Previous by Date Index by Date
Threaded Index
Next by Date


Previous by Thread Next by Thread


Re: Non-exclusive licenses & copyright

Having had my comments on "final ownership of copyright" wrenched out of
context (admittedly with acknowledgement that the context had changed).  I
would a) like to reiterate that I did not feel that copyright was divisible
between author and publisher, but rather could (continue to) be handled by
exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, both in the analogue and the digital
worlds; and b) to add my five eggs to Ann Okerson's specific questions:

I've lost track of how many MEDLINE CD-ROM vendors there are, each with its
own spin (!) - different search software, different opportunities for full
text, different ways of  aggregating years onto different numbers of disks.
Presumably, these appeal to different market requirements, which could only
be met by a non-exclusive license that lets a thousand flowers bloom in the
groves of academe. In this case, we have the Natural Library of Medicine
holding an exclusive right to process non-exclusive licenses.  
This slightly paradoxical-sounding formulation is at the heart of the
operation of the UK's Copyright Licensing Agency (of which my society is
half owner), which holds the exclusive license to provide photocopying
licenses on a non-exclusive basis on behalf of British rightsholders.
Technically, this seems to be an efficient way to handle rights to
intellectual property that may be applied in a wide range of ways.

Finally, as to the authors' point of view, non-exclusivity tends to mean
more competition, lower prices and frequently a wider audience. Authors like
to be read, and would prefer to have ten readers paying a markup of 1 pound
or dollar rather than one reader paying 10 pounds/dollars, while publishers
would tend to think the other way (less units to sell, less legwork,
overheads, etc.). So we would have no problem with plural non-exclusive
licenses - an attitude that is also clearly appropriate to the user
community as well. 

With regard to Ann's latest contribution to this thread:

>there are quite a few differences between secondary services and primary
>texts such as books and journals, and so it is not clear to me whether the
>transition (to e-) by journal publishers will be parallel to A&I, only 20
>years later. 

At a tangent to this observation, I would note that, during this transition,
there will be a great deal of dispute as to where primary publication
resides - on paper or in the electronic version. Some publishers are now
maintaining that the electronic version of a journal is the primary
publication, as it is increasingly the first artifact to arise -  but this
surely means that the paper version becomes a secondary product. I believe
that, irrespective of which is the cart and which the horse, there are two
objects there, and an additional use is being made of content for little
additional added-value effort. This has significance in considering the
division of the spoils.

>Let's say that the publisher now receives non-exclusive transfers from authors,
>who themselves also make the work available in alternative ways (on their
>web sites, on preprint servers, etc.).  I suppose one of the biggest
>differences is that the publisher, let alone all the e-service providers
>or aggregators, could be in a position of competing with the author as
>well as with their "usual" competitors (other aggregators). 

Personally, I feel that authors who "compete" by splitting the publication
track and putting their published work up for free in pre-print or
subversive (cf Steven Harnad) post-print archives may be speeding up
scholarly communication, but are doing themselves a financial injustice,
because they are grossly underestimating the economic value of their work.
The science division of Reed-Elsevier posted operating profits in excess of
40% last year...  We feel that authors shouldn't be put in a position of
attempting to out-publish publishers, but rather to continue to out-write
them. There would be no temptation to compete in this domain if they could
share equitably in the rewards.

>Also, the competitive edge may come more from service than content.
>Doesn't this
>put additional control in the hands of the successful aggregators (rather
>than the primary publishers -- or perhaps even the authors)? 

If the licence is right, all parties should benefit - and this includes the
issue of control as well. Aggregators should seek to license control over
their ability to aggregate, and nothing more, publishers to primary
publication, etc. It is clear that there are many specific rights included
under the general umbrella of "electronic rights", and each one deserves
individual treatment. 


CHRIS ZIELINSKI
Secretary General, ALCS
74 New Oxford Street, London WC1A 1EF, United Kingdom
Tel: (0044)-(0)171 255 2034 - Fax: (0044)-(0)171 323 0486




http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense
© 1996, 1997 Yale University Library
Please read our Disclaimer
E-mail us with feedback