Re: Covert Article Republishing Discovered in Emerald/MCB UP 1989-2003

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Lawyers on this list will be able to cite the specific law in the U.S.
(which grew out of a company many years ago selling used motor oil in a
package that made it look new, as I recall) which requires prior
publication of material to be noted on the "new" product.  This is why you
will often see in a bookstore a dictionary, say, with a line on the jacket
to the effect that the book was "based on the Random House Unabridged
Dictionary" or whatever.  So I wonder if the republishing incident
discussed here is not only a terrible trade practice, but perhaps a
violation of law.

Speaking as a commercial publisher, I am often not surprised that so many
people hate us.



On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:40:12 EST, Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I don't want to detract from David Goodman's argument for refunds, but
> need to correct one fact, "Online Information Review" reprinted at least
> one review originally submitted to "Reference Reviews".  The author is a
> colleague of mine at Cornell and she also could not remember granting
> permission for republication.  It was a shock to find her article
> published twice.
> 
> The Canadian encyclopedia
> Horne, Angela (reviewer)
> Online Information Review; Volume 26 No. 6 pp.431-432; 2002
> 
> The Canadian encyclopedia
> Horne, Angela (reviewer)
> Reference Reviews; Volume 16 No. 6 pp. 49-50; 2002
> 
> Your question about refunds will need to be answered by management at
> Emerald.