Professor Carroll has completely misrepresented me. As I made clear in my point
1, no-one can adapt or amend F without the publisher's permission. His
misrepresentation must have been as a result of one of three things: (a) Prof
Carroll never read my piece; (b) he read it and deliberately misconstrued what
I wrote; or (c) he read it and did not understand what I wrote. I was totally
clear that the author has rights to D, but cannot do anything with F. I now
expect Prof Carroll to apologise for misrepresenting me and to explain which of
(a), (b) or (c) was the reason.
He also notes the UK IPO statement that infringement covers copying all or a
substantial part of a copyright work. I agree, but such copying has to be AFTER
F is published. One cannot copy something before it is made! So he is again
referring to my case 1, and misrepresenting it.
Finally, Prof Caroll claims that most copyright assignments refer to assignment
of the article AND MORE. Not in my experience as an author of hundreds of
articles, and being in charge of assignments and licences in the 12 years I
worked for scholarly publishers. So I further invite Prof Carroll to give me
actual examples of such assignment wording. I asked Kevin, but he did not give
an adequate reply.
(Professor Carroll wrote:
On Professor Oppenheim's view, the copyright owner's exclusive right of
reproduction would be limited to controlling only verbatim copies. If that
were true, I would be free to republish the entire corpus of Elsevier
publications if I make only small changes to the articles similar to the
differences between a final draft and the final publication. Needless to say,
if this were the law, some clever publisher would have done just as I suggest.
But, this is not the law in the US or in the UK.
So even if the publisher were to be assigned rights only in the final version
of an article and most publication agreements are not this limited the scope
of those rights would preclude posting of substantially similar
versions whether those versions were created before or after the published
version is produced. (US law uses the term "substantially similar" whereas UK
law asks whether the copyright work has been copied "in substantial part"
but it effectively means the same thing in this context. See
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-economic.htm)
Professor Charles Oppenheim
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
