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

RE: commercial crimes -- & NIH?

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

Bonnie Klein   

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Banks [mailto:pbanks@diabetes.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:47 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
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

Peter Banks
Acting Vice President for Publications/Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> cahamake@email.uncc.edu 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

"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

"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

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