Fytton is partly partially right in the UK context. Moral rights are
available only if the original work was not written for a newspaper,
magazine or periodical (so articles in electronic journals would not
qualify) AND the author must assert the right at the time the work is made
available.
The recurring problem is that creators of copyright works (as opposed to
other forms of IP) get a bundle of rights WHETHER THEY WANT THEM OR NOT and
have to take steps to disclaim them rather than assert many of them. The
opposite is true in the UK for moral rights.
Graham Cornish
Don't miss our one-day conference on "Fears and hopes in copyright"
(September 18th. York) when we shall explore the new legislation and its
implications for library management and also start to draw up a "shopping
list" of changes we want in the future. Details at
www.copyrightcircle.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fytton Rowland" <J.F.Rowland_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
> There is still confusion about the term "intellectual property" (IP) here.
IP
> is not a propaganda term; it is an accurate description -- if I make
somethin
> new, it is my property and I can decide whether to sell it, give it away,
lease
> it, bequeath it or whatever. If I decide to sell, or give away, my IP to
a
> publisher, I lose the right to distribute copies myself unless my
agreement
> with the publishing company permits me to. If I retain the IP myself but
> choose to give away copies for nothing to anybody who wants one, I can
still
> prevent others from selling (or giving away) copies without my permission.
But
> whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
> retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to
be
> changed, etc.
>
> Am I right?
>
> Fytton Rowland.
>
> Quoting Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > >sh>Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
> > >sh>property.
> > >
> > > To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a
> > > dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion. (See
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation
> > > of why this is so.)
> >
> > Richard, I've read the GNU passage, and I agree that "intellectual
> > property" is not a good descriptor for software, as code can be built
> > onto and out of others' code and programmers and users are better served
> > if the code is open and can be modified by others.
> >
> > But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
> > intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
> > that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
> >
> > Now that I have read your recommended passage, can I ask you to read
> > mine?
> >
> > "5. PostGutenberg Copyright Concerns"
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5
> >
> > We are in agreement that copyright lawyers and perhaps legislators are
> > trying to force disparate things -- like music, patents, software, and
> > texts (both give-away and non-give-away) -- into the same Procrstean
> > bed, and that the results are not only unsatisfactory but sometimes even
> > logically incoherent.
> >
> > But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
> > is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of
> > texts.
> >
> > >sh>The text is still the author's
> > >sh>intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained by
> > >sh>he author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone,
> > >
> > > That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of
> > > "intellectual property" even further than normal.
> >
> > Not at all. What could be simpler? I wrote this text. No one else may
> > claim to have written it. End of story. (The rest is about whether or
> > not I deem it a give-away text.)
> >
> > Copyright has (and always has had) at least two functions:
> >
> > (1) To protect against theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism)
> >
> > (2) To protect against theft-of-text (piracy, a word I know you don't
> > like, when applied to software, but perfectly valid when applied to
> > non-give-away text)
> >
> > ALL text authors want copyright protection of their intellectual
> > property
> > (sic), their text, from (1), theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism).
> >
> > Only NON-give-away authors want copyright protection of their
> > intellectual
> > property, their non-give-away text, from (2), theft-of-text (piracy).
> >
> > You are quite right that (1) has nothing to do with "copying" in the
> > sense of making copies bearing the author's correct name. So perhaps the
> > legal protection against plagiarism should not be subsumed under
> > "copyright" law in this sense. But that is a mere terminological matter,
> > for one can certainly describe copying my text without my name, and
> > affixing your name to it, as an illicit form of copying. So maybe it
> > should stay under copyright law after all.
> >
> > > To avoid confusion, I suggest you rewrite it as follows:
> > >
> > > When you write an article, you are the copyright holder; you
> > > are free to give away or sell copies, on-paper or on-line
> > > (e.g., by self-archiving), as you see fit.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that does not quite cover it. For an author may be
> > foolish enough to sign a copyright transfer agreement, assigning all
> > rights to give away or sell his texts, online or on paper, to someone
> > else, say, a publisher. But that would still not alter the matter of
> > intellectual property, i.e., authorship. He would still be the author.
> > And if someone else claimed to have authored it, it would still be a
> > violation of his rights, even after he had assigned the copyright,
> > without restrictions, to a publisher.
> >
> > I am not an expert in this (nor especially interested in it, I might
> > add), but I believe that it is only if an author puts his text in the
> > public domain that he loses the intellectual property rights, i.e., he
> > cannot prosecute someone for plagiarizing it.
> >
> > (I am not sure about this last matter, and someone may wish to correct
> > me,
> > but please, let us not side-track the Forum discussion into these
> > esoteric
> > paths http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html as it
> > is not what we are concerned about here. We are concerned with GIVEAWAY
> > texts -- peer-reviewed research articles -- for which their authors
> > definitely want to retain authorship; but they also want them accessible
> > for free for all.)
> >
> > See also:
> > "PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research"
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
> > access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
> > American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):
> > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> > or
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
> >
> > Discussion can be posted to:
> > american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
> >
> > See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
> > http://www.soros.org/openaccess
> >
> > and the Free Online Scholarship Movement:
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
> >
> >
Received on Mon Jul 22 2002 - 16:17:56 BST