On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
>> SH:
>> "Since no nonfictional journal article author has signed a
>> contract of the sort you describe , , ,"
>
> JJS:
> This is nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of contracts,
> probably millions of contracts. Of the several hundred I have
> seen, everyone of them says exactly what Sandy Thatcher says they
> do.
Please go back and read (carefully, this time) what was being
asserted. Many authors transfer rights, in standard contracts, but we
were talking about whether or not the contract *in addition* explicitly
surrenders the fair-use rights that every other person on the planet
(except the author) would then retain.
That is the nonsense. And I too would welcome a little focus not only on
what is true but also on what is being said (and why -- and perhaps also
a bit of common sense in this orgy of amateur legalism and formalism...).
Stevan Harnad
PS Don't necessarily expect either validity or common sense in some of
the solemn professional pronouncements this is likely to elicit from
some copyright lawyers. This is brand-new territory and they are as
lost as everyone else if they do not grasp (1) the technical realities
of the online medium (i.e., what comes with the territory, what is and
is not enforceable) in the very special and very specific context of (2)
the author give-away literature, written exculsively for impact, not for
income (i.e., not for sales-royalties or fees, but for maximal uptake
and usage) -- of which peer-reviewed research journal articles are the
paradigmatic case. Even professional opinions can be safely ignored if
they are based mechanically on the paper medium and sales-royalty-seeking
writings that are copyright law's mainstay but *utterly* irrelevant to
the peer-reviewed research literature that is OA's specific target.
> Is it not possible for people on this list to stick to what they
> know to be true? Opinions are fine, but not when they are
> asserted as fact.
>
> So here we have a truly irresponsible remark:
>
> "Since no nonfictional journal article author has signed a
> contract of the sort you describe , , ,"
>
> This is nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of contracts,
> probably millions of contracts. Of the several hundred I have
> seen, everyone of them says exactly what Sandy Thatcher says they
> do.
>
> It is reckless to have people who are not lawyers provide what is
> effectively legal advice.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> To: <liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: OA Mandates, Embargoes, and the "Fair Use" Button
>
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 Sandy Thatcher, President,
> > Association of American University Presses, wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, Stevan, I think it is confusing to speak of a fair
> >> use button at all here. The reason is that if something can be
> >> used under fair use, no permission is required at all.
> >
> > That's the point. No permission is required at all.
> >
> >> Now, under your closed/delayed access scenario, the would-be
> >> user obviously can't obtain a copy without gaining access
> >> somehow to it, and so the function of your fair use button is
> >> to provide a mechanism for the author to give the requester
> >> access to the article. But this is tantamount to giving
> >> permission to the user, and if permission is explicitly given
> >> in this way, fair use really doesn't pertain.
> >
> > Look at how formalism obscures the obvious:
> >
> > Sandy, here is the point: Researchers write articles reporting
> > their findings and publish them in peer-reviewed journal
> > articles. They'd like every potential user to be able to access
> > and use those findings, but because of access-tolls, many can't.
> > So they would like to make the articles freely accessible on the
> > web, immediately. For 62% of articles, the publisher has endorsed
> > that practice. But for the remaining 38%, their publisher prefers
> > to embargo web access. So those articles are deposited on the web
> > as Closed Access (only metadata visible webwide) and the Fair Use
> > Button allows potential users to access them almost-OA,
> > almost-immediately.
> >
> > I hope that makes it clearer. And I've managed to say it without
> > making any reference to the formal arcana or jurisprudence of
> > rights.
> >
> >> So it doesn't make sense to employ the terminology here; it is a
> >> red herring. Call it a permission or access button instead.
> >
> > I am grateful for the advice, but I think "Fair Use Button" comes
> > closest to conveying the intended meaning in a transparent way,
> > highlighting the functional complementarity with OA. (I find the
> > language of "permission" for providing access to one's own work
> > misleading and tendentious, and I prefer to reserve "access" for
> > Open Access.)
> >
> >> The point still remains that you were talking about a scenario
> >> where the author already signed a contract, and you claimed
> >> that fair use rights remain the author's prerogative even after
> >> signing such a contract. Rick and I agree that this is not so.
> >
> > I did not talk about any contract in particular, but of course
> > the pertinent contract is the one the author signs with the
> > journal publisher. That contract takes many forms, but none I
> > have ever heard of explicitly agrees to give up Fair Use rights.
> > Hence this is a red herring.
> >
> >> Fair use rights for everyone else remain, but not the author.
> >> Once a contract is signed, the author is bound by the terms and
> >> fair use doesn't apply.
> >
> > Since no nonfictional journal article author has signed a
> > contract of the sort you describe (any more than any nonfictional
> > borrower has signed a contract trading a pound of his flesh as a
> > collateral for a loan), I suggest that we relegate all this
> > hypothetical formalism to the confines of fiction, where it
> > belongs.
> >
> > (If you really imagine, Sandy, that any author would be foolish
> > enough to agree to such an absurd and arbitrary formal condition,
> > then rest assured that a "3rd-Party Fair Use Button" can easily
> > be jerry-rigged, forwarding individual Fair-Use eprint requests
> > from would-be users, via the Antonian Author, to Anyone Else (a
> > designated colleague), who can then courageously hit the
> > "authorise emailing of the eprint" button in lieu of the Author,
> > making use of the Fair Use rights he, unlike the hapless Author,
> > has duly retained. -- But I really must say that if I every found
> > myself having to make use of such far-fetched hypotheticals to
> > make a point, I would become suspicious of the point I was
> > making. I resort to them here only as a counter-hypothetical,
> > playing the game of empty formalism... The Fair Use Button, in
> > contrast, is not hypothetical, but very real, and practical.)
> >
> > http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 05 2007 - 16:38:12 BST