RE: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright to journal publishers

[Kevin Smith <kevin.l.smith@duke.edu>]

Having looked at the actual language, I think the operative terms 
are essentially the same as Harvard's (and Duke's), although the 
way it is being discussed seems quite different.

In all such policies the university is given a license in the 
works that is prior to any copyright transfer to a publisher. 
Technically, therefore, the rights that are transferred are 
subject to that license; hence the language of "banning" the 
wholesale transfer of copyright used by Princeton. The 
differences amongst universities come in implementation.  Will 
some universities elect to act in a way that is contrary to the 
terms of the publication agreements the authors enter into (by 
posting articles or versions of articles where the publication 
agreement purports not to permit the specific posting)?  Doing so 
would seem to be legally permissible under the claim of a prior 
license, but it could also put the faculty members in a difficult 
position unless they are very careful about what they sign (as 
they should be but seldom are).

An alternative is for the university to exercise the license in a 
more nuanced way, taking into account the various publisher 
policies as much as possible.  That, of course, makes open access 
repositories much more labor-intensive and difficult, especially 
as publishers change their policies to try a thwart these 
expressions of authorial rights.

Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communications
Duke University, Perkins Library
Durham, NC 27708
kevin.l.smith@duke.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Okerson [mailto:aokerson@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:03 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright to journal publishers

This information comes courtesy of the IFLA copyright programme. 
Are Princeton's essentially the same terms/conditions as the 
Harvard Mandate?  Ann

****