What Joe proposes (that funding agencies own the copyright
of the
works they pay authors to write and then take responsibility
for
the dissemination of that work) happens already in the world
of
intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) like the UN, World
Bank,
IMF, OECD et al. Everything published has the institution's
copyright and the institution takes responsibility for
dissemination. Sometimes we even co-publish reports under
joint
copyrights. This is not a new system, it's been in place for
years - certainly pre-internet.
So perhaps it might be interesting to look and see what
happens
with this model. Is everything available for free? Is
everything
published so that it is easily discoverable? Can you rely on
their websites to find archival content?
>From what I know I can say that, yes, most reports are
available
for free, but this is not universally true. IGO websites are
not
usually well organised (because their funding is seldom a
key
priority) so reports are not easily discoverable. Is the
archive
well managed - no. Indeed, in many cases the institution
delegates the responsibility to post and manage content to
authors and they often move or delete older reports without
thinking of the consequences.
It is also true that most IGOs have contracted out the
publishing
of their research journals to specialist journal publishers
(often commercial) because they couldn't provide the
investment
and support needed to develop the journals. In some cases,
reports are also contracted out to book publishers for the
same
reasons. The pressure to outsource is currently growing in
IGOs.
Virtually all IGOs run their publishing operations at a loss
and
funding for these losses is getting harder and harder to
find as
member governments squeeze budgets. In some cases the
posting of
reports online for free has badly eroded the revenue streams
from
selling publications, causing financial problems. As with
many
university presses, it is often the publishing operation
that
gets hit when the squeeze is on as this activity is not
considered 'core'.
Larger IGOs like World Bank, OECD and the main parts of the
UN
have in-house publishing operations that work with the
authors to
improve their original manuscripts and promote the resultant
reports. The financial squeeze means there is less support
for
authors and fewer resources for promotion efforts.
(Promotion
might not seem important, but what is the point of putting
out a
report if no-one reads it?) It is also noticeable that small
IGOs
are struggling to get their reports 'out there' because they
don't have the in-house resources and skills to publish
their
work properly. Two things here: firstly, IGOs have employed
publishing staff to support authors - will funding agencies
end
up doing the same? Secondly, size seems to matter - will
smaller
funding agencies find they have a 'scale' problem?
Toby Green
Head of Publishing, OECD
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l lists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Joseph J. Esposito
Sent: 31 October, 2007 12:57 AM
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: NIH Public Access Mandate Passes Senate
Mandating a nonexclusive right means that the author does
not
fully control the rights. Okay, fair enough: if you don't
believe that an author should have the full rights, why not
just
say that? Saying one own something except for when one
doesn't
isn't persuasive.
As I said in my original post, I have no problem with saying
that
work funded by a third party should be considered a work for
hire. What I find troubling is the pretense that this is
about
authors' rights when it in fact is taking away some authors'
rights.
And this is why mandates are necessary, because open access
does
not have the full support of the authors themselves. There
are
exceptions to this and they are significant.
My own view of a better policy (seconding in part Ann
Okerson's
recent comment to this list, but I doubt she would extend
the
remark as I am) is that government-funded research should be
written up and posted to government-funded open access Web
sites
without an embargo. In this formulation the author (really
"the
writer") has no rights in the work except for those the
granting
body chooses to assign to him or her. In some instances,
the
funding agency may choose to claim authorship of this work,
as
the work-for-hire statute provides (as in "copyright
(c) by the
NIH").
This will ultimately be much more expensive than the current
system, but if costs were the issue, we wouldn't be talking
about
open access to begin with.
Joe Esposito
|
