Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I don't think due consideration has been given to WHY some publishers might legitimately object.Their concern is that making their content freely available may ultimately undermine their sales revenue - and, although this has not yet proved to be the case, no one can say for sure that they are wrong about the longer term. Trying to circumvent publishers' objections by more or less devious means does not seem to me to be a good way to proceed Sally NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS. THANKS! Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457 E-mail: chief-e...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org Our journal, Learned Publishing, is included in the ALPSP Learned Journals Collection, www.alpsp-collection.org - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, [identity deleted] wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carole Brault wrote: I still have to verify : did the professor keep the pre-print of these articles ? I would say NO. On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote No you don't have to verify it. The author just has to scan in his old texts and then self-archive them. But do recommend self-archiving present and future preprints, as not all publishers are as progressive yet in this regard as Elsevier is. Am I missing something? Carole Brault's message seems to be saying that the professor no longer had print or digital versions of the preprints. In your reply, are you suggesting that she scans copies of the published version and self-archives them? You are not missing anything: I will requote below the relevant passages of http://authors.elsevier.com/ about which I wrote that Between II and III the author has plenty of leeway to scan in and digitize his legacy texts... and then self-archive them on his institutional server. This is neither publishing nor commercial: As an [Elsevier] author, you retain [the following] rights... without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier: [II] The right to publish a different or extended version of the paper so long as it is sufficiently new to be considered a new work. [III] The right to re-use parts of the paper in other works, provided that the new work is not to be published commercially. It is of no interest or legal import whatsoever how the author gets all or part of his own paper in digital form -- whether by retrieving it from an old file in his word-processor, or by scanning and OCR'ing it. [Note that not all publishers are as liberal as Elsevier about the self-archiving of legacy texts. That's why I added: But do recommend self-archiving present and future preprints, as not all publishers are as progressive yet in this regard as Elsevier is. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ] I read the passage on self-archiving on the Elsevier site (see below) and my understanding of what they are saying is that it is OK to self-archive the preprint version but NOT the published version. Wouldn't scanning his old texts constitute the articles as published? Elsevier does not require that authors remove from publicly accessible servers versions of their paper that differ from the version as published by Elsevier. Posting of the article as published on a public server can only be done with Elsevier's specific written permission. I would say that the Elsevier wording contains some ambiguity, but the ambiguity is entirely in the author's favor. I repeat: Go ahead and self-archive and stop worrying about unscruing the inscrutable! Also, when Elsevier say they do not require removal of preprints that DIFFER from the published version. Could this not be interpreted as saying that the author SHOULD remove the preprint if the journal publishes the article without changes ? No. This can and should be interpreted as the fact that where there has been no change to a text since it was preprint, there has been no change in the text since it was a preprint (sic): As an [Elsevier] author, you retain [the following] rights... without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier: [I] The right to retain a preprint version of the article on a public electronic server such as the World Wide Web. Elsewhere it is added: A preprint of an article doesn't count as prior publication. Authors don't have to remove electronic preprints from publicly accessible servers [I have to admit that I do feel rather foolish going over this wording
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On 29 Dec 2003 at 16:40, Sally Morris wrote: I don't think due consideration has been given to WHY some publishers might legitimately object. Their concern is that making their content freely available may ultimately undermine their sales revenue - and, although this has not yet proved to be the case, no one can say for sure that they are wrong about the longer term. Trying to circumvent publishers' objections by more or less devious means does not seem to me to be a good way to proceed There is a different point of view. Namely: what counts are interests of a) readers b) authors c) humanity Publisher comes only as a tool. When it is not needed - it will be dispensed off. But, till now, it seems to be a useful tool. Question is: can it be made more useful? Can it be replaced by a better tool? Looking at the subject in this way, it is clear that free for all publication is not a perfect solution. If only because there will be too much of a noise. Peer Review, etc. needs some effort and costs - someone has to pay for these costs. Question is: what is the optimal solution? Suppose all publishers, who charge big bucks for their journals, refuse to publish. Will it be a disaster? I mean a disaster for a) readers, b) authors, c) humanity? I am not sure. In fact, I think, that very soon an alternative solution based on now existing open access journals would be found and implemented, with some advantages. So, why should the scientists, the readers and the humanity care about publishers revenues? And if the publishers do not understand the trends, and the needs, and their roles as serving tools - they will lose their revenues anyway. Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
There is another point that Bob might have made: given the desire of journal editors to hang on to their authors, it is very unlikely that a publisher would actually go to the extreme of suing (and thus alienating) their own authors. Threaten, maybe; actually do it, almost certainly not. Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK. Quoting Bob Parks bpa...@wueconc.wustl.edu: Stevan Harnad writes: If they want to ask the rest, fine; but better still, do as the far more sensible physicists did: self-archive, and decide whether or not to withdraw only if and when someone ever asks! EXACTLY. Stevan you need to emphasize this point more. Although I am certainly not a copyright lawyer, my belief is that : Author posts the paper. Publisher does not complain - GREAT - we are on our way. Publisher complains - NOTE that in order to complain, the publisher really needs to determine whether the author has asked for permission. But the publisher can play the game and just ask for removal. Author removes but makes a public comment about it. My guess, after a few complaints, publisher alters course and allows posting. Author decides not to remove. Worst case - publisher sues for copyright violation. Publisher must show that the paper is in violation and that the violation caused economic harm. Certainly lawyers are good at making such arguments but making the economic harm case will be difficult. Hopefully we could get a defense fund or free labor from law schools to help the Author who was sued. My bet is that the publishers have much better things to do than to attempt shouting COPYRIGHT at authors (who supply the articles to the publishers). But post the papers, wait until somebody complains, request documentation for the complaint (that is make it costly for the publisher to go forward), and IF in the end the author wants to avoid suit, then retract the paper but make a public statement about the retraction. Bob * --* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University | | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 b...@parks.wustl.edu| * --* *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, [identity deleted] wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carole Brault wrote: I still have to verify : did the professor keep the pre-print of these articles ? I would say NO. On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote No you don't have to verify it. The author just has to scan in his old texts and then self-archive them. But do recommend self-archiving present and future preprints, as not all publishers are as progressive yet in this regard as Elsevier is. Am I missing something? Carole Brault's message seems to be saying that the professor no longer had print or digital versions of the preprints. In your reply, are you suggesting that she scans copies of the published version and self-archives them? You are not missing anything: I will requote below the relevant passages of http://authors.elsevier.com/ about which I wrote that Between II and III the author has plenty of leeway to scan in and digitize his legacy texts... and then self-archive them on his institutional server. This is neither publishing nor commercial: As an [Elsevier] author, you retain [the following] rights... without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier: [II] The right to publish a different or extended version of the paper so long as it is sufficiently new to be considered a new work. [III] The right to re-use parts of the paper in other works, provided that the new work is not to be published commercially. It is of no interest or legal import whatsoever how the author gets all or part of his own paper in digital form -- whether by retrieving it from an old file in his word-processor, or by scanning and OCR'ing it. [Note that not all publishers are as liberal as Elsevier about the self-archiving of legacy texts. That's why I added: But do recommend self-archiving present and future preprints, as not all publishers are as progressive yet in this regard as Elsevier is. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ] I read the passage on self-archiving on the Elsevier site (see below) and my understanding of what they are saying is that it is OK to self-archive the preprint version but NOT the published version. Wouldn't scanning his old texts constitute the articles as published? Elsevier does not require that authors remove from publicly accessible servers versions of their paper that differ from the version as published by Elsevier. Posting of the article as published on a public server can only be done with Elsevier's specific written permission. I would say that the Elsevier wording contains some ambiguity, but the ambiguity is entirely in the author's favor. I repeat: Go ahead and self-archive and stop worrying about unscruing the inscrutable! Also, when Elsevier say they do not require removal of preprints that DIFFER from the published version. Could this not be interpreted as saying that the author SHOULD remove the preprint if the journal publishes the article without changes ? No. This can and should be interpreted as the fact that where there has been no change to a text since it was preprint, there has been no change in the text since it was a preprint (sic): As an [Elsevier] author, you retain [the following] rights... without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier: [I] The right to retain a preprint version of the article on a public electronic server such as the World Wide Web. Elsewhere it is added: A preprint of an article doesn't count as prior publication. Authors don't have to remove electronic preprints from publicly accessible servers [I have to admit that I do feel rather foolish going over this wording with a fine toothcomb as if it were Holy Writ! It would be a good idea if everyone else also realized just how foolish it was too, so we could all move on to doing something more useful, like self-archiving!] I might add in passing as to the following passage: We ask authors not to update articles on public servers to match the articles we publish If I had written this rather impressionistic passage, I certainly would not want to stake anything on invoking and applying it in court... As Eprint Archive Project Officer, I must advise our academics on the copyright issues relating to self-archiving. I need to be really clear about exactly what the publishers will and will not allow (without writing to them if possible - as I agree that this can be counter-productive) With passages like the above, I strongly recommend that you use common sense and resist any temptation to adopt a scriptural hermeneutic stance. Obviously not even the people who wrote these passages gave them that much thought! Our eprint archive is new so I want to get my facts straight at the outset. Here are the facts: Physicists (and many others) have been sensibly self-archiving their own preprints and postprints for over 12
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Stevan Harnad writes: If they want to ask the rest, fine; but better still, do as the far more sensible physicists did: self-archive, and decide whether or not to withdraw only if and when someone ever asks! EXACTLY. Stevan you need to emphasize this point more. Although I am certainly not a copyright lawyer, my belief is that : Author posts the paper. Publisher does not complain - GREAT - we are on our way. Publisher complains - NOTE that in order to complain, the publisher really needs to determine whether the author has asked for permission. But the publisher can play the game and just ask for removal. Author removes but makes a public comment about it. My guess, after a few complaints, publisher alters course and allows posting. Author decides not to remove. Worst case - publisher sues for copyright violation. Publisher must show that the paper is in violation and that the violation caused economic harm. Certainly lawyers are good at making such arguments but making the economic harm case will be difficult. Hopefully we could get a defense fund or free labor from law schools to help the Author who was sued. My bet is that the publishers have much better things to do than to attempt shouting COPYRIGHT at authors (who supply the articles to the publishers). But post the papers, wait until somebody complains, request documentation for the complaint (that is make it costly for the publisher to go forward), and IF in the end the author wants to avoid suit, then retract the paper but make a public statement about the retraction. Bob *--* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899b...@parks.wustl.edu| *--* *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I agree with Stevan's strategy in theory. The problem is that this is not something provosts and library directors would support as part of the institutional repository policy. If we want institutional legitimization of eprint archives, we will also have to live with added red tapes and bureaucracies. One of the reasons for the slow filling of institutional archives is that few senior administrators have the courage to practice what Stevan advocates. Or it is simply counter to how administrators think? Leslie Chan Bioline International University of Toronto at Scarborough http://www.bioline.org.br/ on 12/4/03 7:17 AM, Bob Parks at bpa...@wueconc.wustl.edu wrote: Stevan Harnad writes: If they want to ask the rest, fine; but better still, do as the far more sensible physicists did: self-archive, and decide whether or not to withdraw only if and when someone ever asks! EXACTLY. Stevan you need to emphasize this point more. Although I am certainly not a copyright lawyer, my belief is that : Author posts the paper. Publisher does not complain - GREAT - we are on our way. Publisher complains - NOTE that in order to complain, the publisher really needs to determine whether the author has asked for permission. But the publisher can play the game and just ask for removal. Author removes but makes a public comment about it. My guess, after a few complaints, publisher alters course and allows posting. Author decides not to remove. Worst case - publisher sues for copyright violation. Publisher must show that the paper is in violation and that the violation caused economic harm. Certainly lawyers are good at making such arguments but making the economic harm case will be difficult. Hopefully we could get a defense fund or free labor from law schools to help the Author who was sued. My bet is that the publishers have much better things to do than to attempt shouting COPYRIGHT at authors (who supply the articles to the publishers). But post the papers, wait until somebody complains, request documentation for the complaint (that is make it costly for the publisher to go forward), and IF in the end the author wants to avoid suit, then retract the paper but make a public statement about the retraction. Bob *--* | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 | | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 | | Washington University| | One Brookings Drive | | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899b...@parks.wustl.edu| *--* *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* # Economics Working Paper Archive # # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html # #gopher econwpa.wustl.edu # # # # Send a mail message (empty body) # # To: econ...@econwpa.wustl.edu # # Subject: get announce # *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carole Brault wrote: just thought I would share this with you. It may help when trying to explain the importance of institutional archiving (or self-archiving) or to encourage authors to keep their copyright (or at least the right to post an eprint, pre or post...) Three points to note: (1) It is important to distinguish researchers' open-access-provision efforts for their retrospective (legacy) articles from their open-access-provision efforts for their current and future articles. (2) As there is virtually no revenue from legacy articles, most publishers will be obliging about legacy self-archiving. (3) Yes, for current and future articles it is highly desirable to self-archive the preprint. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 (And it is nice, but absolutely not necessary, for authors to retain their copyright.) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm Story : a professor wants to put on the web a copy of all the articles he has published over the years on a certain topic (late 70's onward). A list of about 50 articles published in a dozen of Elsevier journals (or in now-owned-by-Elsevier journals) is sent to the appropriate dept at Elsevier to obtain permission to post the material. This is a highly dysfunctional strategy! Permissions departments consist of individuals, and usually uninformed ones, always happy to provide an arbitrary decision on request. In the case of Elsevier (overall, a progressive publisher insofar as self-archiving is concerned) the sensible course to take is this: (1) Read the passages about self-archiving in http://authors.elsevier.com/ (2) Note the following: As an [Elsevier] author, you retain [the following] rights... without the need to obtain specific permission from Elsevier: [I] The right to retain a preprint version of the article on a public electronic server such as the World Wide Web. Elsevier does not require that authors remove from publicly accessible servers versions of their paper that differ from the version as published by Elsevier. See also our information on electronic preprints for a more detailed discussion on these points. [II] The right to publish a different or extended version of the paper so long as it is sufficiently new to be considered a new work. [III] The right to re-use parts of the paper in other works, provided that the new work is not to be published commercially. (3) Between II and III the author has plenty of leeway to scan in and digitize his legacy texts (if he did not retain the digital file), and perhaps even clean them up if he wishes (updating reference lists, correcting any errors, adding hyperlinks, reformatting, creating HTML, maybe even XML) and then self-archive them on his institutional server. This is neither publishing nor commercial. End of story. It was silly (and just inviting needless noise) to ask! Yet this is the kind of woolly thinking that is holding up the optimal and the inevitable (which is also the obvious and the already overdue!). Horror : Responses received for 5 of the journals. Permission to post articles on our institution web site is granted following these conditions : - paying copyright fee of 40 to 100$ US (depending on the journal) - hypertext link is included to the Science Direct page of the article - and in some cases : example : the permission is granted for 2 years only. Please reapply for permission to use the material after Nov 25, 2005. Ask a silly question and you're likely to get a silly answer. Please spare yourself the horror and go about it more sensibly henceforward. I still have to verify : did the professor keep the pre-print of these articles ? I would say NO. No you don't have to verify it. The author just has to scan in his old texts and then self-archive them. But do recommend self-archiving present and future preprints, as not all publishers are as progressive yet in this regard as Elsevier is. Please forgive the style of the message but I have just opened the Elsevier letter !!! Don't write Elsevier any more letters, and Elsevier won't write you any either. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3188.html N.B. I am in the middle a preparing a project of open-archive for our institution. This is very timely ! Please think out your open-access self-archiving strategy clearly so as not to invite years of needless delays. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01 02 03): http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Post discussion to:
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On 18 Nov 2003, at 13:28, Stevan Harnad wrote: What is the actual percentage of withdrawals in the 12-years span of 250,000 papers self-archived in http://www.arxiv.org And what actually was the reason behind there withdrawals? Below is a manual analysis of the 399 which depends on my interpretation. I looked at everything that said withdrawn in the comments field to see what reasons people were giving for removing articles. 1 Embargo on data 4 Administrative problem with archive usage 8 Archivists suspect misdoing 10 This is the Replacement of a withdrawn article 18 Edited to withdraw some sections 23 Plagiarism 31 A New paper subsumes the results of this paper 33 Temporarily Withdrawn (for fixing errors) 37 This article is Corrected by another deposit 70 Incorrect results or interpretation 164 Withdrawn without explanation If you look at Copyright in the entries, there are 4 withdrawals and one 'tweaking' to avoid copyright. --- Les Carr
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On 17 Nov 2003, at 20:42, Stevan Harnad wrote: I have to admit that this is the first I've ever heard of any papers being removed from Arxiv for copyright reasons. Me too. There are 11 entries across the whole *physics* archive which have any comments about copyright: 9 are mentions of copyright, 2 are indicating problems (#3, #4 below). 3. astro-ph/0301194 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: The little galaxy that could: Kinematics of Camelopardalis B Authors: Ayesha Begum, Jayaram N. Chengalur, Ulrich Hopp Comments: Accepted for publication in New Astronomy. For copyright reasons this version is slightly different from the accepted version, although the differences are minor Journal-ref: New Astron. 8 (2003) 267-281 4. physics/0202004 [abs, src] : Title: Electron excitation and 'cascade' ionisation of diatomic molecules with ultra-short pulses of strong IR lasers Authors: A.I. Pegarkov Comments: Removed by arXiv admin as author submitted a version for which he does not hold copyright Subj-class: Optics; Chemical Physics Journal-ref: Chem. Phys. Lett. V. 343, 642-648 (2001) However, if you look for the word withdrawn, there are 399 records returned. Almost all of these (for which a reason is given) are either due to plagiarism or the discovery of errors in the paper. The list of comments appears below: - (NOTE: PAPER IS INCORRECT AND IS WITHDRAWN) (Paper is being withdrawn: original conclusion is incorrect for the nonabelian case. For a correct treatment, see M. Asorey, S. Carlip, and F. Falceto, hep-th/9304081.) (Section 7 on the Massive Case and some references have been withdrawn). To the Memory of Laurent Schwartz. Report-no: CPT-2002/P.4462 (This paper replaces our earlier, withdrawn, paper, hep-th/9712178.) Minor typos corrected (Withdrawn due to error. See D. Lowe, L. Susskind and J. Uglum, hep-th/9402136, for correct treatment.) (Withdrawn: This paper turns out incomplete and even misleading. I must apologize to all of the recipients.) (no figures) This paper is being withdrawn (ssar...@ua1vm.ua.edu) (withdrawn) (withdrawn) *withdrawn* 0, plain tex, This paper is incorrect, and has been withdrawn by the Author 1 postscript figure, uses revtex.sty This paper has been withdrawn, as further work has shown that an atom laser as described by the model herein *does not have a steady state*, so it doesn't matter much what it would look like 2 uuencoded figures, WITHDRAWN PENDING REVISION 2e, title changed, section 2 withdrawn and one reference added. To appear in Phys.Lett.B 6 pages; Withdrawn at author's request Mon, 30 Oct 95 ; Claims in connection with disordered systems have been withdrawn; More detailed description of the simulations; Inset added to figure 3 After a 3.5 month refereeing delay, withdrawn and submitted to ApJL, where it is now in press An observation from the previous version has been withdrawn and a new proof added. Submitted for publication in PRA An uncorrectly justified claim about adding Einstein Rosen bridges withdrawn Certain speculations introduced in Part III of the original paper have been withdrawn. Additional (minor) comments have been made Criticism of results by Nagao and Slevin withdrawn Errors corrected, section 4.1 withdrawn and title changed. A more complete treatment will appear in a forthcoming paper Hence, the original version of this paper has been withdrawn Hence, the original version of this paper has been withdrawn Hence, the original version of this paper has been withdrawn II, and is hence withdrawn Manuscript withdrawn by the authors Manuscript withdrawn; see below Original version was submitted to MNRAS on 13, Jan, 2003, which was withdrawn. After heavey revison, its essence was resubmitted to ApJL on 18 Aug. 2003. 2nd revision. Paper Withdrawn Paper Withdrawn. Some aspects of the RG calculation have to be reconsidered. It will be rewritten Paper contains an error and is withdrawn for now Paper has been withdrawn Paper has been withdrawn for major repairs Paper has been withdrawn; see cond-mat/0301499 Paper is withdrawn and superseded by EFI-94-36 which will appear shortly with the new hep-th number hep-th/9407111 Paper is withdrawn pending lifting of data embargo Paper is withdrawn. See quant-ph/9812019 Paper temporarily withdrawn for remodeling Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn Paper withdrawn after reanalysis of data. Paper no longer available for download Paper withdrawn because its principal conclusion is proably wrong Paper withdrawn by authors, due to crucial omission of higher resonances Paper withdrawn by the authors for reasons explained in the relacement Paper withdrawn due to a crucial algebraic error in section 3 Paper withdrawn due to errors Paper withdrawn due to incorrect results Paper withdrawn pending major revisions Paper withdrawn pending resolution of this problem Paper
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Troy McClure wrote: ive been browsing through the citebase and quite a few of such messages came up: This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to copyright. http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Anlin%2F0301018 Stevan Harnad: I have to admit that this is the first I've ever heard of any papers being removed from Arxiv for copyright reasons. I will ask Tim Brody (creator of citebase) to see whether there is a more sensitive way to do a count, but using copyright and (remove or withdraw) I found 6 papers out of the total quarter million since 1991. There are only 13 deleted (flagged as such by arXiv's OAI interface) papers in arXiv.org, or 0.005%. One of those papers is available as an earlier version: http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Anlin%2F0301018 (go to arXiv, click v1, get full-text) Tim Brody
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On 15 Nov 2003 at 18:27, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote: v It is possible (this factor has not been monitored to date) that v many researchers (those who are aware of the open access movement) v are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives v and access Fact: It is not only possible but certain that many researchers are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives and access. They are troubled by this as well as by at least 27 other equally groundless worries (see end of message). But the worries _are_ there they are also stopping both researchers and the university admin from supporting eprints in a wholehearted way. The questions I constantly come up against are (a) copyright - from researchers; (b) copyright and the cost of maintaining the eprints service - from admin. In fact the costs are to an extent tied together with the copyright issues. We can't let copyright material appear in eprints, so we have to check each one to make sure it is copyright-free, and this costs money as we have to pay someone to do it. Self-archiving is not seen as realistic, and for _some_ researchers this is undoubtedly true, which is why we have put a 'let us archive it for you' link on the eprints home page. I wonder, are these the real reasons for failing to support the implementation of eprints, or just an excuse to leave matters well alone? Regards Chris Korycinski St Andrews eprints administrator, Main Library === phone: external 01334 462302 : internal x 2302 office hours: 9-5 Tue Wed. 9-12 Th.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Troy McClure wrote: ive been browsing through the citebase and quite a few of such messages came up: This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to copyright. http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Anlin%2F0301018 I have to admit that this is the first I've ever heard of any papers being removed from Arxiv for copyright reasons. I will ask Tim Brody (creator of citebase) to see whether there is a more sensitive way to do a count, but using copyright and (remove or withdraw) I found 6 papers out of the total quarter million since 1991. (That doesn't sound like many to me! Some of it seems to have been 3rd party stuff, with someone other than the author himself doing the archiving. And some, as noted recently in this Forum, was removed because it had been plagiarized! Note also that in a sense ArXiv itself is a 3rd party, for it is not the author's own institional archive, but that distinction is trivial, as many times noted in this Forum.) in practise, how often is this the case that papers of self archives are withdrawn due to copyrights? ive read about the 55% which allow self archiving. but what about the other 45% (even though the actual number might be lower after having asked the publisher)? If it stands at something like 6 papers out of a quarter million across 12 years, I would say the incidence is not worth giving a second thought to. three (perhaps interesting) things in this matter: (a) copyright laws are a trade-off between the interests of the public and the interest of the copyright holder in access to intellectual work; (b) copyright laws main function is to secure long term creation of work by protecting up front investment necessary for the creation and production of work (it also obliges to acknowledge the author's moral rights by requiring citations and thereby protecting his non-monetary incentive to create - but without stringent access restrictions). (c) what is the effect of copyright protection on future creation of work (scientific writings)? Refereed research is and always has been anomalous among writings because it is an author give-away. The open-access author wants protection only from theft-of-authorship (plagiarism) and text-corruption, but not from theft-of-text (reading, copying, printing). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5 as for (a), this trade-off is reflected in the exceptions (fair usage) for non-copyright holders (the more exceptions, the better for society and non-copyright holders; fair use is not a static concept; those exceptions develop over time; Q: is self archiving fair use?). given the importance of self-archiving for the society as a whole, one could argue that the interests of the society should be given more attention (by expressively giving the author the right to self archive; despite that it is making available which normally requires authorization by the publisher and the contractual agreement not to publish the paper somewhere else) That's more or less what the green publishers are doing: formally agreeing that the author can self-archive. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm as for (b), copyrights protect (publishers) investment in order to secure long term creation of work. given the new distribution possibilities, and the actually - counterproductive - imlications of copyrights (see (c)), does the need to protect the publishers investment justify the prohibtion of self-archiving? Of course not, and the white publishers will become green. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif as for (c), access barriers (in form of the possibility to prohibit self-archiving) actually PREVENT the creation of new work. hence, the rationale of copyrights (to secure creation of work) is basically the opposite from the actual effects that copyrights have on the future creation of work with respect to scientific writings. All these copyright details, invented for non-give-away writing (in Gutenberg days) ill-fit give-away writing in the online era. my concrete question: has there been a case in which a court expressively ruled that publishers can prohibit self archving? while it might seem that it is a clear violation of the contractual agreement between the publisher and the author, given the high interest of the society (a), and the function of copyrights (b), and (c) the highly counterproductive effects a prohibition of self-archving has, it is debateable (at least to me) whether publishers can legally enforce a prohibition of self archving (i am aware that publishers could perhaps find other ways to prevent self archiving; nevertheless a court ruling would create certainty) No, it has not been attempted and it will not be. But fussing about it notionally has needlessly held back self-archiving for years (among non-physicists!). Prof. Wilson
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote: It is possible (this factor has not been monitored to date) that many researchers (those who are aware of the open access movement) are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives and access Fact: It is not only possible but certain that many researchers are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives and access. They are troubled by this as well as by at least 27 other equally groundless worries (see end of message). Fact: 55% of journals already support self-archiving. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif Concerning those journals, the worries are not just groundless but perverse. There is hence no reason whatsoever why 55% of the 2.5 million research articles published yearly should not already be self-archived and hence open-access. (Of the remaining 45% white journals, many will agree to author self-archiving if asked; and even for the remaining minority who do not agree, there is still a way to self-archive one's articles in them without any copyright implications: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ). Fact (Los Alamos Lemma): Physicists -- far more sensible than the rest of us -- have been self-archiving since 1991 without worrying for a single microsecond about copyright implications. Across the ensuing years, they have made over a quarter million articles open-access without a single copyright challenge for a single publisher. Meanwhile, we are still sitting in a state of Zeno's Paralysis, worrying. The 'Los Alamos Lemma' http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0469.html Zeno's Paradox and the Road to the Optimal/Inevitable http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0819.html It is possible... that many researchers... are troubled by the [possible impact of] possible copyright implications... on the visibility of their work as compared to the traditional publishing mechanism they are familiar with. This worry sounds to me worse than groundless: it sounds incoherent. There is no second-guessing what people who are minded to worry may worry about, but I suspect the above one is based on not one but two conflations: (1) Conflating copyright matters with the Ingelfinger Rule (not a copyright matter but merely a journal policy matter) and (2) conflating the Green Road to open access (BOAI-1: open-access self-archiving of one's own toll-access journal publications) with the Golden Road (BOAI-2: publishing one's articles in alternative open-access journals). So, as I cannot disambiguate the above into a coherent worry to address, all I can suggest is some information on (1) the Ingelfinger Rule (a journal policy of refusing to even consider for publication findings that have been previously publicised in any way (whether via the popular press or the Web). The Ingelfinger Rule (which is vanishing fast) is neither a copyright (hence legal) matter nor is it enforceable. (Publishers may like the Ingelfinger Rule, to boost sales, but editors and referees have no interest in it whatsoever. No referee will recommend or condone the rejection of an important, sound, new finding simply because the author has divulged it to the press or posted it on the Web -- and he will rightly regard his freely donated refereeing time as having been abused if he takes the trouble to review and evaluate the paper, and his recommendations are over-ruled because of the Ingelfinger Rule! Researchers are quite capable and experienced in distinguishing unrefereed preprints from refereed, journal-certified postprints in deciding when something is safe to use and try to build upon.) The best advice one can give to authors about the Ingelfinger Rules is to ignore it completely. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids As to (2) (the green/gold conflation), open access maximises visibility and impact, but the effect is only additive (i.e., adds visbility and impact to what the article would have had otherwise) in BOAI-1 (the green road of self-archiving toll-access articles). With new journals, whether open-access (BOAI-2) or toll-access, there is always the risk that the new journal, lacking the track-record of the established journal, may have lower visibility and impact. An extreme example might be the choice between publishing in Nature (a high-impact toll-access journal) and publishing in Psycoloquy http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk (a moderate-impact open-access journal that I founded in 1990). No contest! The author should publish in Nature if he can (and then get the added visibility/impact provided by open-access by self-archiving it). (For the pedants: Nature is a green publisher, supporting self-archiving: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm They could probably contribute positively by submitting to Open Access Journals.DOAJ www.doaj.org maintains an almost exclusive list of such Journals. This
