From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:15:44 -0600 17 USC 101 (the definitions portion of the Copyright Act) defines transfer. An "exclusive license" is a transfer. So "retaining copyright" but "exclusively licensing" all of the rights of copyright is in fact a transfer of copyright. Also, it's still a transfer even with time or geographic limitations, if the license is exclusive. A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 ---------------------------------- 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] > 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/