[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Negotiating

Anthony, you've got the issue exactly. Why should we give publishers that
right? They do not have it with printed matter. Once they have shipped us
a copy of that defamatory material, at least in the US they can not get it
back again--certainly not without a court order.  If they publish
actionable material they may have to pay, but it remains published.

Electronic journals will in my eyes be unreliable until the same right
exists. After we succeed in getting the version below adopted, I would
propose "The publisher warrants that it will not remove material from the
site except if legally required by the final judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction; the publisher further warrants that it will use
every feasible legal effort to prevent the removal."

As always, my personal view only. I don't know how many of my colleagues
feel quite as strongly as I do about this, but I hope all of them do.


Anthony Watkinson wrote:
> I agree with David in principle. There are often two sets of lawyers in
> the background taking extreme positions and the publisher usually has its
> lawyers more under control i.e. it is easier for a publisher to change
> terms than it is for a state university where the state attorney has much
> more power. However as a publisher I would want to hold on to the right to
> remove material if I thought it was (for example) defamatory rather than
> having spend money getting a court judgement or just a judgement by a
> lawyer.
> Anthony Watkinson
> 14, Park Street,
> Bladon
> Woodstock
> Oxfordshire
> England OX20 1RW
> phone +44 1993 811561 and fax +44 1993  810067