagues on request. Easier said than done? In my experience, no, but it may be different in other subject domains. Charles On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 07:26:13 -0400 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, C.Oppenheimc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: Yes of course fair use and similar exceptions to copyright allow one to make a copy of item whose copyright is owned by someone else for oneself for research or private study as long as that copying does not damage the legitimate commercial interests of the copyright owner. But they do NOT allow you to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them - that right always remains with the copyright owner. Depending on the country's legal systemm this is called publication, communication to the public, issuing copies to the public and so on, and is always ifringement. Fair dealing/fair use is for one's own private use. All I can do is repeat what I said earlier, which is almost certainly the real, practical truth of the matter here, regardless of the formal exegetics, tried and tested through a half-century of actual researcher practice: SH: there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. For a researcher to mail or email reprints or eprints to individual researchers who request copies of his work for research purposes is not to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them. CO: That's why my simple solution - don't assign copyright to the publisher in the first case - helps. It is always desirable to reserve copyright where the researcher/author can successfully do so, but that is not the case that is at issue here. The case at issue here is the c. 37% of peer-reviewed research journal articles for which the researcher/author is either unsuccessful or uncertain about getting his work published with his journal of choice if he does not assign copyright to the publisher: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php This author-worry is the main obstacle to both 100% spontaneous self-archiving and to achieving 100% consensus on the adoption of self-archiving mandates. This is what the ID/OA mandate as well as the email eprint request Button were designed for; http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html The worry that the 50-year old uncontested research-author practice of mailing or emailing reprints or eprints to individual researchers who request copies of their work for research purposes would be prosecutable on the grounds that is it illegal to distribute the copies to anyone who asks for them is groundless, both intrinsically and on the basis of a half century of practical precedent. It is Open Access that would constitute distributing copies to anyone who asks for them. Authors fulfilling individual requests for research purposes constitutes normal research practice. Open Access is of course the optimal and inevitable goal of research and the research community in the online era; but where publishers use copyright assignment to try to prevent or delay reaching that optimal and inevitable goal (as the 37% of journals that embargo OA are trying to
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
or adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion is reproduced--the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#wor k or adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion . (3) Despite subsection (2), a reproduction, for the purpose of research or study, of all or part of a literary, dramatic or musical http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#mus ic al_work work, or of an adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion of such a work http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#wor k , contained in an article http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s115.html#art ic le in a periodical publication is taken to be a fair dealing http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s195au.html#d ea ling_with with the work http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#wor k or adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion for the purpose of research or study. (4) Subsection (3) does not apply if another article http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s115.html#art ic le in the publication is also reproduced for the purpose of different research or a different course of study. (5) Despite subsection (2), a reproduction, for the purpose of research or study, of not more than a reasonable portion of a work http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#wor k or adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion that is described in an item of the table and is not contained in an article http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s115.html#art ic le in a periodical publication is taken to be a fair dealing http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s195au.html#d ea ling_with with the work http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#wor k or adaptation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#adap ta tion for the purpose of research or study. For this purpose, reasonable portion means the amount described in the item. [ahjs: this applies to non-article works, for example books. The section goes on to describe reasonable portion.] [Sections 41-44F go on to describe other acts not constituting copyright infringement, such as reproduction for reporting, satire, etc.] From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 5:22 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Authors Re-using Their Own Work On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM, mailto:c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk%3cc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than those things listed as permitted by Sage. One should stress that no copyright owner can prevent a user doing something that is allowed under one of the so-called exceptions which are part of copyright laws, like fair use (in US) and fair dealing (in Canada, UK and Australia). For instance, US Copyright law (§107) states : [...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In the all the jurisdictions I mentioned, the exceptions allow for distribution of copies (and note that copy is in no way restricted to print copy) on an individual basis for research purposes, as embodied in the traditional practice referred to by Harnad or, more recently, in the request button, It is true that some criteria must be met for such a use to be considered fair, most notably the effect of the use upon the market. But should a case concerning the fairness of the request button be brought before a court, the publisher would have to demonstrate that this particular act has indeed significantly reduced
