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:
Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:03:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (109 lines)
From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:50:38 +0000

I think this is good example of what I said in another email -
different types of materials need to be dealt with using different
rules.  the needs of an author publishing an academic book are
different than an academic author publishing an article, which are
VERY different from an entertainment company publishing a fiction work
or a movie or video game.  So we need different rules for different
types of materials, but also for different types of markets.  The
academic market IS NOT the literary or entertainment markets, and
should not be treated as such.  Academia is, in most cases, a not for
profit endeavor.  That's an entirely different universe and using the
rules which govern a for profit universe tends to break some
fundamental things.

Sandy's arguments are reasonable and make perfect sense for a
for-profit system.  I don't think university presses should have ever
been forced into that paradigm, but that's where all the budget cuts
have led us:(


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eric Elmore
Electronic Resources Coordinator
The University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX.  78249-0671
(O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577
[log in to unmask]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:42:14 -0600

"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


> From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:04:59 -0500
>
> It's interesting, Sandy, that in each of your examples you speak of
> the original creators, while in scholarly publishing it is the
> intermediaries.
>
> To be more analogous, you might say,
>
> Are you saying, Kevin, that copyright no longer works for any
> industry, or is it just the scholarly publishing industry you want to
> see relieved of copyright protection?  Do you believe, say, the
> recording industry should just give away their music for free and try
> to make a living on concerts, selling t-shirts, etc.? How about trade
> book publishers, or publishers of textbooks?  How about art galleries
> and agents, or film distributors, etc.?
>
> Because of course, in the case of academic publishing, it is the
> authors who have been relieved of copyright "protection", and the
> authors often have copyright protection wielded against them.
>
> For instance, the academic author of a textbook with whom I recently
> worked who was misled by a major academic publisher into believing he
> would be able to publish his work in his own language -- and then was
> told that the rights were kept from him "for his own protection."
>
> Or the numerous authors who have had to pay publishers for the
> privilege of re-using their own work in various contexts.
>
> ----------------------------------
> 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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2