Re: post-print definition

From: C.Oppenheim_at_lboro.ac.uk <C.Oppenheim_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:39:41 +0000

John's approach is absolutely appropriate. Also, the publisher most certainly cannot claim copyright in referees' suggested changes.

Charles



Professor Charles Oppenheim
Head
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU

Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509 223053
e mail c.oppenheim_at_lboro.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of John Smith
Sent: 14 November 2007 10:37
To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: post-print definition

Matt,

The problem, as I see it, is that the publisher has Copyright in the layout/appearance of the proof which is separate from the Copyright in the text.

Our Law School's approach (following some input from me) has been to take post refereed text (in whatever form the author has it) and transfer it to a standard form using Word and a predefined template (NB - they don't do this if the publisher allows use of the final version!). Thus the publisher's layout/appearance is lost. Obviously this has a cost but they want as much of their recent material available for open access and are prepared to pay for it.

The publisher might be able to claim (in theory) copyright in the changes suggested/made by the referees but since the referees are not employees of the publisher this would be rather tenuous.

NB - I am not a Copyright lawyer and my opinion on this carries no authority whatsoever :-) .

Regards,

John Smith,
University of Kent.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of M.D.J.Davies
> Sent: 13 November 2007 14:56
> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: post-print definition
>
> Hi,
>
> It would appear I'm confused again, would anyone care to help
> (please)?
>
> I would say (currently) that a publisher generated "proof copy"
> was
> different from a "final published version".
> If only in that the final version has had the "proof" watermark
> removed!
>
> Could I extend that to say that the publishers "proof PDF" was the
> ideal post-print?
> Even in an instance where SHERPA says:
> Post-print: author can archive post-print (i.e. final draft
> post-refereeing)
> Conditions: Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used.
>
> I'm presuming if SHERPA says
> Post-print: author can archive post-print (i.e. final draft
> post-refereeing)
> Conditions: Publisher's version/PDF may be used.
> I can go ahead and use the final published version?
>
> Thanks
>
> Matt Davies
>
> Room 203,
> Lady Hale Building,
> Peel Park Campus,
> University of Salford,
> Greater Manchester
>
> t: [0161 29] 56644
> e: m.d.j.davies_at_salford.ac.uk
Received on Wed Nov 14 2007 - 10:47:03 GMT