Re: NEJM editorial on open access

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.

Joe Esposito

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:39:14 EDT, Jan Velterop wrote:
> 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:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=21
> 
> 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
> >
> > >>> 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