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

Re: NEJM editorial on open access

Yes, the editorial has a fundamentally flawed understanding of copyright
law.  I've sent a letter to the editor explaining why and am waiting to
hear whether it will be published.  The upshot is that the editorial
assumes that the NIH proposal would divest publishers of copyright in
NIH-funded articles.  This simply is wrong.  Publishers come to own
copyrights by contract, and nothing in the proposal affects the validity
of those contracts.


Michael W. Carroll
Associate Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
610-519-7088 (voice)
610-519-5672 (fax)

See also www.creativecommons.org
>>> bernies@uillinois.edu 10/10/04 7:02 PM >>>

There's a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that
supports the NIH OA proposal, but expresses concern that "The NIH proposal
is silent on the issue of copyright."

The PubMed citation for this editorial follows:

1: N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 23;351(13):1343. Public access to biomedical
research. Drazen JM, Curfman GD. Publication Types: Editorial PMID:
15385662 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Bernie Sloan
E-mail: bernies@uillinois.edu