Re: American Physiological Society - Comments re. NIH Proposal

["James A. Robinson" <jim.robinson@stanford.edu>]

> I don't qualify as legally trained, but I do not have to be, in order to
> recognize that the APS arguments about copyright are nonsense; nobody
> proposes to take away existing copyright. It is no more a violation of
> copyright for the NIH to set specific publication requirements on
> extramural work, than it is for work at Bethesda.

Hi David,

I'm certainly no legal mind, but unless I misunderstand the current model
(very possible) I think you might be glossing over a detail. The proposal
reads, in part, that the

    NIH intends to request that its grantees and supported Principal
    Investigators provide the NIH with electronic copies of all final
    version manuscripts upon acceptance for publication if the research
    was supported in whole or in part by NIH funding.

Am I incorrect in understanding that the authors normally grants control
of the copyright to the publisher as a condition of publication? What
happens if an author decides to publish an article in a journal which
agrees to the NIH proposal?  Doesn't it means the existing copyright model
(where the publisher is given the copyright) is no longer feasible?

The way I read it, agreeing to the phrase above indicates the author must
maintain the copyright, otherwise they would have no right to grant
permission for distribution of the manuscript by the NIH.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for or against the NIH model here, I'm just saying
I think the APS is making a valid point that this proposal affects the
current copyright schemes and means that either a) the publishers will
need to reformulate their legal documents to allow the author to retain
copyright (or to allow distribution to the NIH for OA publication) or b)
the NIH will need to ask permission of the publisher.  Clearly the NIH is
interested in the first occurring, not the last.  I think this means that
the APS is arguing that the NIH has no right to force it's copyright
changes on the APS (and let's face it, the NIH is clearly trying to force
the changes as it KNOW that many publishers depend on publications which
were in part or in whole funded by the NIH).

Jim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
James A. Robinson                       jim.robinson@stanford.edu
Stanford University HighWire Press      http://highwire.stanford.edu/
650-723-7294 (W) 650-725-9335 (F)