The recent decision by Elsevier to start sending take down notices to sites
like Academia.edu, and to individual universities, demanding that they
remove self-archived papers from their web sites has sparked a debate about
the copyright status of different versions of a scholarly paper.
Last
I share this news that I've read on Nature...
http://www.nature.com/news/elsevier-opens-its-papers-to-text-mining-1.14659
Best regards
Tessa Piazzini
Responsabile del Servizio di informazione e comunicazione all'utenza
Biblioteca Biomedica http://www.sba.unifi.it/biomedica
Università degli studi
Hi all,
As in all things legal, only a court decision could really settle this issue.
In the meanwhile, legal commentators can weight the various arguments, drawing
upon similar court decisions and legal principles.
Unfortunately, neither Charles Oppenheimer nor Kevin Smith go much farther
This will surely depend on on the wording of the copyright assignment
notice.
Prudent authors should only sign away the rights to the final version of
their paper (in this case, as edited and modified by Elsevier).
This was the subversiveness in the original Harnad subversive proposal to
Dear OA community,
I thought some of you may be interested in COAR's comments on NISO's draft Open
Access Metadata and Indicators
COAR's Comments on NISO's Open Access Metadata and Indicators
The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) supports NISO’s efforts to
harmonize the
Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote:
But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the
copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything
more than a licence to publish.
Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a
track record that
