Not to throw another wrench into this, but to what extant does
distribution of a preprint violate the "I certify that this work has not
been previously published," clause of a typical academic copyright
assignment? If this was a violation of the contract, what relief could
the publisher get?
Of course their most punitive avenues for recourse if they believed that this was contrary to their contract with the author would be non-judicial. They could easily "blacklist" the author and refuse to publish their works. If Elsevier did this, 100s of journals would be unavailable to the author. If publishers shared their blacklists, like casinos or airlines, they could make an author works unpublishable. They could remove the article from the online versions of their journals, an increasingly important means of distribution. They might even conceivably be able to get the article either delisted or marked with a "suspicion of academic fraud" tag in indexing services. Since these measures are much more punitive than any relief that a court could give, I would think twice before pissing off a publisher.
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Pietro Riolo
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:00 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] Do PrePrints and PostPrints Need a
Copyright Licence?
On 10/17/05, Stevan Harnad <harnad[_at_]ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> It is somewhat misleading, though, to say that "eprints," generically,
need a
> separate license: The preprints do, the postprints do not.
Herein lies a wrong assumption that preprint and postprint are two distinct works. Postprint can be either considered to be same as preprint or a derivative work based on preprint. It all depends on how much difference there is between preprint and postprint.
If there is very little difference between preprint and postprint, the license that applies to preprint also applies to postprint.
If there are many differences between preprint and postprint that postprint is considered as a derivative work, the license that applies to preprint may or may not apply to postprint depending on the wording of the license.
> Recommendations for naked preprints are welcome, but the postprints
are already
> covered by publisher copyright.
So are the preprints. If publisher owns copyright in postprint, it also owns copyright in preprint. You are relying on a very wrong assumption that preprint and postprint have separate copyrights.
> http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/
I have to wonder why you continue to give the wrong information on copyright.
I will point out the incorrect information in your FAQ.
It is simply wrong to state that the copyright transfer agreement does not apply to preprint when the agreement is not made at the time of preprint. You made a wrong assumption that the copyright that is transferred according to the agreement is different from the copyright that exists in preprint. When you transfer copyright in your work to someone else, the copyright covers all the copies of the work. That includes preprint. Note that the author can retain a copy at his website. He simply no longer has the right to create more copies and to distribute more copies unless he has the permission from the copyright holder that holds copyright in his work.
Another wrong information that you continue to give is related to corrigenda. Corrigenda alone is not illegal from the perspective of copyright law. However, it is simply illegal to combine preprint and corrigenda to create a text that is totally identical to postprint whose copyright is owned by copyright holder unless you are permitted to do so. The reason is simply that the copyright holder holds copyright in postprint (and preprint). You continue to give the wrong information that it is legal to combine preprint and corrigenda.
The only reason I can see why you continue to give wrong information is that you are very obsessive with open access that you do not want anything relating to copyright to interfere your obsession. That is your business. I for one don't think that it is proper to give the wrong information to scientists who are not well educated in copyright. It is far better to give correct information even though it may restrict your goal to have open access than to give incorrect information misleading the scientists in thinking that they are following the copyright law when they are not.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,822
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
<CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Thu Oct 20 2005 - 02:05:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT