In the spirit of welcoming conversation here's a few more
views
on the form (the comments not necessarily confined only to
Haworth assignments).
1. It might be nice for publishers to print these forms
using a
reasonable font size. When authors are being asked to sign
away
the lion's share of their copyright I'm sure that they would
appreciate being able to read an important legal document
without
the aid of a magnifying glass!
2. I'm not entirely sure why this form, and others, seem to
make
it something of a virtue that it is not restrictive in
relation
to other rights and, for example, refers, to the fact that
employees/institutions retain other proprietary intellectual
property rights. Of course they do! The fact that they do so
is a
simple matter of law and not something that publishers are
in a
position to interfere with or take anyway in a form such as
this.
By taking out some of these unnecessary statements it might
give
more room to make it clear to authors exactly what they are
signing away.
3. In terms of oral presentation rights. I don't know the
position in the US but in the UK the Copyright Designs and
Patents Act 1988, section 59 allows any person (not just a
copyright owner) to read a "reasonable" extract
from a published,
copyright literary work. There may always be debate on what
is
"reasonable" but it is highly unlikely that anyone
would fall
foul of this provision by reading out a substantial part of
such
a work, at a gathering such as a conference. In any case,
various other statutory defences to infringement of
copyright in
the UK would also allow anyone to do this. It frequently
interests me how publishers "license" things which
the general
law often allows in any case - and to a far wider audience
than
the original author!
4. To be honest I still have some difficulty in calling
this, and
similar documents from other publishers, a "LIMITED
COPYRIGHT
TRANSFER." Admittedly it is pretty limited (although
reasonably
representative) in terms of the residual limited rights
reserved
to the author. But I don't think that's what is meant!
5. I also still find it wholly unnecessary to take
copyright, in
an unsolicited work, which the publishers representatives or
referees have not even read and may decide not to publish!
Frankly, I think that that is inappropriate. You do not need
ownership of copyright to put an article out to refereeing
procedures, or simply to consider it for publication and I
think
it is an oppressive and unnecessary approach. Copyright
should
only pass on acceptance of the manuscript and it should not
be
made a pre-condition for its consideration. I don't know
about
the US but I wonder how a UK court would construe such an
"agreement" - notwithstanding the Entire Agreement
clause!
Regards
Laurence W. Bebbington
Law Librarian/IS Copyright Officer
Information Services
Hallward Library
University Park
The University of Nottingham
Nottingham
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l lists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sean Beppler
Sent: 27 March 2007 23:12
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Haworth copyright policy clarification
With apologies for cross-posting, we would like to respond
to
recent comment on several listservs about Haworth, copyright
transfer, and manuscript submission to journals.
It was suggested that Haworth requires copyright transfer
before
beginning the review process to allow us to retain copyright
for
all submissions, published or unpublished. That's a lot of
material, and far more copyright than would be productive.
In fact, language in the "2. Limited Copyright
transfer" section
of the Publication Agreement shows that copyright transfer
is
accomplished "if accepted and published by the
journal..."
Because this important qualification appears to be
overlooked in
a quick reading of the agreement, we're adding the following
plain-English statement:
"Copyright transfer to The Haworth Press, Inc. shall
automatically revert to the author in the event the paper is
not
published." The addition will be posted to all online
versions
of both the Instructions for Authors and Publication
Agreement by
the middle of next week.
Some are presuming, too, that our publication agreement is
uncommonly restrictive, but please note that our publication
agreement provides for limited copyright transfer that
includes
significant author freedoms. Authors retain the following:
1. Proprietary rights, other than copyright, such as patent
rights
2. Oral presentation right
3. Preprint distribution rights, including posting as
electronic
files on the contributor's own website for personal or
professional use, on the contributor's university or
corporate
intranet or network, but not for either commercial or
systematic
third party sales or dissemination, e.g., interlibrary loan
or
document delivery, and the author may update the preprint
with
the final version of the article
4. Photocopying, online transmittal, or downloading rights
to any
colleagues for the advancement of scientific research (with
the
exception of systematic distribution as described above)
5. Publication rights in any book written or edited by the
author, in any edited work for which the contributor is the
sole
editor or senior editor, or teaching coursepack prepared or
written by the author.
For any of the above, no further permission is required from
us.
We ask only that authors include the copyright line,
information
about Haworth document delivery, and if reprinted
electronically,
a hotlink to Haworth. And if the work is reprinted
electronically, there must be no charge for viewing the
article.
This is quite different from the older full-transfer of
copyright
more common to older scholarly publishing.
We've been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these
matters
offline with a number of individuals who have posted about
these
matters.
Catalysts for learning are always welcome, particularly when
it
enables increased understanding between libraries and
publishers.
We welcome the conversation.
Kathryn Rutz
Vice President, Editorial
The Haworth Press, Inc.
Binghamton, New York 13904
|