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, C.Oppenheim wrote: Thus, in law, if Dr Jones asks Dr Smith for an electronic copy of Dr. Smith's article, and Dr Smith gave away the copyright to Megacorp Publishers, then Dr Smith should strictly not supply that copy... Stevan and others are of course correct that IN PRACTICE there is little a publisher can do to stop this sort of activity, but that doesn't make it any more legal... I shall have to rest my case on this issue. If 50 years and millions upon millions of eprint requests by researcher-users to researcher-authors, fulfilled, uncontested, is not enough evidence that this is not an issue of substance, then no amount of evidence will be enough: Swales, J. (1988), Language and scientific communication. The case of the reprint request. Scientometrics 13: 93â~@~S101. This paper reports on a study of Reprint Requests (RRs). It is estimated that tens of millions of RRs are mailed each year, most being triggered by Current Contents... If you ask me where this all begins its descent into absurdity, it is in the notion that any use that is not explicitly mentioned as permissible in the copyright transfer agreement is eo ipso illegal (for example, making an audiotape of your own first published novel for your amblyopic aunt). The law indeed does not distinguish authors works from other works when that author has given their rights to the publisher - and rightly so. To draw an analogy - if you sell your house, unless you built into the sale agreement a clause which allowed you to use that house, you lose all rights to the use of that house. the fact that you once owned it is neither here nor there. The law treats copyright in the same way. the fact that you once owned it is irrelevant once you give away the copyright. The analogy is incoherent: Selling the exclusive right to make and distribute *photos* of my house is more to the point, for there I remain the owner of my house, just as I remain the author of my work. My view, for what it is worth, is that authors should submit articles only to a green or gold publisher and should boycott publishers who don't give permissions to self-archive or to forward copies to colleagues on request. Easier said than done? In my experience, no, but it may be different in other subject domains. The price, to researchers, of immediate OA, or Almost-OA (via the eprint request Button) is not, need not, and hence should not be either (1) having to give up on publishing in their journals of choice or (2) having to pay to publish. It's a very good idea for researchers to try to negotiate the formal retention of the OA self-archiving right in their copyright contracts, if they wish to do so, and can successfully do so. But doing so is very definitely not a necessary prerequisite for OA or Almost-OA; nor for universal immediate-deposit mandates. Journal choice should be based entirely on the quality and the appropriateness of the journal, not on the journal's OA policy. But, if all else if equal, prefer a Green journal. (And, if you've got the spare cash, by all means go for gold!) In all cases, however, and in all subject domains, please don't become the first researcher on the planet foolish enough to balk at fulfilling an individual reprint or eprint request for your article, for research purposes, because that has not been explicitly mentioned as permissible in your copyright contract! (And don't bother asking about -- let alone trying to formally negotiate! -- that one with your publisher: it's been a fait accompli for over a half century in all subject domains.) Stevan Harnad
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Klaus Grafklausg...@googlemail.com wrote: I do not think that using the request button is a valid OA strategy. My own experience was that I received few response when requesting an article. The St. Gallen IR manager said that requesters can obtain much more positive results when mailing to the scholar directly... As I have argued before there is strong evidence that the eprint request button isn't legal in Germany. Your beef is with the Button. But the ongoing discussion with Charles Oppenheim now is not about the Button in particular but about the legality of authors fulfilling reprint/eprint requests *at all* when mailing to the scholar directly... The copyright landscape is changing. What wasn't a problem since 50 years can now become a problem in the digital age. Fifty years ago, no publisher formally included in the copyright contract the author's right to provide individual copies of his article to individual requesters for research purposes. Fifty years later and hundreds of millions of reprints and eprint requests fulfilled uncontested, 63% of journals have already formally endorsed immediate Green OA self-archiving (which is much more than fulfilling individual reprint/eprint requests). So the copyright landscape is indeed changing -- just not in the negative direction you seem to be worrying about! The only way to escape is retaining copyright. This is essential and ignoring it is the wrong way. To repeat: Copyright retention is definitely *not* essential for at least 63% OA + 37% Almost-OA, but it is desirable wherever the author wishes to negotiate, and succeeds. European humanities scholars are not ISI slaves... they can publish in golden OA journals without fearing tenure disadvantages or can choose journals which will accept e.g. a CC-BY license. The reason most researchers do not want to choose their journals on the basis of their copyright policies or their cost-recovery models is that they want to choose their journals on the basis of their track-record for quality-standards, which is orthogonal to their copyright policy or their cost-recovery model. ISI slavery ended with Scopus, Google Scholar, Citeseerx, Citebase and soon a wealth of usage statistics such as IRstats and Webometrics and more (see the work of Bollen and of Thelwall). Soon I hope we will also be able to offer a book impact index, which will be especially useful to the humanities, whether European, American, or Antipodean. But this is all orthogonal to the question under discussion in this topic thread, which is the fulfillment by authors of individual reprint/eprint requests for research purposes (of which the email eprint request Button happens to be a particular case). Stevan Harnad
