From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:15:44 -0600
17 USC 101 (the definitions portion of the Copyright Act) defines
transfer. An "exclusive license" is a transfer. So "retaining
copyright" but "exclusively licensing" all of the rights of copyright
is in fact a transfer of copyright. Also, it's still a transfer even
with time or geographic limitations, if the license is exclusive.
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage,
exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
----------------------------------
Laura Markstein Quilter / [log in to unmask]
Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher
Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
[log in to unmask]
Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
[log in to unmask]
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:30:23 -0500
>>
>> Maybe I misread the blog posting -- it seemed to me to say that one
>> option for an author is to transfer partial copyright, rather than the
>> full set of rights.
>>
>> We know that copyright can be divided, so one could theoretically
>> transfer certain rights and retain the rest. This type of division of
>> rights can be called a license, for sure -- but licenses can be
>> identified for any given period of time. For an author's license to
>> be a true "partial transfer of copyright," wouldn't it need to specify
>> that it is for the entire duration of the applicable copyright period?
>>
>> Are authors' licenses to publishers generally written with this kind
>> of specific language, in effect making them serve as a partial
>> copyright transfer?
>>
>> In the case of Haworth below, a non-exclusive license can't possibly
>> be a partial transfer of copyrights, can it?
>>
>> Or maybe I'm splitting hairs here. Or asking my question poorly. I
>> suppose I'm saying that a partial copyright transfer and a license are
>> not the same thing.
>>
>> Thoughts are welcomed. Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:12 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > From: "Blobaum, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:35:30 +0000
>> >
>> > Sure, Look at the Journal of the Medical Library Association. This
>> > was common with Haworth journals before Taylor and Francis bought it.
>> > Authors retain copyright but give JMLA non exclusive license.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > Paul Blobaum, M.A., M.S.
>> > Follow my scholarship at: http://works.bepress.com/paul_blobaum
>> > Full Professor
>> > College of Health and Human Services Librarian Liaison
>> > Scholarly Communications Librarian
>> > Governors State University Library
>> > University Park, IL 60484 708-534 4139 pblobaum at govst dot edu
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]
>> > Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:26:15 -0500
>> >
>> > Here's an interesting blog posting -- does anyone know of any
>> > scholarly journals in which authors transfer copyright partially to
>> > their publishers? In principle it could be done, but do any journals
>> > do this?
>> >
>> > http://knowledgeisotopes.com/blog/open-access-and-copyright-the-changing-landscape-in-scholarly-publication/
|
