Copyright has benefits for authors as well as publishers. Moral rights (see Berne 6bis http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698) are retained by authors even after transfer of copyright. These include attribution rights and the right to object to certain modifications.
Examples of where author moral rights matter for academic works: If someone copies an author's work but names themselves as author (plagiarism obviously), the author can object based on moral rights even if the publisher no longer exists or is not willing to pursue the matter. If someone creates a derivative of an author's work, for example if a downstream volunteer co-author decides to publish a corrected version of an author's work, or a translation that is poorly done, and the author objects, the author has moral rights even with full copyright transfer. In the case of derivatives, the author has stronger moral rights under traditional copyright transfer than with CC licenses granting blanket downstream derivative rights (all CC licenses that do not include ND). In the case of academic work, I argue that strong author moral rights benefit everyone. Academic work is by definition written by people who have demonstrated expertise, and usually vetted by peers. If a derivative is incorrect it improves the quality of our collective knowledge if the author can insist on correction or take-down. One of the reasons I have seen offered for a default of open licensing is to facilitate transfer of work to Wikipedia. This might improve the quality of Wikipedia, however the attribution norms are not compatible (author / journal / publisher v. Wikipedia), and having volunteers with no requirement to demonstrate expertise edit the work of experts strikes me as a situation likely to introduce errors. Academics are free to participate in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and some do. However it seems unlikely that all academics would agree to having anyone submit their work to Wikipedia and agreeing that anyone could edit it. This is enabled by the CC licenses CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia editors can quote and cite academic works without open licensing. I argue that learning and encouraging proper citation practices would do more to improve Wikipedia than open licensing. Economic rights are important for some academic authors. Authors do earn royalties from books. Academic compensation varies considerably; some authors actually need this money. In some areas such as fine arts, it is common for people to bridge academia and practice. Writing a novel is a kind of research for some academics, and royalties may be an important source of income. best, Heather Morrison Associate Professor, University of Ottawa -------- Original message -------- From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> Date: 2018-03-27 7:19 AM (GMT-05:00) To: SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu> Cc: Jennifer Heise <jhe...@drew.edu>, Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk>, scholcomm <scholc...@lists.ala.org>, goal@eprints.org Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom The point is that the dominant role of copyright in scholarly publishing is to benefit the publisher, to the detriment of OA, not the author. In fact it is argued that OA benefits the author. This is why Wallinsky's simple OA proposal is to reduce the copyright term to the minimum needed to maintain publishing. My version of this proposal is based on the US Public Access Program's 12 month embargo, but the basic concept is variable. The goal is to eliminate long term copyright for journal articles. David On Mar 26, 2018, at 7:29 PM, "SANFORD G THATCHER" <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > Yes, in theory the publisher has all the rights and can do what it wants with > respect to translations. But then you should check with your publisher to see > what kind of translation rights agreement the publisher uses when licensing > foreign rights. Very often, if not universally, that contract will include a > clause stipulating that the author has the right to vet the translation before > it is published. > > As for the publisher exercising a right not to have the author publish another > work on the same subject that could affect the sales of the work under > contract. all contracts I know of have a "competing works" clause that deals > with this issue. > > Finally, I'm well aware of how the increase in journal subscriptions prices > affected the sales of university press monographs and have written about that > subject many times. here is one example: > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/concern/generic_works/sf268537s > > And people who know me know that I have long been a strong advocate for OA. I > drafted the AAUP (presses)'s Statement on Open Access in 2007. > > Sandy Thatcher > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 10:37 AM Jennifer Heise <jhe...@drew.edu> wrote: >> >> I have some questions in relation to these assertions: >> >> I'm unclear how signing your copyright over to a publisher in toto (which >> is basically what I was asked to do when publishing with Haworth) would >> still allow you the right to object to derivative works. Surely only the >> copyright owner can object to derivative works, and in fact, if the creator >> is not the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to object to >> derivative works subsequently published by the original creator! (In fact, >> this is one of the issues I believe the Statute of Anne was meant to >> address-- Gervase Markham, for instance, was sued by a consortium of his >> publishers for having sold them all works that were derivatives of each >> other.) >> >> In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual >> institutional tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? >> There are definite expectations of where one may publish, as I understand
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