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
Isn't this similar to the 'right of way' laws which preclude property owners from putting up a fence across a long-used public path through private property. It would seem that a long term absence of any active attempt to restrict authors from sharing their publications for non-commercial personal use by others ... constitutes an easement granted by publishers ... Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than those things listed as permitted by Sage. One should stress that no copyright owner can prevent a user doing something that is allowed under one of the so-called exceptions which are part of copyright laws, like fair use (in US) and fair dealing (in Canada, UK and Australia). For instance, US Copyright law (§107) states : [...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In the all the jurisdictions I mentioned, the exceptions allow for distribution of copies (and note that copy is in no way restricted to print copy) on an individual basis for research purposes, as embodied in the traditional practice referred to by Harnad or, more recently, in the request button, It is true that some criteria must be met for such a use to be considered fair, most notably the effect of the use upon the market. But should a case concerning the fairness of the request button be brought before a court, the publisher would have to demonstrate that this particular act has indeed significantly reduced its earnings. If it was the case, it would mean that the scenario of green OA endangering journals has become a reality, something that may happen in the future as Harnad (among others) dutifully points out. In the meantime, authors should not hesitate to send copies to those who are interested in (and don't have access to) their closed-access (embargoed or otherwise) scholarly articles: after all, one can hardly imagine other uses than research for these specialized works. I will conclude that there are other instances where copyright owners have tried to restrict the uses more than what these exceptions allow. In fact, much of the debate about the anti-copying measures that are part of Digital Rights Management (DRM) has focussed upon the fact that such measures, which were meant to restrict unlawful acts, will also restrict lawful ones. So we must remain alert (and somewhat sceptical) when trying to decipher what uses a publisher allow (or forbid). Marc Couture Télé-université (Université du Québec à Montréal) mcout...@teluq.uqam.ca http://www.teluq.uqam.ca/spersonnel/mcouture/home.htm De : American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] De la part de Stevan Harnad Envoyé : 27 juillet 2009 07:02 À : american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Authors Re-using Their Own Work On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote: Hello Stevan, Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors Re-using Their Own Work? It seems to me that it forbids the email eprint request button: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.d oc (The link is from this page: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav ) It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. On my reading, there's a 12-month embargo on circulating electronic copies of the refereed version of the article in any way. Wouldn't this prohibit the email eprint request button? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html (1) The SAGE author-re-usedocument says You can distribute photocopies. It does not say You cannot distribute electronic versions. It simply does not say You can distribute electronic versions. (2) There are many other things the SAGE author-re-use document does not say you can do with your own work, including that you can distribute corrected versions, laminated versions, or versions in Gothic script. (3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it). (4) But the short answer to your query is this: No, there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research
Re: [SOAF] Authors Re-using Their Own Work
[ The following text is in the windows-1252 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM, JQ Johnsonj...@uoregon.edu wrote: On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: SH: there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. This discussion strikes at the heart of green OA implementation. Among other things, it's why we have mandates. Actually that's not correct. What I was referring to above -- authors mailing an individual analog reprint or emailing an individual digital eprint to an individual requester for research purposes -- predates both OA (Green and Gold) and (Green) OA mandates. The only connection with Green OA mandates is that email eprint requests for Closed Access deposits whose metadata are openly accessible allow users to request and authors to provide individual one-on-one Almost OA during any OA embargo period: That means that Green OA mandates can require deposit of the final refereed draft immediately upon acceptance, with no exceptions or opt-outs, no matter how foolish a copyright transfer agreement the author may have signed. If a Green OA mandate does not require immediate deposit, then it is completely at the mercy of publisher OA embargoes: The author