Re: copyright protection paper

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

The survey which John and Laura Cox carried out (which included all the
largest publishers and a fair slice - though probably slanted (a) towards
UK and (b) towards not-for-profit publishers - of the medium and small
ones) asked them about their policy, not what their public document if any
actually said.  It is therefore conceivable that some have policies which
are not fully reflected in their public document - though this would seem
unlikely.  Perhaps we were just asking different publishers?

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Gadd" <E.A.Gadd@lboro.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection paper

> 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 Gadd, Academic Librarian (Engineering)
> e.a.gadd@lboro.ac.uk