Re: copyright management information?

On 3/30/99, C.E. Petit <cepetit[_at_]usa.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, John R. Allison <allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/25/99, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just had an article published by the Duke Law Journal (with Eugene
> > > Volokh). Despite the fact that we retained copyright, the editors
> > > apparently stripped out our copyright notice, and put their own
> > > copyright notice on the cover.
> > >
> > > I have no intention of suing them, but it strikes me that this sort
> > > of situation may well violate new section 1202. The act was clearly
> > > deliberate, so it seems that liability would depend on whether the
> > > editors knew or should have known that doing this would "enable or
> > > facilitate" infringement. I don't expect they intended to infringe
> > > the copyright themselves, but I would also be willing to bet that
> > > they would grant reprint permission to our article without contacting
> > > us. Wouldn't this be "enabling infringement"?
> >
> > I wouldn't let this go. Law review editors, especially at the top
> > schools, can be terribly arrogant despite their ignorance. They know
> > not and they know not that they know not.
>
> Don't be too hard on the poor student editors. As a fairly recent law
> review editor myself, remember that the Trustees of the University are
> usually the ones who demand copyright (Harvard is notorious -- even books
> claim copyright to the Trustees). Further, that kind of information is
> usually put in the journal by the permanent staff, who are (again)
> employees of the University. It took a HUGE effort and repeated
> corrections for me to get Professor Gorman's copyright notice correct
> on an article we published in 1995--by my recollection, six rounds of
> deleting the U of I copyright and putting in Professor Gorman's
> copyright.
>
> That said, it's still inexcusable. Since there's no compensation (other
> than the dubious courtesy of contributors' copies) for publishing a
> law review article, is there adequate consideration for transfer of
> copyright? As a matter of fairness, etc., I don't believe so. But,
> since adequacy of consideration is seldom inquired into, that argument
> won't fly. It is still, however, unethical for an academic publisher to
> demand copyright in a law review article. Then again, these are the
> trustees who look the other way at NCAA violations, so long as the team
> is winning...

Yes, I came down too hard on the student editors. I was just so infuriated. I was a law review editor-in-chief myself, and was guilty of some of the same sins I attribute to them -- the main thing being the excessive gratuitous rewriting. Thanks for your perceptive comments.

John Allison
allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu Received on Wed Mar 31 1999 - 13:15:18 GMT