There are two issues that I would like to see discussed.
The first concerns emended version of published works placed on web servers
by the authors. When we place research articles on my web site we almost
invariably supplement the original work. Additions have included color
versions of figures, new figures, active links either to other work, or to
subsequent research (forward citations), text corrections, short
annotations, QuickTime movies, expanded methods sections, and major text
additions and revisions to the results and discussion sections (the latter
marked within brackets) see
http://www.nervenet.org/main/papers.html).
I consider all of these emended publications as 2nd editions. Copyright
belongs to me and my coauthors. Such 2nd editions obviously complicate the
citation of work, but they also revitalize research publications that would
otherwise be moribund. There are plenty of problmes with such second
editions, but I do think that the benefits outweight potential problems
and abuses. In a recent Springer Verlag copyright transfer agreement for a
review I had to strike out an outrageous clause that would have ceded
copyright of "all subsequent editions" to the publisher.
Second: Producing html code can be quite involved and obviously adds
enormous value to a work. When my coauthors or I generate html code for our
published work could this in itself be copyrighted as an html edition? Are
there any precedents? This may be another instance in which it bcomes
important to strike out offensive clauses in copyright transfer agreements.
Rob
Robert W. Williams
Center for Neuroscience
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology
University of Tennessee
855 Monroe Avenue
Memphis TN 38163
TEL (901) 448-7018, or 7050, 7557
FAX ...-7193
EMAIL: rwilliam_at_nb.utmem.edu
http://nervenet.org/
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT