From: Darby Orcutt <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:30:50 -0500 Ann, I look at a lot of academic book contracts, and this sort of arrangement (#3 in the blog post) seems fairly common in that arena. It may be a matter of semantics as to whether it is a transfer or partial transfer of copyright. Most of the contracts I've seen make it very clear that "copyright" remains solely with the authors, but that the publisher has the exclusive right to publish/enforce/grant rights to publish, translate, etc. the work (essentially, all or the most important of the rights one normally associates with holding copyright). One could reasonably argue that this constitutes partial or even full transfer of copyright without calling it that. I suspect that this language originated when academic authors began to hear the message that they should retain their copyright, with many publishers responded by allowing them to keep "copyright" while still signing over any real power that such might have. I have seen this arrangement in journal contracts, although I can't remember exactly where at the moment; IIRC, the agreement is typically an exclusive license for a period of time (several months to some number of years, depending on frequency of publication, subscription cycles, and agreements with aggregators), and then non-exclusive after that (allowing for continued leases to aggregators and leases/sales of backfiles). Best, Darby Darby Orcutt Chair, Humanities & Social Sciences Subject Team Assistant Head, Collection Management Department North Carolina State University Libraries Box 7111 Raleigh, NC 27695-7111 [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/