In our own study (see
http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009308), anxieties
about copyright were mentioned by just under 3% of those who gave
their views for or against self-archiving. Quality concerns and
version proliferation were much more commonly mentioned
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith)
Sent: 04 August 2009 12:00
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice
Stevan -
many thanks for a succinct summary. However, while I agree it has
nothing to do strictly with green OA, the subject of copyright has
been used by some disingenuously to try to dissuade authors from
self-archiving of peer-reviewed material as you well know. Debunking
the myth could prove useful to achieving greater than 15%
self-archiving.
best
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------
Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeffery_at_stfc.ac.uk
Director Information Technology & International Strategy
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK
T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147
President ERCIM & STFC Director:
http://www.ercim.org/
W3C Office at CLRC-RAL
http://www.w3.org/
President euroCRIS
http://www.eurocris.org/
VLDB Trustee Emeritus:
http://www.vldb.org/
EDBT Board Member
http://www.edbt.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it
The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance
with the policy available from
<
http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
____________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 04 August 2009 11:45
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice
To summarise:
Arthur is at pains to try to squeeze some reason out of (or into) an
incoherent formal writ that does not fit research writing and
practice and never has.
Charles is at pains to point out that researcher practice for a
half-century, though ubiquitous and uncontested, is not literally in
conformity with current formal writ, be it coherent or incoherent,
fitting or ill-fitting, so it might be a good idea to rewrite the
writ.
I say let those whose priority is to reformulate incoherent and
ill-fitting formal writs go ahead and pursue their priority. But
meanwhile, let researchers continue their ubiquitous and uncontested
practice: Full speed ahead.
Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open Access Mandates.
http://bit.ly/S9u1H
Amen.
Stevan Harnad
On 4-Aug-09, at 2:53 AM, C.Oppenheim wrote:
Was ever thus, Arthur. If I make copies of a document in a country
with no
copyright laws at all, and attempt to bring them into another
country, I am
breaking the other country's copyright laws if they are infringing
under
that other country's rules. Every country with copyright law has a
clause
which says it is an offence to import copies that would be
infringing. If
such laws didn't exist, you'd get copyright havens with little or no
copyright laws, from which people could export their infringing
copies
around the world. It's not murky at all - it is the basis of
international
copyright agreements! For the record, it's Clause 27(3) of the UK
Act.
You may find this all very frustrating; if you don't like it, lobby
to
change the law, but don't deny what the law says.
Charles
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:30:58 +1000
Arthur Sale <ahjs_at_OZEMAIL.COM.AU> wrote:
Charles
You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian
hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls under an
exemption and is perfectly legal. From there you get into
the murkier water of trans-border 'law'. However, it
seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to someone in
the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a
perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific
customs or ownership legislation to the contrary, for
example as occurs with the receipt of banned drugs mailed
from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law exists in
respect of the holding of copyright works as far as I
know.
Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue
is and how to resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I
recognise that the law in some other countries is
sometimes behind the times. However, you prompted me to
look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29.
Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright
Works
Introductory
28 Introductory provisions
(1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which
may be done in relation to copyright works
notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright; they relate
only to the question of infringement of copyright and do
not affect any other right or obligation restricting the
doing of any of the specified acts.
(2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act
does not infringe copyright, or may be done without
infringing copyright, and no particular description of
copyright work is mentioned, the act in question does not
infringe the copyright in a work of any description.
(3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of
any act which may by virtue of this Chapter be done
without infringing copyright as to the scope of the acts
restricted by the copyright in any description of work.
(4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed
independently of each other, so that the fact that an act
does not fall within one provision does not mean that it
is not covered by another provision.
General
29 Research and private study
(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work for the purposes of research or private
study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in
the case of a published edition, in the typographical
arrangement.
(2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a
published edition for the purposes mentioned in
subsection (1) does not infringe any copyright in the
arrangement.
(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or
student himself is not fair dealing if-
(a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on
behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations
under section 40 would not permit to be done under
section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works:
restriction on multiple copies of same material), or
(b) in any other case, the person doing the copying
knows or has reason to believe that it will result in
copies of substantially the same material being provided
to more than one person at substantially the same time
and for substantially the same purpose.
While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems
to me that:
· Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption
clauses.
· Research copying is not restricted to the
person doing the copying. Indeed the wording makes a
distinction between `research' and `private study'
(Clause 29(1)). It does not even say `private research'.
