From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 23:48:36 -0500

Some authors, who are registered with the CCC, get payments from the
CCC directly. Most authors get a share of income through their
publishers, if those publishers (as many university presses do)
include a sharing arrangement in the terms of their contract). At Penn
State our contract shared all such revenue 50/50 with authors. A few
authors even made thousands of dollars over the years. Publishers
don't need to "track" income from CCC; the CCC reports it regularly to
publishers and provides a place on its web site where publishers can
get lots of information about what income is generated through the
CCC's programs.

Also -- Written transfers of copyright were not required under the
1909 Copyright Act. Only after the 1976 Act came into effect in 1978
did publishers generally start using contracts for copyright
assignments.

Sandy Thatcher


At 9:02 PM -0400 4/2/14, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 00:06:06 +0000
>
> And some of that CCC income stream ends up in author's pockets ?  I
> don't think so. I've got several articles CCC tracks. But never seen a
> cent.nor ever heard of any author of articles who has. When i asked
> the publisher assured me it wasn't large enough a source to warrant
> tracking it.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:20:41 -0500
>
> On the question of uniformity of language across journal contracts,
> I'd be surprised if there is a publisher of multiple journals that
> does not strive for such uniformity, which is important for reasons of
> both efficiency and legality.  Having every author want to negotiate
> special language and additional clauses (such as the "author's
> addendum" that was pushed by various library and other academic
> groups) adds hugely to publishing costs, and smaller publishers
> especially would find it difficult to operate in this manner.
>
> Turning over rights to a publisher is, again, important for both
> practical and legal reasons. Practically, if every request for a
> subsidiary rights license had to be sent to an author, the whole
> system would become much more complicated and slow, and centralized
> facilities like the CCC would not be able to provide the service they
> do.  Also, if publishers received only nonexclusive rights, they would
> have no legal standing to sue for infringements that occurred, and
> authors would have to bear that burden alone.
>
> I think Jim needs to start hanging out with some more smart publishers
> instead . . .
>
> Sandy Thatcher