[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright..
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright..
- From: "Anthony Watkinson" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:31:42 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Dear Kevin You are a great one for hyperbole. At least some universities in the UK claim copyright in any work done on machines either owned or maintained by the university and acceptance of this is now enshrined in staff contracts. I cannot see how publishers in this context are thwarting expressions of authorial rights. It looks rather to me that it is what university employers would like to do. I write as someone in a university which does not have any claims of this sort in the contract of employment but which has (I am told) got a mandate Anthony Watkinson University College London -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Smith Sent: 29 September 2011 23:47 To: "firstname.lastname@example.org"@lists.yale.edu Subject: RE: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright to journal publishers 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 email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: Ann Okerson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:03 PM To: email@example.com 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 ****
- Prev by Date: Charleston Conference Webinar - E-Everything: Putting It All Together
- Next by Date: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright...
- Previous by thread: Charleston Conference Webinar - E-Everything: Putting It All Together
- Next by thread: Re: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright..