collective rights organizations

>In reply to Mary Brandt Jensen's posting, those publishers that do
>understand the copyright law and get advice from attorneys often have
>trouble with collective licensing organizations because they do not
>have systems that allow the publisher to specify those articles
>for which the publisher was not assigned full rights. This is
>becoming a serious problem for primary publishers, seconary publishers,
>and collective rights organizations.

>Janet Fisher
>MIT Press

Perhaps what we need is a joint statement from publishers, authors and attorneys to the collective rights organizations stressing the need for modification of their systems to specify those works for which the publisher was not assigned full rights. I too have gotten almost nowhere in my individual requests for recognitition from such organizations that I own my own copyrights and that the CRO's have no right to license them. At present, I would be happy to give the CRO's permission to license most of my works provided they agreed to little or no licensing fee being attached to my work. But it really irks me to see copyright fees as high as $20 assigned to a two page article that I wrote and for which I would like to see wide circulation -- especially when I still own the copyright and never agreed to such a fee.

Mary Brandt Jensen       	   "The definition is pursued to its logical
Professor of Law                   conclusion in a long series of cases. 
University of South Dakota         ... We do not pause to consider whether
School of Law			   a statute differently conceived and 
414 E. Clark St.		   framed would yield results more 
Vermillion, SD 57069-2390	   consonant with fairness and reason.
(605) 677 6363			   We take the statute as we find it."
(605) 677 6357 fax		   Benjamin Cardozo, Anderson v. Wilson
CNICOPY[_at_]CHARLIE.USD.EDU		   289 U.S. 20, 27 (1933)
****************************************************************************