Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather, others,

let's not mix things up. Copyright is not intended and useful to make 
provenance chains in scholarly communication reliable, complete and efficient. 
The norms of attribution in science and scholarship are separate from copyright 
or public domain status. There are created, maintained and changed through 
disciplinary cultures, not laws. Intellectual property laws are different in 
different parts of the world. If what you say is true we would have witnessed a 
huge problem with scholars using but not citing e.g. government documents, out- 
of copyright works, public domain dedicated works etc., which is not the case 
as far as I know. Copyright and licenses given by the holders of copyright tell 
us what the copyright holders and the law allow you and what not. They do NOT 
tell you what is expected or accepted in academia or science and scholarship in 
general.

The choice to allow or prohibit use with a commercial intent is for every 
rights holder or author him/herself to make. But please note that choices made 
on the basis of your dislike of Elsevier have the effect of disallowing (re)use 
of your output by e.g. any self-employed or retired scholar giving lectures for 
money and using e.g. images created by you. They can also have the effect of 
university teachers of commercial summer school courses of those universities 
to reuse of distribute your work among 5 students in their class. With the 
increasing abundance of publications, data, images, code etc this will often 
mean they will use other material that fits their needs 95% instead of your 
material that would fit their need 100%. They will not contact you to offer 
payment for that image created by you. Thus, choosing limited licenses would 
mean a disservice to science, scholarship and teaching and also a disservice to 
your self. In the internet age allowing liberal use of your output will quite 
likely bring you more opportunities and better helps building a reputation than 
limiting it.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:02 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Public domain is not consistent with the attribution requirements of 
scholarship, regardless of length of the term. Two conundra:

1) If we use Plato's ideas we are obliged to cite them. This is important not 
just for author moral rights, but to establish a chain of evidence. If I quote 
Plato then someone else goes to the original, finds that I have misquoted, and 
critiques my work, this is a service to scholarship. Professors need to teach 
good citation practices; public domain for recent works sends the wrong 
message. Taking the work of another author, modifying it and submitting as your 
own work is legal if the work is public domain, but it is plagiarism.

2) Building a reputation for our research is critical to the success of a 
scholar's career. For this reason public domain is problematic.

Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by 
academics are not consistent with academic freedom. If I am required to publish 
my work as CC-BY, Elsevier is free to profit from my work, even though I have 
chosen to participate in the Elsevier boycott. This is a violation of my 
academic freedom.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us>
Date: 2018-03-23 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>
Cc: "Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>, Schoolcom 
listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow
limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may
limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but
most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are
claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors
might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.

David Wojick

At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 P

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

The mistake you make here is assuming that PUP's marketing efforts had nothing
to do with the book's gaining that wide audience.  And no one is going to spend
that kind of money when there is no return on investment, and it is copyright
protection that incentivizes that investment.  You might as well assume that
posting a book to the Internet is all it takes for something to become popular.
 PUP's book got widely reviewed because it was published in the normal way. The
value of a review in the Sunday New York Times or the New York Review of Books,
etc., should not be underestimated.  Do you think the book would have gotten
the attention it did if it had been published just as an article that was open
access?  I seriously doubt it.

