Re: transfer of c. in conference proceedings

On 7/31/98, <lesley[_at_]copyrightlaws.com> wrote:
>
> On July 30, 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 07/28/98, Angela Putney <aputney[_at_]aip.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/27/98, Stephen Childe <s.childe[_at_]plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is becoming increasingly common for the organisers of academic
> > > > conferences to insist on the authors of submitted papers signing a
> > > > form to transfer their copyright to the organiser or the organising
> > > > institution or publisher.
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > In Physics and Astronomy conference proceedings, the publishers (that
> > > I am aware of) require a transfer of copyright agreement. They claim
> > > they need this in order to be able to properly publish and distribute
> > > the proceedings (they need some form of rights to publish it in any
> > > case).
> >
> > Well, yes, but the agreement need only tranfer a non-exclusive right
> > to publish the paper. In fact, you might be able to infer such a
> > right from the fact that the author presented the paper at the
> > conference, without a written agreement. This doesn't necessitate
> > transfer of all rights.
> >
> > > If there are any infringements, they can fight for the author.
> >
> > With statutory damages and attorney's fees, the author can probably
> > fight for herself. The real value here may be in detecting, rather than
> > enforcing, the copyright -- a publisher working in the subject matter
> > area may be more likely to detect infringements than the author would
> > be. I emphasize *may.*
> >
> > > They can also deal with requests for re-printing (the publisher is
> > > usually easier to find years later than the author).
> >
> > This is also a dubious assumption. I have watched several smaller
> > scientific publishing houses go out of business, which makes the
> > copyright holder *really* hard to find.
> >
> > > They can also re-print the proceedings if they have copyright (I could
> > > imagine a one-time use consent to publish being offered which would
> > > disallow this).
> >
> > This could also be dealt with by a more limited rights transfer, even a
> > non-exclusive rights transfer.
> >
> > > (This is what I am told at least).
> >
> > I think you (like the rest of us) have been told some convenient
> > justifications by publishers.
> >
> > I suspect the real reason is that conference proceedings don't tend to
> > sell very many copies, so that the publisher feels it needs the ability
> > to exploit the work in ancillary or secondary markets in order to make
> > a profit. Besides being the real reason, this might actually be a
> > persuasive reason if the publisher would admit it.
>
> I would also suggest that academics and others exclude electronic
> rights from any license; otherwise, papers may appear on various Web
> sites without approval of the author.

Wearing my Devil's Advocate hat...

If I am putting on a symposium, a conference or what have you, why would I want to go to all the expense of arranging the venue, coordinating with speakers and attendees, ordering rubber-chicken lunches and -- most importantly -- publishing the papers and other acta of the thing if I couldn't ensure that individual authors wouldn't be publishing their papers in competition with my efforts? Why would I want to take the risk of inadvertently overstepping (or being accused of overstepping) the bounds of my license? Especially given limited market and low margins for conference proceedings, I can see why an organizer would want to have a pretty sizable chunk of the copyright bundle of rights.

And I don't think publishers hide the reasons for their contract language. I've dealt with publishers on the similar issue of who gets rights to a treatise if the author decides to stop updating it, and they have been very frank: They're putting all the money into publishing, production and marketing of the work -- and they're not willing to see their efforts taken away if the author "quits" on them.

***

Comments purely my own, generated by my own brain and not the collective or individual brains of my employers. Not for internal use or for use as legal advice.

Daniel J. Schaeffer
<daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> Received on Fri Jul 31 1998 - 14:18:54 GMT