In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Quoth Fytton Rowland <[log in to unmask]>:
> Until yesterday I was rather strongly of the opinion that Universities
> should retain the copyright in primary journal articles written by their
> academic staff, or that the academics should retain it personally,
> rather
> than transfer it to the publishers, for the usual reason that it seems
> inequitable to give away your intellectual property for nothing and then
> have to buy it back again.
Yes...
> However, at yesterday's ACORN Seminar in London, the point was made that
> when third parties seek copyright permissions for reproduction of
> material,
> it is much easier and quicker for this to be done if the publisher
> actually
> owns all the copyrights. As more and more of them are retained by
> authors
> or their employers, the process of obtaining permissions gets slower and
> more cumbersome and expensive, especially if the author holds the rights
> personally and has moved on or died!
But...
> Although I still hold my original view in principle, I can see that
> here are
> practical problems involved if *not* transferring copyrights becomes the
> norm. It was suggested yesterday that various intermediaries, such as
> the
> CLA (Copyright Licensing Agency) or subscription agencies might provide
> copyright clearance services in such a future scenario.
Precisely: collective license administration is the quid pro quo
for retaining rights in an electronic environment.
Three projects off the top of my head (remind me to put up a
handy page of URLs):
* The Authors Registry (USA) is starting up as a directory of rights-
holders, for ease of contact to negotiate permission, with the
goal of moving towards automatic collection later;
* The Publication Rights Clearinghouse (USA) is starting up with
deals to collect license fees on specific distribution paths
(notably CARL);
* Imprimatur (EU), discussed here, is largely concerned with
standards for tracking of works and of authors.
When I signed with the PRC, I granted them a license to syndicate
wherever, so long as I get my negotiated cut. It strikes me that
the CLA (and the CCC in the USA) operate on the basis of an
implied license for whoever to photocopy.
There's no reason in principle why these should not develop into
a hybrid between automatic licensing and referral to author.
I should, for example, be able to flag a particular piece with an
explicit license to any academic author to cite for a minimal set
fee but specify that all requests from trade magazines be
referred to me as a standard email form for human-to-human
negotiation. I could set a zero fee for specified uses (analogous
to the distinction between zero-rating and exemption in VAT lore...
probably not the best analogy in this forum.) I could, also, I
expect, specify that requests from named authors/editors be
referred to me... and I'm imagining an automatic rejection slip
as the ultimate academic snub:
To: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Request refused
Request: reprint Holderness990430.HAA876d
Response: 408 credibility not found
:-)
Mike Holderness
http://www.poptel.org.uk/nuj/mike
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|