Sally,
The finding on the copyright situation in OA journals in your study, and the
JISC Development Digest copyright issue in relation to repository content,
reflect situations from the past. It is true that in the past many OA
journals and repositories did not pay as much attention to copyright
management as they should have done, but that situation is being rectified.
For example you know that JISC and SURF have been collaborating on OA
copyright projects, and this work is being fed through into repository
management. What distinguishes the OA copyright arrangements is a wish to be
as un-restrictive as possible while respecting the wishes and interests of
the author or other copyright owner. This is why Creative Commons is seen as
a good way forward by many.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <sally.morris_at_ALPSP.ORG>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Fw: JISC-DEVELOPMENT Digest - 14 Oct 2005 to 16 Oct 2005
(#2005-108)
>I seem unable to post to JISC-Development Digest from my current email
> address but I daresay everyone reads this list too!
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <sally.morris_at_alpsp.org>
> To: "jisc development discussion forum" <JISC-DEVELOPMENT_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: JISC-DEVELOPMENT Digest - 14 Oct 2005 to 16 Oct 2005
> (#2005-108)
>
>
>> Not a direct response to this issue, but it is interesting (and perhaps
>> worrying) that our study showed up the fact that 18% of Full OA journals
>> do not require any copyright agreement (whether licence or transfer) from
>> authors, leaving the copyright status of the journal's contents
>> completely
>> unclear; at the other extreme, 14% do require authors to transfer
>> copyright
>>
>> Sally
>>
>> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
>> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
>> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
>> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
>> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "JISC-DEVELOPMENT automatic digest system"
>> <LISTSERV_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>> To: <JISC-DEVELOPMENT_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 AM
>> Subject: JISC-DEVELOPMENT Digest - 14 Oct 2005 to 16 Oct 2005 (#2005-108)
>>
>>
>>> There is 1 message totalling 188 lines in this issue.
>>>
>>> Topics of the day:
>>>
>>> 1. Do PrePrints and PostPrints Need a Copyright Licence?
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:23:43 +0100
>>> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
>>> Subject: Do PrePrints and PostPrints Need a Copyright Licence?
>>>
>>> As Roger Clarke's email form letter to Repository Managers is being
>>> circulated quite widely, I would accordingly like to make these comments
>>> and suggestions publicly:
>>>
>>> (1) For the unrefereed, unpublished preprint, it is a good idea to do
>>> as Roger recommends: to adopt some form of provisional Creative Commons
>>> License rather than just putting it "nakedly" on the Web when
>>> self-archiving
>>> it.
>>>
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>>>
>>> (2) This does not apply, however,, to the final, refereed, accepted,
>>> published draft (the postprint), which is published in a journal, which
>>> will have its own copyright transfer agreement, signed with the
>>> publisher,
>>> and which is the primary target of the Open Access movement.
>>>
>>> "Apercus of WOS Meeting: Making Ends Meet in the Creative Commons"
>>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3798.html
>>>
>>> Now some comments:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Antonella De Robbio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Stevan
>>>>
>>>> I received this mail below from Roger Clarke, a Visiting Professor in
>>>> Info
>>>> Science & Eng Australian National University, Visiting Professor in
>>>> the
>>>> eCommerce Program, University of Hong Kong and also Visiting Professor
>>>> in
>>>> the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW.
>>>> I haven't yet reply to him because I have been away and precisely I
>>>> have
>>>> been as Italian delegate at UNESCO 33.rd general conference where we
>>>> have
>>>> presented an Open Access resolution as Italian UNESCO Commission.
>>>> Well, I am leaving for Geneva at OAI4 next days where I will organise
>>>> the
>>>> first E-LIS conference too, at the end of OAI4 event.
>>>> I think we must reply to this professor, and so I thought you are the
>>>> best
>>>> OAIperson who can do it.
>>>> I will answer to him too, later, when I will come back to my
>>>> conferences
>>>> in Geneva.
>>>> Please look at this letter, he refers to some his articles on
>>>> FirstMOnday
>>>> and others..
>>>>
>>>> If you reply please put me in cc, so we could be coordinate in our
>>>> actions.
>>>
>>> My replies appear below:
>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Antonella De Robbio
>>>> E-LIS manager
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke AT xamax.com.au>
>>>> To: eprints_at_dois.it
>>>> Subject: PrePrints and PostPrints Need a Copyright
>>>> Licence
>>>>
>>>> Dear ePrint Repository Manager
>>>>
>>>> The OA/ePrints/Repository movement is very important, and developing
>>>> very well.
>>>>
>>>> But there's a gap in the strategy.
>>>>
>>>> When an ePrint is downloaded, it's likely that an implicit copyright
>>>> licence comes into existence. There's a lack of clarity about the
>>>> terms that courts might infer to be in such a licence. And that's
>>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> It's not *terribly* dangerous, and courts have not much to do with it:
>>> Physicists
>>> and computer scientists have been posting "naked" papers online for over
>>> a decade
>>> and a half (hundreds of thousands of papers) with no problems.
>>>
>>> But for the unpublished, unrefereed, not-yet-copyright-protected
>>> preprints, it is
>>> a good idea to adopt one of the Copyright Commons Licenses to protect it
>>> until
>>> the final postprint is ready, accepted by the journal, and thenceforward
>>> covered by the journal's copyright agreement.
>>>
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>>>
>>> It is somewhat misleading, though, to say that "eprints," generically,
>>> need a
>>> separate license: The preprints do, the postprints do not.
>>>
>>>> In a paper published in First Monday in August 2005, I analysed the
>>>> requirements for a copyright licence for Pre-Prints. I took care to
>>>> balance the interests of authors, journal-publishers, and the reading
>>>> public. Details of the paper are below.
>>>
>>> I have read the paper, and most of it is not pertinent to published
>>> postprints.
>>>
>>>> In a further short paper, I've now extended that analysis to address
>>>> Post-Prints as well. Details of that paper are also below.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to submit a recommendation to the 'peak body' of ePrint
>>>> Repository Managers; but I haven't been able to find such an
>>>> association.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm approaching each ePrint Repository Manager directly, with the
>>>> following suggestions:
>>>> - recommend to authors that they make this licence-type available
>>>> for all PrePrints and PostPrints;
>>>
>>> Recommendations for naked preprints are welcome, but the postprints are
>>> already
>>> covered by publisher copyright.
>>>
>>>> - provide guidance and support to authors to enable them to do so
>>>> with a minimum of effort; and
>>>
>>> The guidance should clearly state that this is only pertinent to the
>>> unpublished
>>> preprint.
>>>
>>>> - consider making the availability of this licence-type a default
>>>> for all papers placed in repositories.
>>>
>>> As the primary target to Open Access Institutional Repositories is
>>> not unrefereed preprints but published postprints, the license should
>>> certainly not be incorporated as a default option. It will only create
>>> confusion in the case of the postprint, with the agreement already
>>> signed
>>> with the publisher.
>>>
>>>> THE ANALYSIS RE PRE-PRINTS:
>>>> Clarke R. (2005) 'A Proposal for an Open Content Licence for
>>>> Research Paper (Pr)ePrints' First Monday 10, 8 (August 2005), at
>>>> http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_8/clarke/index.html
>>>>
>>>> The Post-Print of the paper is at:
>>>> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/PrePrLic.html
>>>> The Pre-Print of the paper (of 1 May 2005) is at:
>>>> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/PrePrLic050501.html
>>>>
>>>> THE ANALYSIS RE POST-PRINTS:
>>>> Clarke R. (2005) 'A Standard Copyright Licence for PostPrints'
>>>> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 26 August 2005, at
>>>> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/PostPrLic.html
>>>>
>>>> THE RECOMMENDED LICENCE-TYPE IS:
>>>> Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
>>>> US - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
>>>> and its equivalents, e.g.
>>>> UK - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/
>>>> FR - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/fr/
>>>> AU - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.1/au/
>>>
>>> These CC licenses are not applicable to articles that are already under
>>> a publisher's copyright agreement. Nor should anyone imply -- at a time
>>> when self-archiving of postprints is still only at 15%, even though 70%
>>> of journals already endorse postprint self-archiving, and 23% more
>>> endorse
>>> preprint self-archiving -- that the postprint author need do anything
>>> more than self-archive his postprint. Authors don't need more burdens,
>>> nor more worries (they are already needlessly worried about whether
>>> they may self-archive at all). Nor should they be advised (incorrectly)
>>> that in order to self-archive their postprints, they need to negotiate a
>>> different copyright agreement with their publishers. Nor should
>>> copyright
>>> licenses be applied to their preprints that might contradict the
>>> copyright
>>> agreement that they will be signing for their postprints.
>>>
>>> In general, copyright is a red herring for Open Access. Yes, make sure
>>> your text
>>> is copyright-protected while it's a preprint, but the postprint has no
>>> more
>>> copyright problem if it is self-archived than it used to have when it
>>> was
>>> not.
>>> That is what the copyright agreement with the publisher is for.
>>>
>>> See the eprint self-archiving FAQ items on copyright:
>>>
>>> http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/
>>>
>>> Stevan Harnad
>>>
>>>> Other national licences are at:
>>>> http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Roger Clarke
>>>> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
>>>>
>>>> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611
>>>> AUSTRALIA
>>>> Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
>>>> mailto:Roger.Clarke_at_xamax.com.au
>>>> http://www.xamax.com.au/
>>>>
>>>> Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng Australian National
>>>> University
>>>> Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program University of Hong
>>>> Kong
>>>> Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of
>>>> NSW
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of JISC-DEVELOPMENT Digest - 14 Oct 2005 to 16 Oct 2005 (#2005-108)
>>> ***********************************************************************
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
Received on Mon Oct 17 2005 - 13:09:53 BST