RE: OA Mandates, Embargoes, and the "Fair Use" Button

[sgt3@psu.edu]

Actually, Stevan, I think it is confusing to speak of a fair use 
button at all here. The reason is that if something can be used 
under fair use, no permission is required at all. Now, under your 
closed/delayed access scenario, the would-be user obviously can't 
obtain a copy without gaining access somehow to it, and so the 
function of your fair use button is to provide a mechanism for 
the author to give the requestor access to the article. But this 
is tantamount to giving permission to the user, and if permission 
is explicitly given in this way, fair use really doesn't pertain. 
So it doesn't make sense to employ the terminology here; it is a 
red herring. Call it a permission or access button instead.

The point still remains that you were talking about a scenario 
where the author already signed a contract, and you claimed that 
fair use rights remain the author's prerogative even after 
signing such a contract. Rick and I agree that this is not so. 
Fair use rights for everyone else remain, but not the author. 
Once a contract is signed, the author is bound by the terms and 
fair use doesn't apply.

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


> Sandy Thatcher is confusing
>      (1a) Open Access Self-Archiving
> and
>      (1b) Closed Access Self-archiving plus the Fair-Use Button.
>
> Sandy is also confusing the issue of
>      (2a) publishers who have or have not recently given their green light
>      to Open Access Self-Archiving (1a)
> and
>      (2b) the longstanding fair-use practice by authors of mailing
>      paper reprints to requesters and, more recently, emailing eprints
>      to requesters.
>
> Unlike the above current and straightforward matters, the 
> question Sandy raises about what will turn out to be the 
> irreducible essentials of Gold OA journal publishing after Green 
> OA self-archiving reaches 100% -- (i) *if* the demand for the 
> paper edition ever vanishes, and (ii) *if* subscriptions ever 
> become unsustainable -- is a hypothetical one. Sandy asks 
> whether I think those essentials will consist of peer review 
> alone or peer review plus copy editing: My guess is no better 
> than anyone else's but I'll guess it'll be mostly just peer 
> review, with a little copy-editing added on too.
>
> (I've done more than my share of substantive editing too, and I 
> agree that most journal article authors are terrible writers. I 
> guess that's why they didn't become writers. I too would like to 
> see the level of journal article writing improved.)
>
> Stevan Harnad