<div dir="ltr"><div><div>"Let's remember that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher
is still a valid option and for many authors may be the best option."<br><br>But why *transfer* your copyright, Jeffrey? Why not just *licence* the publication in a specified format? Whatever they may claim, publishers don't need to own the copyright to publish their books or journals, "to defend the integrity of the text", or any of the other pretexts for requiring ownership of the copyright that I have seen. They just need a license to do specific, and specified things with the text. In my view, authors should resist is the infamous "all rights" (or "Mickey Mouse") clause seizing the right to publish the text in print and in all other formats, including those developed "at any time in the future". I have even seen an extension of this rights grab to include "anywhere in the universe", no doubt preparatory to hyperdrive publications beamed lucratively from Alpha Centauri.<br><br>By all means, *license* your text for specific print, online, CD-ROM or other uses, but don't give your copyright away.<br></div><br>Best,<br></div><br>Chris<br><br>Chris Zielinski<br>Blog: <a href="http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com">http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com</a><br>Research publications: <a href="http://www.researchgate.net">http://www.researchgate.net</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 April 2015 at 15:45, Beall, Jeffrey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu" target="_blank">Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:<br>
<br>
1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations<br>
<br>
2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing contentiousness and debate, even among experts.<br>
<br>
3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time.<br>
<br>
I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in J-STOR and will be preserved.<br>
<br>
My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option and for many authors may be the best option.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor<br>
Scholarly Communications Librarian<br>
Auraria Library<br>
University of Colorado Denver<br>
1100 Lawrence St.<br>
Denver, Colo. 80204 USA<br>
(303) 556-5936<br>
<a href="mailto:jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu">jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>