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Bernard Lang wrote: It seems that for every worrier I respond to, two more worriers pop up in their place! And this is still going on after 10 years and countless talks and papers and discussion lists. welcome to the club ... this symptom is unfortunately quite frequent on the web, and I have seen it on several other lists, about other topics. Those people more often on the list become experts ... and they tend to lose contact with less present members or beginners, or grow impatient after repeating things too often. Quite, one has to ask what is the purpose of a list of this nature. I think that it is to be welcomed that new entrants are still arriving. In better organised lists the moderator sends them the FAQ, assuming it is one where basic questions/assumptions/etc. are answered. The whole premise of this discussion, IMO, is the phenomenon of alternative forms of scholarly publishing. It seems rational to me that authors and others might have worries about the phenomenon. Surely we want to encourage rational discussion and not put off newcomers. Barry Mahon
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
A late comment on Charles Oppenheim's 16/11 email: I agree with Professor Riolo - the best way forward is for authors to refuse to assign copyright to a publisher, and simply to license them. ...This means that the genie IS out of the bottle ... Well yes - but, hasn't it really been out of the bottle for a long time? Think of all those photocopied articles, most without a copyright slip filled in, many for reasons other than personal study, etc. The publishers must be aware of this and they KNOW there is no point in the litigation route; it simply ups the journal prices a little. They are happy with that compromise! And so it goes. If the subversive proposal takes hold, journal prices will be forced up - in the short term, at least. In the long term, IF it worries them, the publishers can lobby for litigation outside of the copyright laws, I suppose. Perhaps something to do with fair trading? And I bet the universities cave in first! Chris Armstrong Centre for Information Quality Management (CIQM) (+44) 1974 251441 lisq...@cix.co.uk http://www.i-a-l.co.uk
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Stevan the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions with you is that you never reply except as a put-down: you obviously haven't understood... this has already been discussed... etc. You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to me; only to a long list of didactic statements. I do not have worries that belong on a Zeno's Paralysis list. I would just like the community - in its widest sense - to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. For this they need to be aware that other issues and views exist (and I am sure there are many more that I haven't even thought of!) On second thoughts, I do have one worry. It is that authors and universities will be railroaded into the Subversive Proposal without understanding the issues involved or realising that there may just be alternatives ... that may just be better. I have not copied this to the list, but feel free to do so in full if you see fit. Chris Armstrong UKOLUG Chair Newsletter Editor lisq...@cix.co.uk
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Chris Armstrong wrote: the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions with you is that you never reply except as a put-down... You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to me; only to a long list of didactic statements. Dear Chris, I apologize. Although it is obviously no excuse for hurting anyone's feelings, I think if my polemics have become increasingly impatient it is a cumulative consequence of the fact that I find myself still responding over and over to the very same prima facie worries (which I eventually compiled into the list of Zeno's FAQs). It seems that for every worrier I respond to, two more worriers pop up in their place! And this is still going on after 10 years and countless talks and papers and discussion lists. But no one forces me to keep responding, so let's see if I can do a better job this time of following Thumper's advice: If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all... I do not have worries that belong on a Zeno's Paralysis list. I would just like the community - in its widest sense - to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. But surely, if I have been guilty of being too impatient and critical in my style of response, I have not been guilty of preventing the community from airing its views! On second thoughts, I do have one worry. It is that authors and universities will be railroaded into the Subversive Proposal without understanding the issues involved or realising that there may just be alternatives ... that may just be better. Please let me set your mind at ease on that score. Far from being railroaded into anything, it is a historical fact that authors and universities (with the exception of some physicists) have been indescribably sluggish about doing anything about freeing online access to their research so far. It is precisely this inertia and hysteresis across such a long time period that has made my own tone increasingly intemperate! In the next posting, I will respond (temperately, I hope) to your long posting to the Virtual Colloquium at http://www.text-e.org/debats/ which I have also branched to the Amsci Forum. Best wishes, Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html You may join the list at the amsci site. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:52:35PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Chris Armstrong wrote: the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions with you is that you never reply except as a put-down... You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to me; only to a long list of didactic statements. Dear Chris, I apologize. Although it is obviously no excuse for hurting anyone's feelings, I think if my polemics have become increasingly impatient it is a cumulative consequence of the fact that I find myself still responding over and over to the very same prima facie worries (which I eventually compiled into the list of Zeno's FAQs). It seems that for every worrier I respond to, two more worriers pop up in their place! And this is still going on after 10 years and countless talks and papers and discussion lists. welcome to the club ... this symptom is unfortunately quite frequent on the web, and I have seen it on several other lists, about other topics. Those people more often on the list become experts ... and they tend to lose contact with less present members or beginners, or grow impatient after repeating things too often. This is a phenomenon that seems a direct consequence of the type of interactions and communities we have on the internet, and would be worth investigating. FAQs were invented to alleviate the problem, but they are obviously not a complete answer. Also, on a topic like this one, where opinion matters nearly as much as objective facts, FAQs necessarily reflect the writer's opinions, which may not be shared by all, and are thus not fully stisfactory (may-be with sevral authors, and constrasting points of view ...) This last comment is no reflexion on Stevan's FAQ, which I think I have not read :-) [ though I did read several of Stevan's papers ... ] Bernard Lang -- Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents SIGNEZhttp://petition.eurolinux.org/SIGN bernard.l...@inria.fr ,_ /\o\o/Tel +33 1 3963 5644 http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I agree with Professor Riolo - the best way forward is for authors to refuse to assign copyright to a publisher, and simply to license them. I also agree with Stevan though - if an author DOES choose to assign copyright, then the practical problems of a publisher trying to chase all those allegedly unauthorised copies floating in the ether, then finding out who is responsible for them and then issuing numerous legal summonses in obscure parts of the world are insuperable. This means that the genie IS out of the bottle and there is in practice nothing the publishers can do about the genie without ruining themselves with expensive litigation. Publishers will have to adopt new business models if they are to survive. Many are exploring innovative ways to do just that. Regarding Albert's contention that it is possible to track down all the pirate copies through Google, etc., these search engines only cover a minute proportion of all the Web pages out there. Professor Charles Oppenheim Dept of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509-223053
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: But my original statement stands: Publicly self-archive online first, then sign the copyright transfer form and you have committed no crime. Once again, it all depends on how the agreement is written. I would advise readers not to accept your statement without question. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
At 09:05 16/11/2001 +, you wrote: any are exploring innovative ways to do just that. Regarding Albert's contention that it is possible to track down all the pirate copies through Google, etc., these search engines only cover a minute proportion of all the Web pages out there. That's true, Charles, but there are also of course a number of companies developing intelligence services aimed at very specifically searching out infringements of trademarks, logos, and copyrighted material such as content, music etc. As I understand it, the client gives the intelligence company a list of the copyrighted material they want to protect, and the technology goes and sniffs it out over the web, through bulletin boards, chatrooms etc. etc. On the other hand, I don't know how effective these technologies yet are (or will ever be), but the kind of companies offering these services include Cyveillance, Envisonal and Marksmen. Envisonal is monitoring over a million music tracks for IFPI I'm told. However, as I say, I have no idea how effective this technology is, or how effective enforcement would be, even if it were efficient at finding infringements Richard Poynder Freelance Journalist Phone: 0191-370-9277 Mobile: 0793-202-4032 E-mail: ric...@dial.pipex.com Web: www.richardpoynder.com
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the section 6.1 (saying that an author is not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement). How do you arrive at that conclusion? Which law says that you are not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement? I think you have misunderstood. That statement is surely as true as the law of physics that there can be no backward causation is true. Otherwise, I would already be guilty of perjury if I said, hand on heart, I never personally met my great-grandfather -- the day before I got into a time-travel machine and paid him a visit back in mid-19th century Austro-Hungary. (Don't ask me whether I could nevertheless repent and undo my crime by successfully persuading him not marry or have children. Such incoherent scenarios defy my imagination.) I am certainly not bound NOW by any contract I may or may not sign in the future. And what that future contract binds me to THEN depends on what it says. If it says I transfer to X all rights to sell, lease or give away this text, whether on-paper or on-line then I have duly done just that. No problem. I have no idea what would happen if the contract said I swear that I have never posted this text on the Net in the past. But that doesn't sound like copyright, and it isn't what copyright transfer agreements talk about (although they do ask whether I own all the rights, hence they are mine to transfer -- which I do, and they are). Here are some koans for people to contemplate who fail to see the slippery slope the drafters of PostGutenberg copyright agreements for content face -- as long as the content in question is an author give-away. (The problems are much fewer if both the author and the copyright-tranferee want the content to be non-give-away.) (1) I swear that I have not told the contents to anyone orally. (2) Ok, I did, but never to a group of people. (3) Ok, I did, but never to a large group of people. (4) Ok, I did, but only once. (5) Ok, I did, many times, but it was never audio-taped. (6) Ok, it was audio-taped, but the tape was never aired. (7) Ok, it was aired, many times, worldwide, but it was never stored. (8) Ok, it was stored, but never copied. (9) Ok, it was copied, but never uploaded on the Net. (10) Ok, it was uploaded, many times, but never downloaded. (11) Ok, it was downloaded, many times, but it was never speech-recoged. (12) Ok, it was speech-recoged but the output was never uploaded on the Net. (13) Ok, it was uploaded, but the output was never stored. (14) Ok, it was stored, but never copied. (15) Ok, it was copied, but never uploaded on the Net. (16) Ok, it was uploaded: now what do you want me to do about it? Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html You may join the list at the amsci site. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the section 6.1 (saying that an author is not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement). How do you arrive at that conclusion? Which law says that you are not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement? Stevan has already answered this query most eloquently. I would just add that one hardly needs to cite supporting cases to confirm that someone can assign or license copyright that (s)he lawfully owns to a third party irrespective of what (s)he has done with the materials up until the copyright assignment/licence is signed. Professor Charles Oppenheim Dept of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509-223053
