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, 11 Apr 2013 19:04:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:02:05 -0400

At Haworth Press we gave journal article authors 50% of any subsidiary
rights.  True, the amounts were not high, but  author satisfaction in
getting an unexpected check for $200 or $300 was enormous.

 Bill

On 4/10/13 2:54 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:01:43 +0000
>
> I was told tracking individual payments for journal articles was too
> insignificant and too much trouble when I asked about this at Pergamon
> Press and then Elsevier.
>
> Chuck Hamaker
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 00:21:05 -0500
>
> It is not universally true that revenues from reprint and other
> subsidiary rights sales are not shared with authors of journal
> articles.  In this respect, at Penn State University Press, we treated
> our journal authors in the same way as we treated our book authors,
> sharing income from most subsidiary rights 50/50. We are not the only
> publisher that pursued this practice either. It is not clear to me why
> most publishers decided not to treat journal and book authors the same
> way. Perhaps some other publisher can explain the rationale for the
> difference in treatment.
>
> Sandy Thatcher

ATOM RSS1 RSS2