>sh> Mike, where is this quote from? (Could you simply have gotten a piece
>sh> of incorrect advice from an uninformed person in Nature's Permissions
>sh> Department?)
Its from "Nature in 2003" - an editorial that appeared in the January 2nd
issue of Nature.
The link is:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6918/f
ull/421001a_fs.html
The full text follows:
Nature in 2003
This year sees Nature getting up close and personal with researchers, thanks
to a new series and a territorial expansion. Another important innovation is
a policy that allows authors to retain copyright...
New services to authors will be announced before long, but perhaps the most
significant development on this front is that Nature and all other journals
published by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) have introduced a new policy
in relation to copyright. No longer do we require authors of papers to sign
away their copyright. Instead, we now ask authors to grant NPG the exclusive
licence to publish the paper in all media throughout the world, to translate
it into other languages, and to adapt it or license it to others. (If all
co-authors are US government employees, slightly different arrangements
apply.)
Ownership of copyright remains with the authors. Provided that, when
reproducing their contribution or extracts from it, the authors acknowledge
the original publication in Nature or other NPG journal, they may reproduce
the paper in any printed volume of which they are the authors. Furthermore,
they and any academic institution where they work at the time may reproduce
the paper without payment for the purpose of course teaching.
Authors may also post a copy of their paper on their own website once the
printed edition has been published, provided that they also provide a link
from the contribution to Nature's website. "Their own" refers to any site
devoted to them, whether owned by them or by a not-for-profit employer.
However, it does not mean open archival websites, such as those that host
collections of articles by an institution's researchers, which would amount
to a breach of our licence.
This policy is being applied retrospectively. Hundreds of thousands of
scientists are authors of papers covered by copyright agreements that are
still in force, and we cannot renegotiate every agreement. But we are happy
to extend to all past authors the rights laid out in the new licence
agreements: to re-use the papers in any printed volume of which they are an
author; to post a PDF copy on their own (not-for-profit) website; to copy
(and for their institutions to copy) their papers for use in coursework
teaching; and to re-use figures and tables. For the exact terms and
conditions, please see a copy of the licence agreement at
http://npg.nature.com/authornews.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "September 1998 American Scientist Forum"
<AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Cc: <permissions_at_nature.com>; "Philip Campbell" <nature_at_nature.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
> I would like to ask Mike Eisen for the source of his quote from Nature
> in: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2563.html
>
> The reason I ask is this:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003
> in http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2572.html
> Linda Humphreys <L.J.Humphreys_at_bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > We asked Nature for clarification of this point last June, reply below.
> >
> > From: Hazel Grainger [mailto:lishg_at_bath.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:02 PM
> > To: permissions_at_nature.com
> > Subject: Author Licence
> >
> > I just wanted to clarify one point made on your Author Licence FAQ
> > web page. Point 1 states:
> >
> > "The licence says I may post the PDF on my "own" web site. What does
> > 'own' mean? It means a personal site, or portion of a site, either
> > owned by you or at your institution (provided this institution is
> > not for profit)....."
> >
> > Does this include an Institution-based e-print server at a
> > University (a not-for-profit service)?
> >
> > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:55:59 +0100
> > From: Permissions <Permissions_at_nature.com>
> >
> > Dear Hazel,
> >
> > Yes, this includes an institution-based e-print server at your
university.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Marie Williams
> > Nature Permissions Officer
> > The Macmillan Building
> > 4-6 Crinan Street
> > London N1 9XW
> > Tel: 44 (0)207 833 4000
> > Fax: 44 (0)207 843 4596
> > permissions_at_nature.com
> > http://www.nature.com/nature
>
> Turning to the Nature License, I find the following, consitent with the
> above:
>
> [From Nature License]
> The Authors retain the following non-exclusive rights:
>
> To post a copy of the Contribution on the Authors' own web site after
> publication of the printed edition of the Journal, provided that they
> also give a hyperlink from the Contribution to the Journal's web site.
> http://npg.nature.com/pdf/05_news.pdf
>
> The Nature FAQ says the following, likewise conistent with the above:
>
> [From Nature License FAQ]
> The licence says I may post the PDF on my "own" web site. What does
> "own" mean?
>
> It means a personal site, or portion of a site, either owned
> by you or at your institution (provided this institution is
> not-for-profit), devoted to you and your work. If in doubt, please
> contact permissions_at_nature.com.
>
http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_faq.xml&style=xml/05_f
aq.xsl
>
> So all of this seems to agree with the reply to Hazel's inquiry and the
> reply from nature's permissions department.
>
> But on Thu, 9 Jan 2003 Michael Eisen <mbeisen_at_LBL.GOV> wrote:
>
> >me> [Nature] explicitly preclude placing the papers in an archive!
> >
> > "Authors may also post a copy of their paper on their own website
> > once the printed edition has been published, provided that they also
> > provide a link from the contribution to Nature's website. 'Their
> > own' refers to any site devoted to them, whether owned by them
> > or by a not-for-profit employer. However, it does not mean open
> > archival websites, such as those that host collections of articles
> > by an institution's researchers, which would amount to a breach of
> > our licence."
>
> Mike, where is this quote from? (Could you simply have gotten a piece
> of incorrect advice from an uninformed person in Nature's Permissions
> Department?)
>
> Cheers, Stevan
Received on Sat Jan 11 2003 - 07:12:44 GMT