Re: ILL's, licensing, and the French Revolution

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

"Specifically, in the following statement, how does it follow that a "high
standard of quality" follows from transfer of copyright?"

It isn't the transfer of copyright itself that protects the quality and
integrity of the work, but rather the copyright holder's insistence that
the work not be altered or condensed without the author's permission.

BMC's agreement with authors (much like PLoS's) effectively forces authors
to surrender any right to control the misuse and misstatement of the work.

Yes, authors retain copyright, but on the condition that "Anyone is free:

    * to copy, distribute, and display the work;
    * to make derivative works;
    * to make commercial use of the work."

There is virtually nothing to stop commercial exploitation of the work.
That is why Springer's agreement protects integrity and quality, while
BMC's does not.

If we really want to safeguard the quality of literature in an OA model,
it would seem preferable to allow the authors to retain the right to
approve all uses of the work. Otherwise, what is presented as advancing
the interests of authors does precisely the opposite.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> brs4@lehigh.edu 01/30/05 2:41 PM >>>

Two comments (or perhaps questions) relating specifically to licensing
issues in relation to ILL.

I'll take this opportunity, however, to direct those who are interested in
broader issues to see my posting "Of Burke, Publishing, and the Terror"
at:  https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1556.html (I'm
actually not a Burkean, but rather an Aristotelian; just wanted to invoke
one aspect of the former's thought in this context.)

Ok, here now are the comments relating to licensing/ILL issues:

1. Regarding David Prosser's comments below about why commercials have
regarded it as in their self-interest to permit ILL's of print, I think
the reasoning is "spot on". However, I fail to see why the reasoning does
not also apply to electronic subscriptions to journals, granting that of
course it does not (logically) apply to open access electronic journals,
since these are free to all.

2. Unrelated to all this, can someone explain the logic of Springer's
author pays OA model as explained at:
http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,1-40359-12-115393-
0,00.html

Specifically, in the following statement, how does it follow that a "high
standard of quality" follows from transfer of copyright?

"To protect the rights of authors and to guarantee a high standard of
quality, Springer will continue to require standard consent-to-publish and
transfer-of- copyright agreements. Copying, reproducing, distributing, or
posting of the publisher's version of the article on a third party server
is not permitted.  This enables Springer to provide the benefit of free
online access while preserving scientific integrity and author
attribution."

Springer's policy contrasts markedly with BioMed Central's, at:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/

"No copyright transfer needed

You keep the copyright on your research articles. This means you can post
your research on your personal home page, print as many copies as you like
and e- mail your paper around to colleagues, provided that correct
citation details are included on the article and that BioMed Central is
duly identified as the original publisher. Alternatively, for a small
charge, you can order high quality reprints of your article."

So according to Springer's logic, BioMed Central is going to compromise
quality in some way. How does this follow?

Brian Simboli