| Previous by Date |
Index by Date
Threaded Index |
Next by Date |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Thread | Next by Thread |
Re: Non-exclusive licenses & copyright
Having had my comments on "final ownership of copyright" wrenched out of context (admittedly with acknowledgement that the context had changed). I would a) like to reiterate that I did not feel that copyright was divisible between author and publisher, but rather could (continue to) be handled by exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, both in the analogue and the digital worlds; and b) to add my five eggs to Ann Okerson's specific questions: I've lost track of how many MEDLINE CD-ROM vendors there are, each with its own spin (!) - different search software, different opportunities for full text, different ways of aggregating years onto different numbers of disks. Presumably, these appeal to different market requirements, which could only be met by a non-exclusive license that lets a thousand flowers bloom in the groves of academe. In this case, we have the Natural Library of Medicine holding an exclusive right to process non-exclusive licenses. This slightly paradoxical-sounding formulation is at the heart of the operation of the UK's Copyright Licensing Agency (of which my society is half owner), which holds the exclusive license to provide photocopying licenses on a non-exclusive basis on behalf of British rightsholders. Technically, this seems to be an efficient way to handle rights to intellectual property that may be applied in a wide range of ways. Finally, as to the authors' point of view, non-exclusivity tends to mean more competition, lower prices and frequently a wider audience. Authors like to be read, and would prefer to have ten readers paying a markup of 1 pound or dollar rather than one reader paying 10 pounds/dollars, while publishers would tend to think the other way (less units to sell, less legwork, overheads, etc.). So we would have no problem with plural non-exclusive licenses - an attitude that is also clearly appropriate to the user community as well. With regard to Ann's latest contribution to this thread: >there are quite a few differences between secondary services and primary >texts such as books and journals, and so it is not clear to me whether the >transition (to e-) by journal publishers will be parallel to A&I, only 20 >years later. At a tangent to this observation, I would note that, during this transition, there will be a great deal of dispute as to where primary publication resides - on paper or in the electronic version. Some publishers are now maintaining that the electronic version of a journal is the primary publication, as it is increasingly the first artifact to arise - but this surely means that the paper version becomes a secondary product. I believe that, irrespective of which is the cart and which the horse, there are two objects there, and an additional use is being made of content for little additional added-value effort. This has significance in considering the division of the spoils. >Let's say that the publisher now receives non-exclusive transfers from authors, >who themselves also make the work available in alternative ways (on their >web sites, on preprint servers, etc.). I suppose one of the biggest >differences is that the publisher, let alone all the e-service providers >or aggregators, could be in a position of competing with the author as >well as with their "usual" competitors (other aggregators). Personally, I feel that authors who "compete" by splitting the publication track and putting their published work up for free in pre-print or subversive (cf Steven Harnad) post-print archives may be speeding up scholarly communication, but are doing themselves a financial injustice, because they are grossly underestimating the economic value of their work. The science division of Reed-Elsevier posted operating profits in excess of 40% last year... We feel that authors shouldn't be put in a position of attempting to out-publish publishers, but rather to continue to out-write them. There would be no temptation to compete in this domain if they could share equitably in the rewards. >Also, the competitive edge may come more from service than content. >Doesn't this >put additional control in the hands of the successful aggregators (rather >than the primary publishers -- or perhaps even the authors)? If the licence is right, all parties should benefit - and this includes the issue of control as well. Aggregators should seek to license control over their ability to aggregate, and nothing more, publishers to primary publication, etc. It is clear that there are many specific rights included under the general umbrella of "electronic rights", and each one deserves individual treatment. CHRIS ZIELINSKI Secretary General, ALCS 74 New Oxford Street, London WC1A 1EF, United Kingdom Tel: (0044)-(0)171 255 2034 - Fax: (0044)-(0)171 323 0486
|
http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense © 1996, 1997 Yale University Library |
Please read our Disclaimer E-mail us with feedback |
|