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the section 6.1 (saying that an author is not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement). How do you arrive at that conclusion? Which law says that you are not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement? I would point, instead, to the following passage as misleading: 6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive thecorrigenda Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived since prior to submission, and is not covered by the copyright agreement, which pertains to the revised final (value-added) draft. Hence all you need to do is to self-archive a further file, linked to the archived preprint, which simply lists the corrections that the reader may wish to make in order to conform the preprint to the refereed, accepted version. If this were true, the standard language of copyright agreements would refer to all prior versions of the work. If the work covered by the copyright agreement is substantially the same, using the same language, title, references, etc., then the earlier version is also covered. The exception would be passages deleted from the earlier version. Albert Henderson Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 70244.1...@compuserve.com
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Albert Henderson wrote: 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim the following passage [is] misleading: 6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive thecorrigenda Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived since prior to submission, and is not covered by the copyright agreement, which pertains to the revised final (value-added) draft. Hence all you need to do is to self-archive a further file, linked to the archived preprint, which simply lists the corrections that the reader may wish to make in order to conform the preprint to the refereed, accepted version. If this were true, the standard language of copyright agreements would refer to all prior versions of the work. If the work covered by the copyright agreement is substantially the same, using the same language, title, references, etc., then the earlier version is also covered. The exception would be passages deleted from the earlier version. Albert Henderson unfortunately continues to misunderstand the point here, and I think I know why. He continues to think in completely unreconstructed Gutenberg-era terms, as if the Internet and the digital revolution had never happened, and we were simply speaking about straightforward cases of present and past print-on-paper publication. The case he always has in mind is an author, asked to transfer copyright, while another publisher, a prior one, continues to print and publish and sell the text in question. In such a case, the copyright holder can go after the other publisher, to get him to stop printing or selling the text. But that is not at all the case here! There is no other publisher. The AUTHOR HIMSELF has publicly archived HIS OWN TEXT on-line BEFORE THERE WAS ANY COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT. Having done that, there is no way to stop the cyberjuggernaut: It is like having aired a text on a public-address system and trying to recall the airwaves. Now this PostGutenberg fact is definitely bad news for authors (and publishers) of NON-give-away on-line texts too (e.g. books and for-fee magazine articles), but, because both parties share the same interest, namely, to prevent theft-of-text, the case is less likely to arise (why would a non-give-away author public archive his text online?). And, if it is done by a third party, they both have an interest in bringing legal action against him. (This will not put the public genie back in the bottle either, but it is a deterrent to third parties.) But it is NOT bad news for authors of give-away on-line texts (though perhaps it is still bad news for their publishers), because those authors do not share any interest in preventing theft-of-text: They welcome and benefit from it (in research uptake and impact). But, most important of all, THERE IS NO 3RD PARTY TO GO AFTER! The public self-archiving is past history. It pre-dates the signing of any copyright agreement. And the genie is already out of the bottle, forever. It is this PostGutenberg reality that Albert Henderson is unfortunately finding it impossible to assimilate. He just goes back to replying every time as if this were still the Gutenberg era, and there were still something anyone could do about it. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html You may join the list at the amsci site. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
on 15 Nov 2001 Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: sh 6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive thecorrigenda sh Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived sh since prior to submission, and is not covered by the copyright sh agreement, which pertains to the revised final (value-added) sh draft. Hence all you need to do is to self-archive a further file, sh linked to the archived preprint, which simply lists the sh corrections that the reader may wish to make in order to conform sh the preprint to the refereed, accepted version. sh 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally sh http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim AH the [above] passage [is] misleading: AH [if it] were true, the standard language of copyright agreements AH would refer to all prior versions of the work. AH If the work covered by the copyright agreement is substantially the same, AH using the same language, title, references, etc., then the earlier version AH is also covered. The exception would be passages deleted from the earlier AH version. sh Albert Henderson unfortunately continues to misunderstand the point sh here, and I think I know why. He continues to think in completely sh unreconstructed Gutenberg-era terms, as if the Internet and the sh digital revolution had never happened, and we were simply speaking sh about straightforward cases of present and past print-on-paper sh publication. sh The case he always has in mind is an author, asked to transfer sh copyright, while another publisher, a prior one, continues to sh print and publish and sell the text in question. sh In such a case, the copyright holder can go after the other publisher, sh to get him to stop printing or selling the text. sh But that is not at all the case here! There is no other publisher. sh The AUTHOR HIMSELF has publicly archived HIS OWN TEXT on-line sh BEFORE THERE WAS ANY COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT. Steven is so dazzled by technology he believes that there are special exceptions in what he calls the 'post-Gutenberg era.' There is nothing special, in terms of copyright, in posting a work to an Internet server. The author may be obligated by a copyright transfer to delete what he has archived (an inappropriate term for unreviewed drafts) and to defend the copyright that protects authorship from piracy and plagiarism. I would consider any continuing distribution of unauthorized copies should be considered piratical and subject to whatever prosecution and penalties may exist in law. Albert Henderson Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 70244.1...@compuserve.com
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Albert Henderson wrote: [after] posting a work to an Internet server... [t]he author may be obligated by a copyright transfer to delete what he has archived (an inappropriate term for unreviewed drafts) and to defend the copyright that protects authorship from piracy and plagiarism. I would consider any continuing distribution of unauthorized copies should be considered piratical and subject to whatever prosecution and penalties may exist in law. I give up Albert. Go for it! Prosecute all those unauthorized copies throughout the aether... but don't expect any help from the author. (And do leave plagiarism out of it; it's not at issue: only the piracy the author welcomes is). Stevan
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: I think you have misunderstood. That statement is surely as true as the law of physics that there can be no backward causation is true. I admit that I misunderstood. Yet, I feel that the statement is misleading because an author could be bound by any future agreement, depending on how the agreement is worded. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: But that is not at all the case here! There is no other publisher. The AUTHOR HIMSELF has publicly archived HIS OWN TEXT on-line BEFORE THERE WAS ANY COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT. Having done that, there is no way to stop the cyberjuggernaut: It is like having aired a text on a public-address system and trying to recall the airwaves. Now this PostGutenberg fact is definitely bad news for authors (and publishers) of NON-give-away on-line texts too (e.g. books and for-fee magazine articles), but, because both parties share the same interest, namely, to prevent theft-of-text, the case is less likely to arise (why would a non-give-away author public archive his text online?). And, if it is done by a third party, they both have an interest in bringing legal action against him. (This will not put the public genie back in the bottle either, but it is a deterrent to third parties.) But it is NOT bad news for authors of give-away on-line texts (though perhaps it is still bad news for their publishers), because those authors do not share any interest in preventing theft-of-text: They welcome and benefit from it (in research uptake and impact). But, most important of all, THERE IS NO 3RD PARTY TO GO AFTER! The public self-archiving is past history. It pre-dates the signing of any copyright agreement. And the genie is already out of the bottle, forever. This is not entirely correct. Assuming that an author transfers his whole copyright without reservation to a publisher through an agreement and assuming that the author has not made any other agreements with others before then, the publisher who is the new copyright holder can prevent any more reproduction of the copyrighted work that it now owns. So, right after the moment when the transfer is completed, the copyright holder can stop anyone who has the copy before the agreement is signed from making more copies and distributing them. While it is nearly impossible to find all unauthorized copies on the Internet, the copyright holder always will have the legal means to sue individuals for copyright infringement. For example, if a publisher finds out that an individual copies a copyrighted work on a self-archiving site without a permission from the publisher (after the transfer is completed), the publisher can sue that individual for copyright infringement and the owner of self-archiving site for contributing to the copyright infringement. In order for your approach to work, an author must not transfer his whole copyright to anyone else any time in the future. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: the publisher who is the new copyright holder can prevent any more reproduction of the copyrighted work that it now owns. So, right after the moment when the transfer is completed, the copyright holder can stop anyone who has the copy before the agreement is signed from making more copies and distributing them. While it is nearly impossible to find all unauthorized copies on the Internet, the copyright holder always will have the legal means to sue individuals for copyright infringement. For example, if a publisher finds out that an individual copies a copyrighted work on a self-archiving site without a permission from the publisher (after the transfer is completed), the publisher can sue that individual for copyright infringement and the owner of self-archiving site for contributing to the copyright infringement. In order for your approach to work, an author must not transfer his whole copyright to anyone else any time in the future. Incorrect. You have nearly answered your own question: It is not nearly impossible to find all unauthorized copies on the Internet, it is in practise impossible, and interminable. But the copyright holder (concerned about text-theft) is free to try going after them all. The author (who welcomes text-theft and care only about preventing authorship-theft) can serenely abstain from the chase. Laws that made sense in the Gutenberg era but became unenforcable in the PostGutenberg era are not worth talking about. See: www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0708.html http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0530.htm But my original statement stands: Publicly self-archive online first, then sign the copyright transfer form and you have committed no crime. Stevan Harnad
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim You mention that reference several times at CNI-COPYRIGHT and, I notice, here too. I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the section 6.1 (saying that an author is not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement). How do you arrive at that conclusion? Which law says that you are not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement? I notice that you rely on Charles Oppenheim for the legal opinion but I don't see any references to laws and court decisions that support his opinion. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
At 12:59 09/11/2001 +, you wrote: But EU law also has moral rights, which have no financial value and are non-transferable, and these include the right of the author to be identified as author of the work. I realise the US law is different, but surely it cannot allow false attribution of authorship? Fytton Rowland. An good point, but as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year asking them to, amongst other things, waive their moral rights -- the aim being I believe to be able to build up their article database without the tiresome addition of bylines (and maybe also with an eye to the Tasini ruling). This is as near transferring your rights as it gets I would think. Richard Poynder Freelance Journalist Phone: 0793-202-4032 E-mail: ric...@dial.pipex.com Web: www.richardpoynder.com
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Not true in the UK or most European regimes. The author's moral rights will have been infringed and in Continental Europe these are often inalienable rights which cannot be signed away. Graham Cornish British Library graham.corn...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:jun...@samsara.law.cwru.edu] Sent: 10 November 2001 04:14 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations Joseph Pietro Riolo writes: : If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright : in respect to the right to reproduce. It has nothing to do with : authorship. If you grant me the permission to copy your paper : without any restriction, I can copy your paper and publish it as : my own work. More precisely, under U.S. copyright law, if I make lots of copies of your paper without your license, I will have violated your reproduction right. If I distribute copies of your paper without your license that you have not previously sold to me, I will have violated your distribution right. But neither right has anything to do with who is named as the author. If your paper is in the public domain and not subject to copyright or if you have transferred the copyright to me then if I make or distribute copies of the paper I will not have violated any provision of the U.S. copyright law. On the other hand, in the latter case, I will probably be liable under state law under various legal theories that are not part of the copyright law. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: jun...@samsara.law.cwru.eduURL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: jun...@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. *
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote: as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year asking them to, amongst other things, waive their moral rights -- the aim being I believe to be able to build up their article database without the tiresome addition of bylines (and maybe also with an eye to the Tasini ruling). This is as near transferring your rights as it gets I would think. True, but irrelevant to Elsevier, and the refereed-journal literature that is the concern of this Forum. 1. Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions: 1.1. Distinguish the non-give-away literature from the give-away literature http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1 Journalists work for-fee (free-lance) or salary. They write their texts as works for hire. Their texts are not author give-aways. For that reason, they are in exactly the same category as the non-give-away books which are likewise not the focus of this Forum. On the contrary, it is most important to distinguish the author give-aways that are the concern of this forum (refereed research papers) from the rest of the literature (non-give-aways) as the two have been needlessly forced to share the same Procrustean Bed PostGutenberg for far too long already, to the great cost of research and researchers! Please, in interviewing Elsevier, do not conflate refereed journal articles, written by scientists and scholars to be given away for free (to maximaize their research impact) with newspaper or magazine articles, written by journalists for income. The disanalogy could not be more extreme. I suggest you focus instead on the only substantive question to address to refereed journal publishers (unless you want to be flooded with irrelevant pieties about pricing, value added, licensing, etc., etc.), namely: What is Elsevier copyright transfer policy regarding online self-archiving by Elsevier authors. (And then be vigilant for flummery about untenable distinctions between personal websites and public websites -- the distinction being incoherent and unenforceable, both legally and practically, public online self-archiving being public online self-archiving in any case, and an author's own institutional website being a public eprint website as of the advent of OAI and the resulting eprint archive interoperability.) http://www.openarchives.org http://www.eprints.org Even publisher copyright policy is relevant only in a symbolic sense, for an over-restrictive copyright policy might be wrongly PERCEIVED by some authors as a legal deterrent to freeing their refereed papers online by self-archiving them (whereas of course there is a legal way to self-archive them even in the face of the most restrictive copyright transfer policy). 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0541.html And be sure you are not misled into conflating a journal's submission/embargo policy (the Ingelfinger Rule), which is not a legal matter at all, with bona fide copyright policy. Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0496.html PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html Stevan Harnad
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
At 11:47 12/11/2001 +, you wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote: as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year asking them to, amongst other things, waive their moral rights -- the aim being I believe to be able to build up their article database without the tiresome addition of bylines (and maybe also with an eye to the Tasini ruling). This is as near transferring your rights as it gets I would think. True, but irrelevant to Elsevier, and the refereed-journal literature that is the concern of this Forum. 1. Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions: 1.1. Distinguish the non-give-away literature from the give-away literature http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1 Journalists work for-fee (free-lance) or salary. They write their texts as works for hire. Their texts are not author give-aways. For that reason, they are in exactly the same category as the non-give-away books which are likewise not the focus of this Forum. Right but one of the problems refereed literature faces is that it is increasingly being appropriated by commercial organistions who, in the pursuit of profit, don't necessarily understand (or certainly agree) with the distinctions you are making. So the likelihood that you will be able to force them into separate beds (let alone divorce them) is becoming less and less likely as time moves on. On the contrary, it is most important to distinguish the author give-aways that are the concern of this forum (refereed research papers) from the rest of the literature (non-give-aways) as the two have been needlessly forced to share the same Procrustean Bed PostGutenberg for far too long already, to the great cost of research and researchers! Please, in interviewing Elsevier, do not conflate refereed journal articles, written by scientists and scholars to be given away for free (to maximaize their research impact) with newspaper or magazine articles, written by journalists for income. The disanalogy could not be more extreme. Actually I have hit an obstacle with the interview. I'm hoping I can resolve it, but if not I will be happy to share my experiences with the mailing list.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote: sh Journalists work for-fee (free-lance) or salary. They write their texts sh as works for hire. Their texts are not author give-aways. For that reason, sh they are in exactly the same category as the non-give-away books which sh are likewise not the focus of this Forum. Right but one of the problems refereed literature faces is that it is increasingly being appropriated by commercial organistions who, in the pursuit of profit, don't necessarily understand (or certainly agree) with the distinctions you are making. So the likelihood that you will be able to force them into separate beds (let alone divorce them) is becoming less and less likely as time moves on. The important thing is not that publishers should understand or agree. The important thing is that researchers and their institutions and their funders should understand (for once they understand, they will certainly agree). And the author give-away/non-give-away distinction is a distinction of fact and logic, not something publishers need to be forced to agree about! Nor is there need for any divorce. All that is needed is for researchers to realize at last that the freeing of their refereed (published) research papers is in their own hands: they can legally self-archive it regardless of what their publishers' copyright transfer policy is. (The strategy merely requires one trivial extra step if the publisher's copyright transfer policy is of the most restrictive kind.) With publishers, the only important thing is that their copyright transfer policy be clearly understood by researchers, so they understand what they need to do to free their refereed papers (legally). That is why it is important at least to get publishers to understand their own copyright transfer policy well enough to make it explicit! Incoherent distinctions (such as personal vs. public self-archiving on the web) simply perpretuate confusion. This is the confusion you might help to dissipate if you ask the right questions. The rest can be left to the good sense of researchers and their institutions. Let us just clear the air of obscurity and obfuscation. Actually I have hit an obstacle with the [Elsevier] interview. I'm hoping I can resolve it, but if not I will be happy to share my experiences with [this Forum]. Interview with Elsevier Science http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1604.html Many thanks. (Maybe if you reassure them that you are not going after them with the usual questions about rising prices and library serial crises, they will be less reticent...) Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html You may join the list at the amsci site. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Joseph Pietro Riolo writes: : If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright : in respect to the right to reproduce. It has nothing to do with : authorship. If you grant me the permission to copy your paper : without any restriction, I can copy your paper and publish it as : my own work. More precisely, under U.S. copyright law, if I make lots of copies of your paper without your license, I will have violated your reproduction right. If I distribute copies of your paper without your license that you have not previously sold to me, I will have violated your distribution right. But neither right has anything to do with who is named as the author. If your paper is in the public domain and not subject to copyright or if you have transferred the copyright to me then if I make or distribute copies of the paper I will not have violated any provision of the U.S. copyright law. On the other hand, in the latter case, I will probably be liable under state law under various legal theories that are not part of the copyright law. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: jun...