Re: copyright protection paper

["Elizabeth Gadd" <E.A.Gadd@lboro.ac.uk>]

The RoMEO analysis reported only on what was explicitly written in the
publishers' agreements.  Thus if they did not have or mention a US Gov
option then it wasn't counted.  About 50% of the agreements were non-US.
Similarly, if a publisher did not explicitly permit self-archiving, even
if they would allow it after individual negotiation, it was not considered
a true usage right.  This is all reported in the article at
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/RoMEO%20Studies%204.pdf

Best
Elizabeth
**********************************************************
Elizabeth Gadd, Academic Librarian (Engineering)
Editor, Library and Information Research
Pilkington Library, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU
Tel +44 (0)1509 222344
Fax +44 (0)1509 223993
e.a.gadd@lboro.ac.uk
*********************************************************

> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: copyright protection paper
>
> There's something odd about the findings that have been described in
> recent messages, in that publishers -- at least US publishers are all
> perfectly aware of the Copyright Act's Secion 105 (government works on
> government time, etc.) and do have appropriate forms for these works.  I
> am sure that compliance is around 100%.  Perhaps neither study (Romeo or
> Cox)  specifically intended to cover that kind of situation.
>
> Furthermore, the reported percentage of publishers permitting posting of
> an author's work on the web and/or other rights, seems to me lower than
> real-life experience suggests.  Most publishers will - often unasked but
> sometimes one needs to ask -- permit posting to web sites and also broad
> re-use by the author in various ways.  Authors probably do not not have
> all the rights we would ideally like, but the progress/change in the right
> direction has been truly significant over the past 5-10 years.
>
> As to Sally Morris's question below, it is the right one.  When publishers
> accept articles, they add value and readers, whether of government-funded
> or private works, are paying for that value-added.  Thus, just because an
> article is freely available, doesn't necessarily mean it is or will be
> available for free.  Increasingly, readers (libraries) will be affirming
> that the value added is high, when they choose to pay to subscribe to a
> journal.
>
> Ann Okerson/Yale Library
> ann.okerson@yale.edu