Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright...

[<jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca>]

This is the proviso, if I am not mistaken, that was inaugurated
at Harvard. It is the keystone of the whole system as it is an
opt-in structure: you are in automatically, unless you
specifically want to opt out. It is managed as it is at Harvard:
you have to opt out article by article, not person by person. The
result is that the alleged dilution Rick Anderson mentions is
beautifully controlled and limited. From what I know of the
Harvard situation, few people opt out, and when they do, they do
so for special reasons on specific articles (for example because
of the intransigent attitude of a particular publisher), not as a
general expression of distaste for Open Access.

Jean-Claude Guedon


-------- Message d'origine--------
De: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu de la part de Rick Anderson
Date: jeu. 29/09/2011 19:02: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Objet : Re: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright ...

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

It looks like this is indeed just another non-mandatory
"mandate." The language about each faculty member automatically
granting Princeton a non-exclusive license to "exercise any and
all copyrights in his or her scholarly articles published in any
medium," etc., is then followed by this important qualifier:
"Upon the express direction of a Faculty member, the Provost or
the Provost's designate will waive or suspend application of this
license for a particular article authored or co-authored by that
Faculty member."

So in other words, it's not an OA mandate, but rather an OA
"mandate." You're bound by it unless you ask not to be, in which
case you're not.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
J. Willard Marriott Library
University of Utah
rick.anderson@utah.edu