Re: Haworth demands copyright prior to peer review

From: Jim Ottaviani <jim.ottaviani_at_UMICH.EDU>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:20:13 -0400

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Thomas Krichel wrote:

> Virginia Baldwin writes
>> As for copyright permission prior to peer review, the publisher needs
>> permission to publish a work.
> Yes, so they could require the permission before starting peer
> review. But they require full copyright transfer...

One point of clarification, but it's a very important one that I hope will
remind folks of the larger issue:

Yes, the publisher needs permission from the copyright owner to publish
the work. But the real need for full and exclusive ownership of copyright
is made clear when you look at the copyright notice inside almost any
novel or work of non-fiction you own. Try the latest Harry Potter book,
for example.

A publisher does not need to own the copyright to accept, edit, publish,
and make a lot of money from your work. (Again see Harry Potter.)

Most academic presses demand a full copyright transfer at some point and
present their contracts as if there's no other way that a publisher could
function -- as if they'd face financial ruin if it was any other way. But
it's simply not true. Sharing or licensing rights, or limiting their
duration, can and does work elsewhere. Lot's of elsewheres, in fact.


Jim Ottaviani
+1 734-763-4835
Coordinator, Deep Blue
University of Michigan Library

        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
           --Juvenal, Satires VI, 347
Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 00:08:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:49 GMT