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

RE: NEJM editorial on open access

The editorial also misunderstands the role of copyright in science
communication. We have also sent a letter to the editor, necessarily very
short, but a longer version is here:

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Carroll
> Sent: 11 October 2004 23:51
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: 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.
> Best,
> 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)
> >>> 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