[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- From: "Klein, Bonnie" <BKlein@DTIC.MIL>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:38:25 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Most savvy publishers understand contract law and include a section in their copyright transfer agreements specifically for US Government Contractors and Grantees to acknowledge Government sponsorship. These clauses recognize the Government's prior rights license. The Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR) and OMB Grants guidance stipulate that awardees give the Government a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or disclose their work by or on behalf of the Government. The Government may use the work within the Government without restriction, and may release or disclose the work outside the Government and authorize persons to whom release or disclosure has been made to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose the work on behalf of the government. The Government's license includes the right to distribute copies of the work to the public for government purpose. While the contractor or grantee may assign its copyright in "scientific and technical articles based on or containing data first produced in the performance of a contract" to a publisher, the Government's license rights attach to the articles upon creation and later assignment by the contractor or grantee to a publisher are subject to these rights. Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is what constitutes a government purpose. Be advised it is the prerogative of Government agencies and Congress to define what that is based on mandate and mission. In 2004 the US House Appropriations Committee directed NIH to provide "free and timely access to the published results of all NIH-funded biomedical research." In deference to publishers, NIH has been very conservative in its approach of voluntary compliance. This is subject to change depending on how the US House Appropriations Committee views the success of the program based on a progress report due Feb 2006. Stayed tuned. Bonnie Klein -----Original Message----- From: Peter Banks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:47 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: commercial crimes The tough new stance is rather ironic at a time when the the federal government, at NIH, is itself engaged in copyright infringement, posting copies of manuscripts in PMC in violation of existing copyright agreements. Peter Banks Acting Vice President for Publications/Publisher American Diabetes Association Email: firstname.lastname@example.org >>> email@example.com 11/15/05 6:32 PM >>> US DoJ offers to jail copyright infringers: Attorney General floats tough new law By Tony Smith, The Register, 11th November 2005 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/11/doj_floats_ippa/ "US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proposed tough new copyright enforcement laws that would criminalise consumers simply for trying to make unauthorised copies of music, movies and software, whether they are successful or not." * Blog: Hollywood Demands New Piracy Laws By Jon Newton, MP3 Newswire, 11/13/05 http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/demand.html "Microsoft, Apple and other owners of the BSA (Business Software Alliance), together with the entertainment cartels, are demanding that America's Cheney/Bush administration adds new commercial 'crimes' to US law. From: digital-copyright Digest 14 Nov 2005 16:00:00 -0000 Issue 568 Chuck Hamaker Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte
- Prev by Date: Announcement: Oxford University Press launches Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice
- Next by Date: JAMA & Archives Journals
- Previous by thread: Announcement: Oxford University Press launches Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice
- Next by thread: RE: commercial crimes -- & NIH?