deposits only if and when the publishers stipulates that he may deposit, because all deposits are OA. If, insteadm immediate deposits are required in every case, without exception, but where OA is publisher-embargoed the deposit may be made Closed Access instead of OA, then the email eprint request button allows the author to provide Almost OA on an individual case by case basis: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html If the mandate instead requires deposit only after the publisher embargo has elapsed, this means subscriber access only during the embargo period: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html I believe Harnad is likely incorrect as a matter of law (at least in the US), but ultimately this may end up as a court case that gives us more explicit guidance. If researchers sending individual reprints and eprints to individual requesters for research purposes has not gone to court for over a half century, it is difficult to imagine why someone would think it will go to court now: Publishers suddenly begin suing their authors for fulfilling reprint requests? Note that research findings (which are the stuff of patent or academic integrity if protected at all) are very different from their expression in text, which is what is transferred through the copyright agreement. We are not talking about research findings, we are talking about copies of verbatim (published) reports of research findings: sending them to individual requesters, as scholars and scientists have been doing for over half a century (since at least the launch of Eugene Garfield's Current Contents and Request-a-print cards: Swales, J. (1988), Language and scientific communication. The case of the reprint request. Scientometrics 13: 93?101. This paper reports on a study of Reprint Requests (RRs). It is estimated that tens of millions of RRs are mailed each year, most being triggered by Current Contents... Note also that what researchers have been doing for many decades is disputable -- arguably what researchers did anteXerox was distribute the 100 or so offprints of their article that they got as part of their Faustian bargains. They could also mail out copies of their revised, accepted final drafts. And whether or not any of that was disputable before xerox, it certainly wasn't ever contested, neither with the onset of the xerox era, nor with the onset of the email era. Note also that courts would be under strong conflicting pressures if a case like this ever actually got heard. On the one hand, Harnad's point is good that courts would want to identify ways to find for those sympathetic scholarly authors. On another, anyone who has been following the RIAA (or remembers Eldred) knows that some of the courts also have tried to find in favor of the owners of the copyrighted works and in favor of sanctity of contract. Notice that in all other case but this very special one (refereed research journal articles) both author and publisher were allied on the same side of the copyright/access divide: both wanting to block access to their (joint) product (and revenues) from piracy by third parties. In stark contrast, in this one anomalous case -- author give-away
Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote: Hello Stevan, Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors Re-using Their Own Work? It seems to me that it forbids the email eprint request button: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.d oc (The link is from this page: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav ) It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. On my reading, there's a 12-month embargo on circulating electronic copies of the refereed version of the article in any way. Wouldn't this prohibit the email eprint request button? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html (1) The SAGE author-re-usedocument says You can distribute photocopies. It does not say You cannot distribute electronic versions. It simply does not say You can distribute electronic versions. (2) There are many other things the SAGE author-re-use document does not say you can do with your own work, including that you can distribute corrected versions, laminated versions, or versions in Gothic script. (3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it). (4) But the short answer to your query is this: No, there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. SAGE is a ROMEO pale-green publisher: http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers/65.html That means they endorse authors making their pre-refereeing preprints Open Access immediately (and they endorse making authors' refereed postprints Open Access after a one-year embargo). During the embargo, SAGE authors (like any authors) are of course free to send an individual copy (whether analog or digital) of their refereed postprint to any individual user who requests an individual copy for research purposes. Nor is SAGE or any publisher entitled to dictate to the author how they may lick the stamp or stroke the key that will mail or email the reprint or eprint to the requester. If I may make one suggestion to researchers who are puzzling over what they can and cannot do with their published research articles: Please use common sense rather than falling into (or for) formalistic fatuity. Stevan Harnad
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