Sandy Thatcher

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 04:58 PM Tony Ross-Hellauer <tr...@know-center.at> wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I know it’s a side-issue, but fwiw the 2005 edition of On Bullshit actually
is exactly the same text as the 1986 essay – just stretched out over 80 pages
by putting it in really large font (which is itself, ironically, a form of
bullshit imho):
https://books.google.at/books?idpzNItiO7oC=frontcover=gbs_ge_summary_r=0#v=onepage
>
>But in any case, the assertion that the “serendipity” of the text becoming so 
>popular in 2005 depended on its copyright protection in 1986 seems wrong to me 
>– one could just as well argue the counterfactual, that if it had been openly 
>licensed in 1986 (and hence not locked up in a journal issue), then some 
>enterprising person might have had the bright idea to popularise it at the 
>time, and printed their own book run.
>
>Note here I’m only saying that Frankfurt’s text could have become just as 
>popular (seen/read by as many people) in a CC BY world – not that 
>Frankfurt/PUP might not have missed out on some profits. But I think the 
>profit argument is a misnomer here anyway, since the primary point of 
>copyright was always meant to be “To promote the Progress of Science and 
>useful Arts” - not to enrich authors/publishers.
>
>In any case, I second David’s point, that the greater good of the principle of 
>OA should be seen to outweigh such rare cases where academic texts become 
>accidental best-sellers.
>
>Best, Tony
>
>
>From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> On Behalf Of Ross 
>Mounce
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 5:17 PM
>To: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us>
>Cc: Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>; SANFORD G 
>THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>; Schoolcom listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
>Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
>researcharticles
>
>The "On Bullshit" example is quite an interesting one.
>But I looked it up for the finer details of it - it is clearly not just a 
>simple "reprint".
>
>Frankfurt’s essay "On Bullshit" was just 20 pages [Raritan Quarterly Review 6 
>(1986) pp 81-100]
>
>Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit" is 80 pages [Princeton University Press (2005)]
>
>Just because a work shares a theme, a title, and an author, doesn't mean it is 
>the same work.
>Had the original 20 page essay gone into the public domain, the new book would 
>clearly still be copyrightable and just as sellable - it is a substantially 
>different, enlarged work.
>
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>Ross
>
>On 23 March 2018 at 16:05, David Wojick 
><dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote:
>Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are sufficiently 
>great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. Keep in mind too 
>that if any article flows from federal funding it will already be made public 
>after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript will be, albeit in some 
>cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
>
>David
>
>
>At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
>the opportuni

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Tony Ross-Hellauer]

Hi all,

I know it’s a side-issue, but fwiw the 2005 edition of On Bullshit actually is 
exactly the same text as the 1986 essay – just stretched out over 80 pages by 
putting it in really large font (which is itself, ironically, a form of 
bullshit imho): 
https://books.google.at/books?id=bFpzNItiO7oC=frontcover=gbs_ge_summary_r=0#v=onepage=false

But in any case, the assertion that the “serendipity” of the text becoming so 
popular in 2005 depended on its copyright protection in 1986 seems wrong to me 
– one could just as well argue the counterfactual, that if it had been openly 
licensed in 1986 (and hence not locked up in a journal issue), then some 
enterprising person might have had the bright idea to popularise it at the 
time, and printed their own book run.

Note here I’m only saying that Frankfurt’s text could have become just as 
popular (seen/read by as many people) in a CC BY world – not that Frankfurt/PUP 
might not have missed out on some profits. But I think the profit argument is a 
misnomer here anyway, since the primary point of copyright was always meant to 
be “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” - not to enrich 
authors/publishers.

In any case, I second David’s point, that the greater good of the principle of 
OA should be seen to outweigh such rare cases where academic texts become 
accidental best-sellers.

Best, Tony


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> On Behalf Of Ross 
Mounce
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 5:17 PM
To: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>; SANFORD G 
THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>; Schoolcom listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

The "On Bullshit" example is quite an interesting one.
But I looked it up for the finer details of it - it is clearly not just a 
simple "reprint".

Frankfurt’s essay "On Bullshit" was just 20 pages [Raritan Quarterly Review 6 
(1986) pp 81-100]

Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit" is 80 pages [Princeton University Press (2005)]

Just because a work shares a theme, a title, and an author, doesn't mean it is 
the same work.
Had the original 20 page essay gone into the public domain, the new book would 
clearly still be copyrightable and just as sellable - it is a substantially 
different, enlarged work.


Kind regards,


Ross

On 23 March 2018 at 16:05, David Wojick 
<dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote:
Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are sufficiently 
great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. Keep in mind too 
that if any article flows from federal funding it will already be made public 
after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript will be, albeit in some 
cases. subject to copyright restrictions.

