[GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[David Wojick]

The point is that the dominant role of copyright in scholarly publishing is to benefit the publisher, to the detriment of OA, not the author. In fact it is argued that OA benefits the author.

This is why Wallinsky's simple OA proposal is to reduce the copyright term to the minimum needed to maintain publishing. My version of this proposal is based on the US Public Access Program's 12 month embargo, but the basic concept is variable. The goal is to eliminate long term copyright for journal articles.

David

On Mar 26, 2018, at 7:29 PM, "SANFORD G THATCHER" <sgt3 at psu.edu> wrote:

> Yes, in theory the publisher has all the rights and can do what it wants with
> respect to translations. But then you should check with your publisher to see
> what kind of translation rights agreement the publisher uses when licensing
> foreign rights.  Very often, if not universally, that contract will include a
> clause stipulating that the author has the right to vet the translation before
> it is published.
> 
> As for the publisher exercising a right not to have the author publish another
> work on the same subject that could affect the sales of the work under
> contract. all contracts I know of have a "competing works" clause that deals
> with this issue.
> 
> Finally, I'm well aware of how the increase in journal subscriptions prices
> affected the sales of university press monographs and have written about that
> subject many times. here is one example:
> https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/concern/generic_works/sf268537s
> 
> And people who know me know that I have long been a strong advocate for OA. I
> drafted the AAUP (presses)'s Statement on Open Access in 2007.
> 
> Sandy Thatcher
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 10:37 AM Jennifer Heise <jheise at drew.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I have some questions in relation to these assertions:
>> 
>> I'm unclear how signing your copyright over to a publisher in toto (which
>> is basically what I was asked to do when publishing with Haworth) would
>> still allow you the right to object to derivative works. Surely only the
>> copyright owner can object to derivative works, and in fact, if the creator
>> is not the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to object to
>> derivative works subsequently published by the original creator! (In fact,
>> this is one of the issues I believe the Statute of Anne was meant to
>> address-- Gervase Markham, for instance, was sued by a consortium of his
>> publishers for having sold them all works that were derivatives of each
>> other.)
>> 
>> In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual
>> institutional tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly?
>> There are definite expectations of where one may publish, as I understand