All the `private study' does actually is to prohibit
copying for classes.
· Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is
not completely clear who the `researcher' is: producer or
consumer. However, assuming consumer - the most
restrictive case and the most probable interpretation -
the law simply requires the producing researcher to be
convinced that he is doing copying for a single consumer
researcher and that it will not be disseminated further.
The clause actually explicitly assumes third parties
(librarians) might be involved.
UK Law does not seem to be as prehistoric as you make
out. I think there are old misunderstandings being
rehearsed here. Fair dealing (in particular copying to
facilitate research) was and remains legal as well as
common practice, especially in the homeland of scientific
journal.
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 5:21 PM
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM]
"Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
I now understand why Arthur and I disagree. He is
referring to Australian
Copyright Law, and I am referring to UK law.
I am happy to accept that Arthur's approach is accurate
in Australian law.
unfortunately in UK, and most of EU law, it isn't. In
these countries,
there is a clear distinction between the right of
reproduction and the
communication right and the law treats them differently.
Thus, in the UK,
it is legal for anyone to copy a work for themselves
under fair dealing, but
fair dealing does not apply to the communication right
(i.e., providing
things electronically to third parties).
Thus, unfortunately, whilst Arthur may well be able to
do what he suggests
within Australia (and no doubt some other countries as
well), what he cannot
do is send such materials to the EU as the recipient
would be breaking the
law by importing an infringing copy. Arthur and others
may well of course
argue that this is such a trivial illegality that the
risk can gbe taken,
and I'd agree. But there's a world of difference
between saying "it's
illegal, but the risk is trivial" and saying "it's
absolutely legal".
I am sure readers of the forum are by now totally bored
by this topic so I
don't intend to say anything more on it, other to remind
them that there are
numerous solutions to the problem anyway: to send a
requestor an earlier
version of the work before copyright was assigned; to
assign copyright but
make sure the publisher gives permission for you to send
stuff
electronically to requestors; or not to assign
copyright at all to the
publisher.
Charles
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:15:16 +1000
Arthur Sale <ahjs_at_OZEMAIL.COM.AU> wrote:
Charles
The Australian Act makes no mention of who
does the
reproduction. Whether I make a
reproduction/copy (say
electronic by email, or photocopy my
manuscript or the
journal, or some other form of copy) of my
article to
give to my PhD student, or he/she does it
personally from
a CD I lend or a journal issue they borrow,
makes no
difference. I can even ask an administrative
assistant to
make the copy for me and deliver it. What
matters is that
the copy is for the purpose of research or
study. Exactly
the same applies to a remote researcher who
asks me for a
copy of my article.
I left out sections 1A and 1B of Section 40
but they
(amongst other things) even make provision
for
reproductions of journal articles to be
provided to
[multiple] off-campus students engaged in a
course of
study.
The Australian Act simply recognises that
research
thrives on dissemination. I might add that it
is equally
sensible in other areas, such as photography
of copyright
works located permanently or temporarily in
public
places.
But Stevan is right. The law is not the
issue. I merely
pointed out that the Australian Act is more
sensible than
most in that it legitimises what is common
practice, so
common indeed as to be hardly worth remarking
on except
when people query it. The facts are that
researchers have
practised copying of research articles and
sending copies
to fellow researchers for a long time, and
they continue
to do so. My memory of this goes back to when
I started
work as an academic in 1961, 48 years ago. My
publishers
then even asked me how many reprints I wanted
- not
necessary these days.
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 10:31 PM
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re:
[AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM]
"Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
The Austrlain Act does indeed permit fair
dealing for
one's own research or
private study; but it doesn't permit copying
for
distribution to third
parties.
I am slightly alarmed that there is this
misunderstanding about copyright
law. Fair dealing for research or private
study is
when you make a copy
for one's own research or private study.
Thus, in law,
if Dr Jones asks Dr
Smith for an electronic copy of Dr Smith's
article, and
Dr Smith gave away
the copyright to Megacorp Publishers, then Dr
Smith
should strictly not
supply that copy (unless the publisher has
granted
permission for do such
things) b3ecause the copy isn't then for Dr
Smith's own
research or private
study, but should advise Dr Jones to make his
own fair
dealing copy.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Wed Aug 05 2009 - 21:35:04 BST