The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0295 Thursday, 15 May 2008
[1] From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 17:43:52 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0291 A Problem of Access
[2] From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:58:21 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 19.0291 A Problem of Access
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 17:43:52 +0100
Subject: 19.0291 A Problem of Access
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0291 A Problem of Access
Regarding copy-right of journal articles, John Briggs's point make no
sense to me:
>That should really only be an American problem. (US copyright
>law doesn't recognise a copyright in the typographical arrangement,
>which is the publisher's copyright in an edition. Having said that,
>American publishers and authors seem to regard copyright as
>only applying to specific editions anyway, so it may amount to
>the same thing.)
The works under discussion are original compositions of journal article
writers, not "editions." If there's a subtler point at stake here, I'm
afraid I miss it.
>No, what you should grant are "First serial rights".
Such (literally) nice distinctions are well on the way to obsolescence,
and the publishers know it. Once their grip on authors' copy-right is
weakened -- and there's a strong worldwide movement to break it -- the
transition from 'exclusive' to 'non-exclusive' rights ought to be easier.
(Hardy has informed me that gangs of hyphens now make it through his
macros unmolested, and I've got some hyphenating to catch up on. So
"copy-right" it is!)
Larry Weiss can't see why someone would argue for authors giving
publishers an 'exclusive right to publish' instead of signing over their
copy-right:
>Huh? A copyright *is* the exclusive right to publish.
Frankly, I've read the two licence forms carefully and I can't make out
the practical difference either. But Taylor and Francis were adamant
that 'exclusive right to publish' is a lesser form in their eyes, so
there's presumably a subtlety here that I can't see. For my purposes,
the idea that it's a stepping stone to 'non-exclusive right to publish'
is sufficient recommendation. I am reliably informed by those in the
Open Access movement who can tell the difference between the two
licences that the copy-right assignment is even more invidious than that
transfer of exclusive rights. But I confess to having this on trust.
Larry goes on:
>I am surprised that UK publishers (including it appears
>the ones to whom Gabriel is under contract) are more
>heavy handed.
I believe that with over 1,000 current journals and 1,800 new books a
year, Taylor and Francis considers itself an international outfit.
Happily, though, as co-editor I am not contracted to it at all. In my
experiences with them, Taylor and Francis have not been in the slightest
bit heavy-handed, and for an industry experiencing extraordinarily fast
transformations of its business models, I must say that on a personal
level publishers have (so far) always struck me as decent and
conscientious professionals. (Mind you, for all I know that might be
true of Royal Dutch Shell too, and they really are corporately evil.)
I'm grateful to Daniel Traister for posting that explanation of
Institutional Repositories, which I hope convinced people that they are
a good thing.
Gabriel Egan
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:58:21 -0500
Subject: 19.0291 A Problem of Access
Comment: RE: SHK 19.0291 A Problem of Access
Some years ago, in one of the recurrent discussions of this matter,
someone pointed out that the idea of protecting intellectual property
makes no sense when there is no money involved.
You publish an article in a scholarly journal not to make money but to
get what you consider an interesting and valuable idea out to the
scholarly world. Nobody makes any money -- writers, editors, or the
universities that subsidize the journals. The only protection you need
is against plagiarism. But publishing electronically provides much
better protection than publishing in print.
Your priority in the presentation of a given idea is established as soon
as you put it onto a searchable site. What else do you care about?
If we dropped print journals altogether the one expense in scholarly
publication would be eliminated and you could do away with copyright
issues in that area completely.
don
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