David


At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
<dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote:
>
>We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
>
>You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
>scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
>foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
>
>I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors
>are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
>copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
>
>We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
>should become public domain quickly.
>
>As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
>directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public
>Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not
>see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
&g

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Heather Morrison]

Public domain is not consistent with the attribution requirements of 
scholarship, regardless of length of the term. Two conundra:

1) If we use Plato's ideas we are obliged to cite them. This is important not 
just for author moral rights, but to establish a chain of evidence. If I quote 
Plato then someone else goes to the original, finds that I have misquoted, and 
critiques my work, this is a service to scholarship. Professors need to teach 
good citation practices; public domain for recent works sends the wrong 
message. Taking the work of another author, modifying it and submitting as your 
own work is legal if the work is public domain, but it is plagiarism.

2) Building a reputation for our research is critical to the success of a 
scholar's career. For this reason public domain is problematic.

Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by 
academics are not consistent with academic freedom. If I am required to publish 
my work as CC-BY, Elsevier is free to profit from my work, even though I have 
chosen to participate in the Elsevier boycott. This is a violation of my 
academic freedom.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us>
Date: 2018-03-23 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>
Cc: "Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>, Schoolcom 
listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow
limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may
limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but
most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are
claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors
might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.

David Wojick

At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
> >
> >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are
> >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them.
> >Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will
> >already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript
> >will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
> >
> >David
> >
> >At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
> >>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies,
> there
> >>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got
> reprinted
> >>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned
> well over
> >>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny
> >>authors
> >>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for
> anthologies
> >>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
> >>
> >>Sandy Thatcher
> >>
> >>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
> >>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000
> copies
> >>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
> >>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP
> >>denied
> >>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make
> this kind
> >>of serendipity impossible to achieve?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
> >> >
> >> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
> >> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
> >> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
> >> >
> >> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher
> authors
> >&

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

But you still have to determine what is and what is not a journal article for
these purposes. Does it include an article in a semi-popular publication like
Scientific American or National Geographic? Even articles in places like the
New York Review of Books can be very scholarly, complete with footnotes, and
make important contributions to scholarship.   How do you define "scholarly
article" for purposes of legislation?

Sandy Thatcher

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 02:30 PM David Wojick  wrote:
>
>Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow 
>limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may 
>limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but 
>most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are 
>claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors 
>might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.
>
>David Wojick
>
>At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>>
>>Sandy Thatcher
>>
>>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick  wrote:
>> >
>> >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are
>> >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them.
>> >Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will
>> >already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript
>> >will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>> >At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>> >>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, 
>> there
>> >>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got 
>> reprinted
>> >>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned 
>> well over
>> >>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny
>> >>authors
>> >>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for 
>> anthologies
>> >>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
>> >>
>> >>Sandy Thatcher
>> >>
>> >>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
>> >>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 
>> copies
>> >>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
>> >>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP
>> >>denied
>> >>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make 
>> this kind
>> >>of serendipity impossible to achieve?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick  
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
>> >> >
>> >> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
>> >> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
>> >> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
>> >> >
>> >> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher 
>> authors
>> >> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
>> >> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
>> >> >
>> >> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
>> >> >should become public domain quickly.
>> >> >
>> >> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
>> >> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the 
>> Public
>> >> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I 
>> do not
>> >> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
>> >> >
>> >> >David
>> >> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors 
>> needn't
>> >> >>invent it, just adopt it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, 
>> whatsoever.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
>> >> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
>> >> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make 
>> America
>> >> >>Great Again"...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
>> >> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
>> >> >>warming in which DW does not 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[David Wojick]

Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow 
limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may 
limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but 
most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are 
claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors 
might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.

