Posted on Liblicense-L, 10 March 2008.
OXFORD, UK, MONDAY, 10 MARCH 2008 1700GMT.
The debate on the rights that authors have (or indeed it is claimed inaccurately, do not have) over their published works continues to rage, and much coverage has been given to purportedly restrictive practices or policies, when in fact they do not exist for the majority of publishers. The most recent examples surround the vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard for university ownership and distribution of research papers (February 2008). One advocate of the Harvard policy claims that this step was taken because “the scholarly publishing system has become far more restrictive than it need be [… m]any publishers will not even allow scholars to use and distribute their own work.” (See Harvard to collect, disseminate scholarly articles for faculty, from the Harvard University Gazette).
This is not only an inaccurate perception of the role of publishers and copyright, but also means that advocating authors to modify existing journal publishing agreements with “copyright addenda” is simply a call for needless bureaucracy.
(more…)