Re: copyright protection paper

["Sally Morris" <sec-gen@alpsp.org>]

Yes, I agree that we may not actually need copyright at all - that's
exactly what I said earlier!

I don't believe it's fair to say that publishers are by any means abusing
the system;  pretty much all, I would say, are well aware of the different
copyright arrangements for Government works in various countries, and deal
with these entirely correctly - where they don't, I would suspect
ignorance rather than anything worse.  The situation has various
complications, however:

o Does the author herself know whether she is entitled to transfer
  copyright?  (This is a widespread problem not only with Government 
  works...)
o There may be multiple authors, some of whose work is subject to
  different rules from others
o The rules may only apply in the author's own country

In addition, it's sometimes quite difficult (depending on their system)
for a publisher to include different copyright lines - or none at all - on
specific articles;  though I think many are making the necessary
adjustments as this becomes more of an issue.  And of course, the overall
copyright of the journal as a whole does still belong to the publisher
(including, in the UK at least, the 'typograpic arrangement' of each
article) and they are, in most cases, the first point of call for those
seeking permissions etc.

It is also difficult to ensure that permissions staff have easy access to
accurate information about whether there are any rights, and if so who
owns them, in each individual item;  again, I would say this is improving,
but it's not easy (or cheap) to create an appropriate system if you don't
already have it.  In the absence of information, it is a rational
assumption on the part of hard-pressed staff that if someone has requested
permission, it's because they need it.

In addition, I don't think it is quite true that publishers can cover all
their costs (and necessary reinvestment etc - as outlined in previous
postings) with primary subscription revenue, particularly these days.
Secondary income, though of course much smaller, is increasingly
important. And like primary income, it is justified not by the ownership
(or even existence) of copyright, but by the value that the publisher has
added.

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: copyright protection paper

Responding to Sally Morris, below:
>
> "I don't see that publishers have no right to collect payment for articles
> they have published, irrespective of their copyright status. "
>
> Interesting point, but If you are REALLY saying Publishers can charge
> copyright fees for articles by government employees where they do not own
> the copyright,  -based on  alternative USES I.e. ILL, classroom handouts,
> etc.  of that material then I think you have proven my point that
>  publishers are abusing the system.
>
> "As Ann Okerson points out, they have done work and expended money on 
> all the processes leading to publication - if they didn't get paid for 
> this, how would they continue to perform that function?"
>
> Publishers do get paid for the overall subscription. so the "if they
> didn't get paid" is a chestnut.
>
> "And I don't think the issue is really whether or not the reader knows
> that the work is in the public domain (in the USA, at least - I agree 
> with comments that the same works may not in fact be public domain for 
> users in other countries).  The author knows - or should know - and, to 
> me, the question is whether they (or their employer) actually do 
> anything about it. Are Govt works habitually openly deposited anywhere?  
> Not that I know of"

[SNIP]

> to quote my buddy  Rick Anderson.
> IMHBCO.
> Chuck