Thank you both for your response.  I'd just like to say that the question was most certainly raised in earnest - by the academic and by me.  

If nothing else, it illustrates that not everyone is yet as familiar with Open Access to research or as convinced of its benefits as Stevan - and myself - but as an advocate of OA I knew that already!

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 24 November 2008 21:36
To: Stevan Harnad; Sheppard, Nick; Sheppard, Nick
Subject: Re: Re: ACLS and royalties/some observations on th e question and response


its a fair question and that is not a fair answer. Its just one o f the knotty issues bound up in copyright law (im well thru a Masters in IP LAw at Melbourne right now, so such crossover queries have been th e meat and drink of some o f the lectures)

the enquirer didnt raise the related issues of moral rights- but I am in dispute with a number of UK publishers in republishing some of my work with out attribution ( a clear moral right under Berne let alone UK copyright and Eu copyright law), and the appropriate response is make this right inoperative in a click on licnece and conditions agreement in the submission process, not ridicule. Such  recognition information  and acknowledgement. is an appropriate way of managing this issue.

Workers in the so-called "scholarly communication" field (which of course really includes those who create the work, not just those who use th e outputs in repositories) seem to have a dismissive attitude to those who actually create the work, and th ir own rights in copyright and moral rights law-- the TRIPS and super trips agreements have some far reaching implications and deserve to be taken seriously- particularly in organisations that treat researchers like naughty boys and mandate' submissions

You have a fine well earned and highly respected reputation with digital libraraions within repository areas, its sad to see this response diminish the excellent and usually even handed and informed contributions that you contribute in a steady stream

Im all too well aware of the lack of interest in th creators of th e materials, and the modes of making repositories a useful tool DURING research to the creators of the materials in which digital libraraians use as their feedstock (if ONLY we coudl get a any serious engagement with them, instead of having to wrte our own data.document.mapping repositories from scratch to get this) ,  but please, be kinder to your own colleagues. they deserve it

the legal interactiosn of copyright, moral rights and employment law are stil in flux and require careful treatment, i felt that this query was a thoughtprovinking ne.. and have been assembking th elgal backgrounds on th etwo areas with some real interest.., the interactiosn of employment and contract law make this a non trivial query due to th e extended scope of this question that goes well beyond simple research papers!

marc wigan

> Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> On 24-Nov-08, at 7:10 AM, Sheppard, Nick wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > An academic has recently contacted me with an enquiry about ACLS and  
> > the payment of royalties on material downloaded from IRs:
> >
> > The other aspect of this is that academics - under the ACLS service  
> > - authors collecting and licencing service - derive (admittedly  
> > small) amounts of money from institutional copying charges world  
> > wide of published articles. If we start putting up essays on a  
> > repository, we are in danger of cutting off a legitimate source of  
> > income for our work - some years it might be 70 quid others it might  
> > be 220 from p/copying in Norway and USA or Europe etc.  If the ACLS  
> > were able to figure the number of hits to university repositories,  
> > we could continue to receive payment on the basis of our copyright  
> > ownership.
> >
> > I spoke to someone at ACLS who told me they are unsure of where they  
> > stand on the issue themselves and referred me to the Society of  
> > Authors for further advice.  Thought I’d try the list first…
> 
> It is hard to discern whether this question was raised in earnest or  
> in jest: Does anyone imagine that the authors of refereed journal  
> articles would gain more from the pennies they might demand from ACLS  
> tolls on viewing their content (online viewing tolls alongside the  
> subscription tolls from which OA was meant to free refereed research  
> articles) than they would from the enhanced uptake, usage, and impact  
> that OA itself provides, freeing it from the access-toll barriers, and  
> the contribution of that enhanced impact to their performance  
> evaluations, salaries, promotions, RAE and research funding?
> 
> OA is about author-giveaway content: refereed journal articles,  
> written only for research usage and impact, not royalty-seeking books,  
> nor fee-based magazine articles. How on earth does ACLC get into this  
> at all?
> 
> 1.1. Distinguish the non-give-away literature from the give-away  
> literature
> 1.2. Distinguish income (arising from article sales) from impact  
> (arising from article use)
> http://cogprints.org/1639/1/resolution.htm#1.1
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Nick Sheppard
> >
> > Repository Development Officer
> >
> > The Headingley Library
> >
> > James Graham Building
> >
> > Leeds Metropolitan University
> >
> > Beckett Park
> >
> > Leeds
> >
> > LS6 3QS
> >
> > Tel: 0113 812 4731
> >
> > email: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > blog: http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go  
> > to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
> >
> >


To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm