LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:54:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:50:01 -0600

So, you're saying that the authors want to have the rights under their
control even if they have no intention of ever doing anything with
them? How does that help scholarly communication? Imagine how
inefficient use of articles in coursepacks would be if every teacher
had to get in touch with every author about use of his or her articles
rather than using a centralized permissions service? If authors had to
track down every author individually for permissions needed for
reproducing materials not covered by fair use, rather than going to
just a few publishers?  We've heard in other discussions how often
scholars wanting copies of articles from their authors get no replies
at all to their requests.  Publishers and organizations like the CCC
perform a valuable service facilitating the efficient reuse of
scholarly works.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 21:50:44 -0500
>
> There are ways of copyright being wielded short of litigation, and I
> have seen many. And it's nice to believe that authors would rather not
> be bothered with the detail, but that's not really an ethical
> justification for the one-sided contacting that prevails in academic
> publishing.
>
> On Mar 8, 2016 12:03 AM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:42:14 -0600
>>  Subject: Re: SciHub
>>  "Relieved" of copyright protection, seriously?  I've never met a
>>  scholar who published with a university press that would speak in
>>  those terms.  That smacks of coercion which, if actually present,
>>  would invalidate a contract.
>>
>>  The truth of the matter is that very few academic authors want to be
>>  bothered with all the details that are involved in negotiating and
>>  selling licenses for subsidiary uses. And few care to become experts
>>  in knowing what kind of fees to set, what clauses to include in
>>  licenses, how to defend themselves when license terms are violated,
>>  etc. That is why, in academic publishing generally, "all rights"
>>  transfers have been standard. Academic publishers have taken on the
>>  burden of fulfilling the functions that in trade publishing are
>>  handled by literary agents. Every academic contract I have seen
>>  provides for splitting the income from subsidiary rights with authors,
>>  usually 50/50 and, for some rights, 75/25 in favor of the author.
>>  Authors are not forced to sign these contracts; they do so because
>>  they don't want the responsibilities that come with handling
>>  subsidiary rights.
>>
>>  Also, in the relatively few cases where authors express an interest in
>>  handling a specific subsidiary right, say, a translation into a
>>  foreign language about which the author has some expertise, the
>>  publisher generally cedes that right back to the author so that the
>>  author can handle the transaction separately.
>>
>>  You talk about copyright protection being wielded against authors. Can
>>  you cite any examples of academic publishers suing their authors for
>>  infringement of copyright?
>>
>>  Sandy Thatcher

ATOM RSS1 RSS2