@samsara.law.cwru.eduURL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: jun...@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I am afraid that the copyright discussion with Joseph Riolo is at cross-purposes because we are systematically discussing different kinds of texts, different kinds of authors, different kinds of purposes and different kinds of problems. The original question on this thread concerned whether the copyright that an author transfers to the publisher covers the text FORM or the text CONTENT: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1583.html [forwarding from Rainer Stumpe.] Scott Melon asked What is copyrighted - the science or the look? Is there a difference? A little light was cast by Riolo on this question but the emphasis was transfered to Riolo's own suggestion that instead of merely making one's text public online, one should make it public-domain. That strategy and its consequences were not further examined, although I pointed out that this Forum's concern was only with one special, author-giveaway literature, the refereed research literature, for which the strategy of declaring the text to be public-domain before submitting it for publication was not a viable one, because the publisher required at least some limited transfer or license in order to protect on-paper sales. That right would no longer be the author's to provide, if his text were public-domain prior to submission. Questions were also raised about protection from plagiarism (authorship-theft) if a text is public-domain, and it was pointed out that all author concerns about future sales (text-theft) are completely irrelevant for the special literature in question (refereed research). Unfortunately, the replies are non sequiturs, not addressing the very specific, and limited, concerns of this special literature (refereed research), which are to make it public and free on-line, but also to get it refereed and certified as accepted by a journal publisher, and to prevent anyone else from publishing it as if they had been its author. Riolo pointed out that copyright law does not stop you from stealing someone's ideas and publishing them as your own. I pointed out that that was not the issue with text-plagiarism. In reply to my remark: SH But you can't publish his words and claim to be their author. On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com wrote: I can only if the original author sold his whole copyright without any restriction to me. The point that I want to tell you is that the U.S. copyright does not give the author, except for the authors of visual art, the right of authorship. We are talking at cross purposes. Give-away authors (the authors of refereed research papers) do not SELL their copyrights to their publishers, they GIVE them. And they do not seek or get a penny of the revenue from the sales. And the point, to which the statement But you can't publish his words and claim to be their author was a rebuttal, was your point that copyright law does NOT offer protection from plagiarism. That is incorrect. It does, insofar as the verbatim text is concerned. And by way of reply, what you say above is simply a non sequitur. If the author retains the copyright, copyright law protects him against anyone who tries to steal the author's text (by re-publishing it verbatim) or, a fortiori, by re-publishing the text under his own name. The same is true if the author transfers copyright to the publisher. (I certainly haven't heard any cases of publishers publishing a text under anyone else's name than the author's, and this too is too far-fetched a case to bother with when real, substantive matters are it issue, for the the authors of the refereed research papers that are the only ones of concern here.) But the give-away author does not CARE if his refereed research paper is re-published verbatim, or sold, by anyone, as long as the text is uncorrupted and the author's name remains as author. This is the basis of the distinction between protection from text-theft and from authorship-theft for the give-away (as opposed to the non-give-away) author. (Riolo also did not reply to the question about protection from authorship-theft if an author makes his text public-domain [Riolo's recommended strategy]. In replying, there is no point making any mention of potential or actual text-sale revenue, and who holds the rights to it: they are completely irrelevant.) If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright in respect to the right to reproduce. It has nothing to do with authorship. If you grant me the permission to copy your paper without any restriction, I can copy your paper and publish it as my own work. I can only repeat: Give-away authors are happy to cede the right to reproduce, but not to reproduce under someone else's name. They accordingly either retain the copyright (which protects against both of these things, only one of which do they care about) or they transfer it to their publishers (who care about both). The case Riolo keeps focusing on (because the
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I find it very hard to believe that this is an accurate statement of US law! It implies that, if I write a novel and then I choose to sell its copyright absolutely to Stevan Harnad, he can then publish it, not just for his financial benefit, but with Stevan Harnad as author! Surely not. In European Union law the distinction is clear. Copyright, as the term intellectual property implies, is a piece of property that can be bought and sold; so if I sell the right to make copies of my novel to Stevan, he can quite legitimately sell as many copies of it for his sole profit as he likes (but with me identified as author on the title page). But EU law also has moral rights, which have no financial value and are non-transferable, and these include the right of the author to be identified as author of the work. I realise the US law is different, but surely it cannot allow false attribution of authorship? Fytton Rowland. At 05:30 AM 11/9/01 -0500, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: But you can't publish his words and claim to be their author. I can only if the original author sold his whole copyright without any restriction to me. The point that I want to tell you is that the U.S. copyright does not give the author, except for the authors of visual art, the right of authorship. (Let us not get into the technical question of how many words, or how different they have to be to be no longer the author's words. Since we are concerned only with refereed research papers, if you publish my paper as your own, you are in violation of CA. Let's leave the questions of originality, priority, attribution, citation and credit to the referees, editors, patent offices, funding agencies and prize committees. Those are not copyright issues.) If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright in respect to the right to reproduce. It has nothing to do with authorship. If you grant me the permission to copy your paper without any restriction, I can copy your paper and publish it as my own work. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com ** 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: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
In European Union law the distinction is clear. Copyright, as the term
intellectual property implies, is a piece of property that can be bought
and sold; so if I sell the right to make copies of my novel to Stevan, he
can quite legitimately sell as many copies of it for his sole profit as he
likes (but with me identified as author on the title page). But EU law
also has moral rights, which have no financial value and are
non-transferable, and these include the right of the author to be
identified as author of the work. ...
The U.S. does not have the moral rights for many kinds of works
except for the visual art works. The right of authorship that
is owned by the authors of the works of the visual art cannot be
transferred to other people but can be waived by the authors.
I realise the US law is different, but
surely it cannot allow false attribution of authorship?
As long as the writer understands the consequence and gives up
all of his copyright to the pseudo-author in exchange for money
or other things, that is their business.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
ri...@voicenet.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: I am afraid that the copyright discussion with Joseph Riolo is at cross-purposes because we are systematically discussing different kinds of texts, different kinds of authors, different kinds of purposes and different kinds of problems. When you forwarded your posts to CNI-COPYRIGHT, I assumed that I am allowed to make comments on your comments about copyright. The distinction that you made between the protection against copying of the text and the protection against the false claim of authorship in the same text is not correct in the context of the U.S. copyright. That strategy and its consequences were not further examined, although I pointed out that this Forum's concern was only with one special, author-giveaway literature, the refereed research literature, for which the strategy of declaring the text to be public-domain before submitting it for publication was not a viable one, because the publisher required at least some limited transfer or license in order to protect on-paper sales. That right would no longer be the author's to provide, if his text were public-domain prior to submission. Then, putting a work in the public domain is not for you. (Riolo also did not reply to the question about protection from authorship-theft if an author makes his text public-domain [Riolo's recommended strategy]. In replying, there is no point making any mention of potential or actual text-sale revenue, and who holds the rights to it: they are completely irrelevant.) There is no protection against the false claim of authorship in the public domain works. That is the price of the freedom in the public domain, which is too high for many authors. I can only repeat: Give-away authors are happy to cede the right to reproduce, but not to reproduce under someone else's name. ... In the context of the U.S. copyright, what these authors is actually doing (or supposed to do) is that they impose restrictions on the right to reproduce (i.e. I grant you the permission to reproduce my article as long as you don't copy it and claim that you write it.). They don't give up the right to reproduce unconditionally. Also, they don't retain the right of authorship because it simply does not exist in the U.S. copyright (except for the visual art). Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: There are two almost entirely independent dimensions of copyright protection: CT: Protection from theft-of-text (piracy, illicit acquisition or sale of the copyright owner's text) and CA: Protection from theft-of-authorship (plagiarism, the claim to having written the author's text). In the U.S., copyright does not protect authors from plagiarism. I can read an article written by another person, get all the ideas and facts from the article, and write a new article using my own words to express the same or similar ideas and facts without giving any credit to the person. That is because ideas and facts are in the public domain and no one can own them exclusively. Section 106A in the U.S. Copyright Law allows only the authors of the works of the visual art such as artists to claim the authorship only for their works. But, they cannot claim authorship over the uncopyrightable items in their works and copyrightable items that are independently created by other people in their works. That is where we differ. Joseph Pietro Riolo ri...@voicenet.com Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote: There are two almost entirely independent dimensions of copyright protection: CT: Protection from theft-of-text (piracy, illicit acquisition or sale of the copyright owner's text) and CA: Protection from theft-of-authorship (plagiarism, the claim to having written the author's text). In the U.S., copyright does not protect authors from plagiarism. I can read an article written by another person, get all the ideas and facts from the article, and write a new article using my own words to express the same or similar ideas and facts without giving any credit to the person. But you can't publish his words and claim to be their author. (Let us not get into the technical question of how many words, or how different they have to be to be no longer the author's words. Since we are concerned only with refereed research papers, if you publish my paper as your own, you are in violation of CA. Let's leave the questions of originality, priority, attribution, citation and credit to the referees, editors, patent offices, funding agencies and prize committees. Those are not copyright issues.) That is because ideas and facts are in the public domain and no one can own them exclusively. Section 106A in the U.S. Copyright Law allows only the authors of the works of the visual art such as artists to claim the authorship only for their works. But, they cannot claim authorship over the uncopyrightable items in their works and copyrightable items that are independently created by other people in their works. Try publishing X's copyrighted poem as your own... That is where we differ. I think we differ about the kind of literature we have in mind. (And I think there are no substantive UK/US differences involved here [Charles O.?].) Stevan Harnad