David Wojick

At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick  wrote:
> >
> >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are
> >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them.
> >Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will
> >already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript
> >will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
> >
> >David
> >
> >At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
> >>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, 
> there
> >>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got 
> reprinted
> >>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned 
> well over
> >>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny
> >>authors
> >>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for 
> anthologies
> >>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
> >>
> >>Sandy Thatcher
> >>
> >>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
> >>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 
> copies
> >>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
> >>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP
> >>denied
> >>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make 
> this kind
> >>of serendipity impossible to achieve?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick  
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
> >> >
> >> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
> >> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
> >> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
> >> >
> >> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher 
> authors
> >> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
> >> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
> >> >
> >> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
> >> >should become public domain quickly.
> >> >
> >> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
> >> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the 
> Public
> >> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I 
> do not
> >> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
> >> >
> >> >David
> >> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> >> >
> >> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) 
> wrote:
> >> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors 
> needn't
> >> >>invent it, just adopt it.
> >> >>
> >> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, 
> whatsoever.
> >> >>
> >> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
> >> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
> >> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make 
> America
> >> >>Great Again"...)
> >> >>
> >> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
> >> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
> >> >>warming in which DW does not believe...)
> >> >>
> >> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick
> >> >><dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
> >> >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright 
> law be
> >> >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short
> >> time.
> >> >>
> >> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public
> >> >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See
> >> >>below and also at
> >> >> ght >>

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Heather Morrison]

Who would benefit from public domain (or CC-BY) as default to scholarly works? 
I argue: Elsevier would be the greatest beneficiary, and would do so through 
using such works as part of toll access products such as Scopus and their 
metadata services sold to rankings agencies (e.g. Times Higher Education for 
their World University Rankings) and universities. 

The idea of a reduced term of copyright for scholarly works is an appropriate 
one to raise, and the question of doing so after a one-year embargo is 
provocative. As context for my comments, please note that I am a strong 
supporter of reducing the terms and scope of copyright for all works. However, 
public domain for scholarly works within a year of publication raises a lot of 
questions that merit serious consideration before moving forward with policy 
recommendations. One such is: who would benefit? 

I argue that the organizations in the best position to profit from CC-BY or 
public domain are the large commercial scholarly publishers with lots of money 
to invest and a major advantage of being able to combine such works with the 
large collections of back issues to which they own exclusive copyright. For 
example, Elsevier can include all public domain or CC-BY works in Scopus, which 
is a toll access service. This would increase their profitability (even more 
content with less investment on their part, makes Scopus more of a must-have 
for libraries so strengthens their negotiating position). This is just as true 
of CC-BY as it is of public domain, and one of the reasons I argue against 
either CC-BY or public domain as a default for scholarly works. Other large 
commercial scholarly publishers such as Springer are potential beneficiaries as 
well, although Elsevier would be a tough competitor for any of them.

There are other major issues that merit consideration. Sandy Thatcher has 
pointed out that authors sometimes receive remuneration for their works after 
one year. I acknowledge and support this argument. For those of us with the 
benefit of well-paid tenured positions, this may be not be a salient issue, at 
least as long as we don’t have to go out on strike to protect our pensions.  
However, a great deal of research is conducted by emerging scholars - students, 
post-docs, new professors without the benefit of tenure. In some areas, 
precarity if becoming more prevalent in academia. To me this means that one of 
the underlying bases of open access, the old tradition of scholars giving away 
their works, is under threat and should no longer be taken for granted. 

Thank you for cross-posting this. FYI to those on both lists, I am not on 
scholcomm so please feel free to forward this reply.

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor | Professeure agrégé
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work 
into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?

Sandy Thatcher

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick  wrote:
>
>Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are 
>sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. 
>Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will 
>already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript 
>will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
>
>David
>
>At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
>>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
>>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
>>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny 
>>authors
>>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
>>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
>>
>>Sandy Thatcher
>>
>>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
>>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
>>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
>>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP 
>>denied
>>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
>>of serendipity impossible to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick  wrote:
>> >
>> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
>> >
>> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
>> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
>> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
>> >
>> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors
>> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
>> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
>> >
>> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
>> >should become public domain quickly.
>> >
>> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
>> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public
>> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not
>> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
>> >
>> >David
>> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>> >
>> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
>> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't
>> >>invent it, just adopt it.
>> >>
>> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
>> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
>> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America
>> >>Great Again"...)
>> >>
>> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
>> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
>> >>warming in which DW does not believe...)
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick
>> >><dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
>> >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be
>> >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short 
>> time.
>> >>
>> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public
>> >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See
>> >>below and also at
>> >>>
.html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html
 
>>
>> >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy 
>> proposal.
>> >>
>> >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for
>> >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.
>> >>
>> >>Comments?
>> >>
>> >>David
>> >>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Public Access limited copyright?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my
>> >>newsletter: "Inside Public Access"
>> >>
>> >>Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Ross Mounce]

The "On Bullshit" example is quite an interesting one.
But I looked it up for the finer details of it - it is clearly not just a
simple "reprint".

Frankfurt’s essay "On Bullshit" was just 20 pages [Raritan Quarterly
Review 6 (1986) pp 81-100]

Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit" is 80 pages [Princeton University Press
(2005)]

Just because a work shares a theme, a title, and an author, doesn't mean it
is the same work.
Had the original 20 page essay gone into the public domain, the new book
would clearly still be copyrightable and just as sellable - it is a
substantially different, enlarged work.


Kind regards,


Ross

On 23 March 2018 at 16:05, David Wojick  wrote:

> Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are
> sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them.
> Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will
> already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript
> will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.
>
> David
>
>
> At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>
>> Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies,
>> there
>> was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got
>> reprinted
>> many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well
>> over
>> $10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny
>> authors
>> that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for
>> anthologies
>> in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
>>
>> Sandy Thatcher
>>
>> P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
>> article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000
>> copies
>> for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
>> public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP
>> denied
>> the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this
>> kind
>> of serendipity impossible to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
>> >
>> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
>> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
>> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
>> >
>> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher
>> authors
>> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
>> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
>> >
>> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
>> >should become public domain quickly.
>> >
>> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
>> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the
>> Public
>> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do
>> not
>> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
>> >
>> >David
>> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>> >
>> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\)
>> wrote:
>> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors
>> needn't
>> >>invent it, just adopt it.
>> >>
>> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo,
>> whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
>> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
>> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make
>> America
>> >>Great Again"...)
>> >>
>> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
>> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
>> >>warming in which DW does not believe...)
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick
>> >><dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
>> >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law
>> be
>> >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short
>> time.
>> >>
>> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public
>> >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See
>> >>below and also at
>> >>> limited-copyright .html>http://davidwojick.blogs
>> pot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html
>> >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy
>> proposal.
>> >>
>> >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written
>> for
>> >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright
>> protection.
>> >>
>> >>Comments?
>> >>
>> >>David
>> >>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Public Access limited copyright?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[David Wojick]

Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are 
sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. 
Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will 
already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript 
will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions.

David

At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny 
>authors
>that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP 
>denied
>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
>of serendipity impossible to achieve?
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick  wrote:
> >
> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
> >
> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
> >
> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors
> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
> >
> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
> >should become public domain quickly.
> >
> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public
> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not
> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
> >
> >David
> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> >
> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't
> >>invent it, just adopt it.
> >>
> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.
> >>
> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America
> >>Great Again"...)
> >>
> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
> >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
> >>warming in which DW does not believe...)
> >>
> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick
> >><dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
> >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be
> >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short 
> time.
> >>
> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public
> >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See
> >>below and also at
> >> .html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html
>  
>
> >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy 
> proposal.
> >>
> >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for
> >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >>
> >>David
> >>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Public Access limited copyright?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my
> >>newsletter: "Inside Public Access"
> >>
> >>Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law
> >>to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense.
> >>
> >>Â Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has
> >>written a thought provoking book and
> >> s-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D=email=4!92321690$4+272699400>blog
>  
>
> >>article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make
> >>research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright
> >>law to do just that.
> >>
> >>Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):
> >>
> >>"Canada is recognizing