Stevan, you are not correct, but there is are ways round the problem. The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than those things listed as permitted by Sage. Sorry, that's not being formalistic, it's the law. There is an incredibly easy way round this problem! Sage don't REQUIRE authors to assign copyright. The author should ask Sage for its standard Licence to Publish form, sign that, and then the author can do what he/she likes with the materials. Sage willingly and without quibble (unlike some publishers) do this for you. Incidentally, Stevan's point (3) is valid, and is an alternative to using the Licence to Publish method. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Head Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509 223053 e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 27 July 2009 12:02 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Authors Re-using Their Own Work On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote: Hello Stevan, Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors Re-using Their Own Work? It seems to me that it forbids the email eprint request button: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.d oc (The link is from this page: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav ) It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. On my reading, there's a 12-month embargo on circulating electronic copies of the refereed version of the article in any way. Wouldn't this prohibit the email eprint request button? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html (1) The SAGE author-re-usedocument says You can distribute photocopies. It does not say You cannot distribute electronic versions. It simply does not say You can distribute electronic versions. (2) There are many other things the SAGE author-re-use document does not say you can do with your own work, including that you can distribute corrected versions, laminated versions, or versions in Gothic script. (3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it). (4) But the short answer to your query is this: No, there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. SAGE is a ROMEO pale-green publisher: http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers/65.html That means they endorse authors making their pre-refereeing preprints Open Access immediately (and they endorse making authors' refereed postprints Open Access after a one-year embargo). During the embargo, SAGE authors (like any authors) are of course free to send an individual copy (whether analog or digital) of their refereed postprint to any individual user who requests an individual copy for research purposes. Nor is SAGE or any publisher entitled to dictate to the author how they may lick the stamp or stroke the key that will mail or email the reprint or eprint to the requester. If I may make one suggestion to researchers who are puzzling over what they can and cannot do with their published research articles: Please use common sense rather than falling into (or for) formalistic fatuity. Stevan Harnad
Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than those things listed as permitted by Sage. Charles, I am second to no one in my admiration and respect for your mastery of copyright law. And yet all I can say by way of response to your perfectly valid point is what I wrote: SH: there is nothing either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies of his own research findings to individual researchers, for research purposes, in any form he wishes, analog or digital, at any time. That is what researchers have been doing for many decades, whether or not their right to do so was formally enshrined in a publisher's author-re-use document. I am referring here very specifically to a researcher personally mailing an individual analog copy (or emailing an individual digital copy) of his own published work to another researcher for personal research purposes, whether or not that has been explicitly mentioned as permitted in his copyright assignment agreements. (I am not referring here to making the postprint immediately Open Access when the publisher is not Green [i.e., does not endorse immediate Open Access, and instead requests an embargo on providing Open Access]; I am referring to efficient new ways of using the older practice of sending individual reprints on individual request in order to tide over research needs during the publisher's embargo period: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html ) CO: There is an incredibly easy way round this problem! Sage don't REQUIRE authors to assign copyright. The author should ask Sage for its standard Licence to Publish form, sign that, and then the author can do what he/she likes with the materials. Sage willingly and without quibble (unlike some publishers) do this for you. For SAGE authors in particular, and for providing immediate OA, that is excellent advice and a splendid, sensible option. But my point was about what authors can and should do with less sage publishers... CO: Incidentally, Stevan's point (3) is valid, and is an alternative to using the Licence to Publish method. My point (3) was: SH: (3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it). I think you are here thinking of our old Oppenheim/Harnad preprint corrigenda strategy of tiding over a publisher's OA embargo: Make the unrefereed preprint OA before submitting to the journal, and if upon acceptance the journal seeks to embargo OA to the refereed postprint, instead update the OA preprint with a corrigenda file. http://bit.ly/vi3JQ That strategy is still viable, but it has now been superseded by the option of Immediate Closed Access Deposit the Email Eprint Request Button, which allows would-be users to request -- and authors to fulfill -- eprint requests much more quickly and efficiently than by searching for the author's address, mailing a reprint request card, and then mailing a reprint, as in paper days. The Button automatically emails the author with the user's eprint request, and the author need merely click on a URL in the email request to send a single eprint to the requester. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html The CA Deposit Button option is especially useful for researchers who prefer not to make their unrefereed preprints public. Stevan Harnad From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 27 July 2009 12:02 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Authors Re-using Their Own Work On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote: Hello Stevan, Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors Re-using Their Own Work? It seems to me that it forbids the email eprint request button: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.doc (The link is from this page: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav ) It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. On my