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
At 10:51 25/10/01 +0100, Fytton Rowland wrote: At 07:12 PM 10/24/01 +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Joseph Ransdell wrote: Question: Can the third party list the URl of that paper on his or her own website? Of course! (Do you know of any legislation that dictates what [non-porno, non-terrorist] URL anyone can list on anyone's website?) Not legislation, but litigation under Scottish law. The Shetland Times case concerned a newly founded e-newspaper (The Shetland News) which included in its website a link to the website of its old-established print competitor, The Shetland Times. The latter took the matter to court to try to force the removal of the link -- presumably on the grounds that users of the News site might imagine that the material in the Times, linked to, was in fact part of the News. Others (Charles Oppenheim?) will be able to report what the outcome of the case was, but I believe it was not clear-cut. This perennially resolves to the issue of framing rather than linking. Looking at my Perspectives in Electronic Publishing http://aims.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pep.nsf (PeP by category-Legal-Hyperlinks :-) shows JILT published a couple of papers that reflect on these issues: Alex Morrison (1999) Hijack on the Road to Xanadu: the Infingement of Copyright in HTML Documents via Networked Computers and the Legitimacy of Browsing Hypermedia Documents http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt//99-1/morrison.html Dan L Burk (1998) Proprietary Rights in Hypertext Linkages http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/intprop/98_2burk/default.htm Steve Hitchcock Open Citation (OpCit) Project http://opcit.eprints.org/ IAM Research Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
A question for Stevan Harnad: What about the following sort of case: Suppose the copyright assigned to the publisher permits the author to: mount your version of the article on your personal World Wide Web home page and/or that of your employer's, provided that you (a) cite the Journal as being the original place of publication and acknowledge XXX as the copyright owner, and (b) provide an electronic link from your article to the Publisher's home page for the journal. And suppose the author has in fact taken advantage of this by mounting his or her version of the article either on his or her personal website or on the employer's website, complying with (a) and (b) as well. Question: Can the third party list the URl of that paper on his or her own website? It would no doubt be best if the author's employer had an OAI-compliant Eprint Archive, but the number of such employers will almost certainly be quite small for quite a long time to come, and in the interim a portal website specialized to the author's professional field would accomplish much the same thing simply by listing it along with its URL. Moreover, the generic OAI search engine could be modified to include a separate (but cross-referenced) list of all known papers (with URL) available via URL on all such websites -- or, indeed, on any websites whatever. The papers so listed and thus made available would not have the special benefits that accrues to the paper as OAI-compliant, such as identifiability and retrievability via string or keyword searches, but it would still be identifiable from its title and retrievable by its URL. Is there any legal problem with this? i.e. with a third-party website listing of papers by title and URL, where the paper is archived in accordance with the permission specified in the quoted passage above? 2nd Question: What about the case where there is no such special permission mentioned in the copyright transference? Is there any legal problem in this case? Best regards, Joseph Ransdell ransd...@door.net Professor Emeritus Dept of Philosophy Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Joseph Ransdell wrote: Suppose the copyright assigned to the publisher permits the author to: mount your version of the article on your personal World Wide Web home page and/or that of your employer's, provided that you (a) cite the Journal as being the original place of publication and acknowledge XXX as the copyright owner, and (b) provide an electronic link from your article to the Publisher's home page for the journal. And suppose the author has in fact taken advantage of this by mounting his or her version of the article either on his or her personal website or on the employer's website, complying with (a) and (b) as well. Question: Can the third party list the URl of that paper on his or her own website? Of course! (Do you know of any legislation that dictates what [non-porno, non-terrorist] URL anyone can list on anyone's website?) It would no doubt be best if the author's employer had an OAI-compliant Eprint Archive, but the number of such employers will almost certainly be quite small for quite a long time to come, and in the interim a portal website specialized to the author's professional field would accomplish much the same thing simply by listing it along with its URL. I hope you are wrong that there will be few University Eprints Archives for a long time to come! But in any case, yes, the glue of interoperability allows all the metadata and links to be harvested and recombined and portalled in any way one wishes (apart from plagiarism). Moreover, the generic OAI search engine could be modified to include a separate (but cross-referenced) list of all known papers (with URL) available via URL on all such websites -- or, indeed, on any websites whatever. This is getting into technical matters in which I am not sufficiently informed. As far as I know, OAI search engines harvest metadata from OAI-compliant data archives (Eprint Archives). It cannot harvest metadata from non-OAI-compliant websites. (On the other hand, ResearchIndex, taking a more activist approach to harvesting, can: http://www.researchindex.com/) (Perhaps Steve or Lee could reply for ResearchIndex, and Herb or Carl or Hussein could reply for OAI?) The papers so listed and thus made available would not have the special benefits that accrues to the paper as OAI-compliant, such as identifiability and retrievability via string or keyword searches, but it would still be identifiable from its title and retrievable by its URL. You mean the title of the URL document (if it has one)? Because that, plus the URL itself, and whatever google can invert and booleanize from its contents, is all you can count on. No author-name, no article-title, no publication-date, no journal-name, etc. (This is why metadata tagging conventions like OAI are som important. Without them a document may be buried in an unmarked common grave.) Is there any legal problem with this? i.e. with a third-party website listing of papers by title and URL, where the paper is archived in accordance with the permission specified in the quoted passage above? It would astonish me if there were -- and would astonish me even more if there were any way to enforce it even if there were... Isn't the public accessibility and manipulability and re-resentability of URLs and their page contents the principle on which search engines like google are based? Does it make any difference what we call the symbol-recombinations that this generates (archives, caches, search-results, etc.)? 2nd Question: What about the case where there is no such special permission mentioned in the copyright transference? Is there any legal problem in this case? Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to papers that may have been archived in violation of copyright? Hard to enforce, but I guess enforcers could try to go after the original site, if they can find and prove it. But all they can do with sites that have linked to or harvested those URLs would be to ask them to drop the link or the copy (if they can!). I detect a lot of inadvertent Gutenberg thinking behind these PostGutenberg questions. It's another world we're talking about now. Stevan Harnad
Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I confirm Stevan's interpretation is correct. it is also worth noting that the publishers' copyright in layout and typography is, in the UK at least, confined to print publication only and does not refer to any electronic form. Professor Charles Oppenheim Dept of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Peter Suber wrote: [forwarding from Rainer Stumpe.] Scott Melon asked What is copyrighted - the science or the look? Is there a difference? The answer is: both. When an author has signed a standard copyright transmission form, the publisher has all rights to produce copies of the submission. Only the moral rights are retained by the author. If the author has deleted the term exclusive copyright in the transfer form, he/she may produce copies (print or electronic) in addition of the publisher. The copyright to the layout and typography is without question with the publisher. The delicate issue is, that by transferring the copyright on a journals article to the publisher exclusively, the author may not even post the original manuscript in different layout and typography on the web or duplicate it in print. A brief discussion of copyright issues, including links to the current versions of copyright laws can be found at http://www.EuroSciPubl.de. Enjoy reading the law! Rainer Stumpe European Science Publisher mailto:stu...@euroscipubl.de I am forwarding this to Charles Oppenheim, for his view. My own is this: This is Gutenberg (on-paper) reasoning, and it is simply moot in certain respects in the (on-line) Post-Gutenberg medium. The question, as put, is, Does the copyright of a text pertain to just the form or the content? On this, I plead nolo contendere, but on the SUBSTANTIVE question, specific to the only literature with which the self-archiving initiative is concerned, namely, the author-giveaway refereed-research literature, the following is the only case that needs to be brought into focus: (1) The author of an unrefereed report of scholarly/scientific research does the research, writes the manuscript, and publicly self-archives it on the Net as an unrefereed, unpublished preprint. (2) This means, for all intents and purposes, that that particular text has gone irreversibly into the public bowels of the Internet, a Pandora's box that can never again be fully closed, no matter what anyone tells you. (3) Pause: Has there been any possible violation of copyright yet (assuming the work was not plagiarized!)? Obviously not. Copyright has not been transferred. Copyright for that unrefereed, unpublished preprint rests wholly with its author. (4) At the time of this public self-archiving or some time thereafter, that same unrefereed, unpublished preprint is submitted for refereeing to a peer reviewed journal. (5) The submitted manuscript is refereed; it may or may not undergo several rounds of revision and re-refereeing; and it may or may not eventually be accepted for publication. (6) If and when it is accepted for publication, THAT final draft, including the value added by the refereeing process (and perhaps also the editing, markup, formatting), is the one on which the author is asked to transfer copyright to the publisher. (7) (Parenthetically, the author of this kind of work should transfer to the publisher all rights to sell, lease, or give away that draft, on-paper or on-line, in perpetuo, with the exception of the author's write to publicly self-archive that refereed final draft too, just as its unrefereed precursor had been publicly self-archived. If this one modification of the copyright transfer agreement is accepted by the publisher [and many publishers will accept -- all one need do is ask] then there is no further issue to discuss. We now proceed to (8) to cover that minority of cases where the publisher declines to publish unless all rights are transferred.) (8) If (7) is refused, the author merely self-archives and links a corrigenda file to the already self-archived preprint, indicating publicly what changes need to made in the already publicly archived preprint in order to make it equivalent to the final draft. So you see, for this particular, anomalous, author give-away literature, the question of whether it is the form or the content for which copyright has been tranferred does not even come up. N.B. Do not confuse this copyright issue, which is a legal matter, with a related, nonlegal, submission-policy issue, the Ingelfinger Rule. Journals that happen to have this submission policy proclaim that they will not referee or publish submissions that have already been self-archived publicly on the Net. There are things to be said about such policies, and ways to get around them, but as they have nothing to do with the copyright question, I will just point that out, and leave it at that. See:
