No need for the sarcasm. The author's addendum, preprint
repositories, mandated archiving, etc. all increase
administrative costs for publishers. There is no point in
denying
this. Someone might say, Well, I don't care if it increases
administration; I want these things anyway. And that's a
fair
thing to say. But to deny that the costs are going up is not
to
face reality.
Joe Esposito
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sandler" <msandler uiuc.edu>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: RE: Science Commons, SPARC Announce New Tools for
> One might get the impression from Sandy's entry that
his Press'
> stable of journals was firmly in the black, serving not
only
> the needs of scholars in such burgeoning fields as Shaw
Studies
> and Nietzsche Studies, but providing a needed revenue
stream
> for the University.
>
> Then, without warning, this excellent business
opportunity is
> put in jeopardy by librarian ideologues needlessly
prodding the
> always tractable faculty authors to seek the right to
post
> their work in institutional repositories. Now, the
once
> profitable undertakings of the Press are being
undermined as
> hundreds of staff hours are redirected to address the
ceaseless
> demands of misguided rhetoriticians, bibliophiles, and
> nihilists waving addenda under the noses of editors and
rights
> managers. Oh my, the collateral damage we have
wrought!
>
> ____________________________________
> Mark Sandler
> Director, Center for Library Initiatives
> Committee on Institutional Cooperation
> Champaign, IL 61820-7271
>
> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu on behalf of
sgt3psu.edu
> Sent: Sun 5/27/2007 11:00 PM
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Science Commons, SPARC Announce New Tools
for Scholarly
> Publishing
>
> First I will beg the indulgence of the moderator of
this list
> and its readers to accept a flurry of postings from me.
I have
> dutifully downloaded the postings for the past six
weeks but
> had such a busy schedule that I have had to postpone to
this
> weekend responding to any. So here I begin....
>
> I have a simple question to ask those who stand behind
and
> support this initiative (and others similar to it, like
the one
> proposed by the CIC provosts): how does it help
universities
> that pay for their presses to publish journals to
create a lot
> of extra work for their staffs explaining to authors
why they
> cannot accept all of the proposed clauses in the
addendum? This
> is a real cost, which will add to the burden of already
> understaffed university presses (like mine).
>
> A university press (like mine) that relies for a very
> substantial part of its journal income from
participation in
> Project Muse simply cannot afford to sign an agreement
that
> would have the effect of undermining Project Muse. A
clause
> that allows authors, or others, to post on the open
Internet
> the final peer-reviewed and copyedited version of their
> articles, with or without a six-month delay, is very
likely to
> lead eventually to the demise of Muse-which, may I
remind you
> all, was established with the support of a Mellon grant
jointly
> to the press and library at Johns Hopkins and was
developed
> from the beginning to be a library-friendly, reasonably
priced
> resource.
>
> If Muse disappears, then so too do all of the ten
journals that
> we currently publish and have enrolled in Muse,
including such
> long-established leading journals in their fields as
Philosophy
> & Rhetoric, The Chaucer Review, and Comparative
Literature
> Studies and such newer journals as Book History (the
official
> journal of the Society for the History of Authorship,
Reading,
> and Publishing). It has long since passed the time when
their
> print subscriptions alone could sustain the cost of
publishing
> them.
>
> I am also curious as to the legality of this further
strategy
> proposed by SPARC and adopted by the University of
Wisconsin
> Faculty Senate on May 7 when it approved the CIC
initiative:
>
> The Library Committee amended the original CIC addendum
> distributed by the CIC provosts to include subsection 4
that
> was derived from ARL's Scholarly Publishing and
Academic
> Resources Coalition (SPARC). ARL/SPARC has been an
> international leader in the discussion of author rights
and
> scholarly communications. This sub-section is a default
clause
> that states that in the event that the publisher
publishes the
> article in the journal without signing a copy of the
addendum,
> the publisher will be deemed to have assented to the
terms of
> the addendum.
>
> Not being a lawyer, I'm no expert on the validity of
such
> "default" clauses, but I would bet that they
are unenforceable.
> A license is a license, and if the publisher does not
agree to
> terms explicitly in writing, no "default" is
going to compel
> the publisher to do anything it doesn't want to do.
Other
> opinions, please?
>
> As for the general approach of Creative Commons (copied
in this
> Science Commons version) to provide a means for authors
to
> license any uses that are "noncommercial," I
would appreciate
> knowing what "noncommercial" means. If it is
meant to be the
> equivalent of "educational," then it is as
vacuous and
> unhelpful as the view that "fair use"
sanctions any
> "educational" use-which, as we all know from
a variety of
> Supreme Court cases, is not the view of the highest
court in
> the land. For the vast majority of the specialized
scholarly
> writing that is the subject of journal licensing
agreements,
> there is NO market outside of higher education-which
is, by the
> way, the reason that university presses were
established in the
> first place. Is "noncommercial" then supposed
to be a synonym
> for "nonprofit"? But university presses are
nonprofit entities.
> Thus, are we permitted by Creative Commons licenses to
> republish any articles or book chapters whose authors
have
> signed such a license? It would be nice to know so that
we
> don't have to bother paying them any permission fees.
The same,
> of course, would hold for "nonprofit" society
publishers. Our
> missions are, of course, to serve scholarship, so we
would be
> happy to accept this interpretation of
"noncommercial." I'm not
> sure its creators intended for it to be interpreted in
that
> way. On the other hand, I really haven't a clue about
how they
> did intend it to be construed, since it is inherently a
> slippery concept. And the whole edifice of CC licensing
is
> built upon this shaky commercial/noncommercial
distinction, is
> it not?
>
> As in much else that is going on now, every step
forward in one
> arena seems to entail a step backward in another. If
> universities were thinking systematically about this
issue
> instead of narrowly focusing on the STM journal
problem, they
> would realize that proposals like these are at least
partly
> self-defeating.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
> Penn State Press
|
