Copyright and Journals

[BAJR]

Interesting debate on britarch .. aye... it can happen! Just like here! Anyway...
given we have talked about copyright before, and many here will have experience of this very situation:
read on

I am looking to place an article in a journal but as part of the Journal's
requirements there is the statement that I will have to sign/agree to

A statement transferring copyright from the authors (or their employers, if
they hold the copyright) to [the publishers] will be required before the
manuscript can be accepted for publication.

I am not sure what this means in practice as I am hoping to use an amended
article for a longer one elsewhere or possibly as the core of a book. I suspect
the reason that publishers want copyright is so that authors can't put their
article onto the Web, or is there another reason?

If I can't use the article as such (I am loathe to pay a Journal for use of an
article I've written), how much would need to change before copyright
changes back to myself. (The publisher is American, but similar statements are
in place for many UK journals as well)

Has anyone any experience of issues associated with assigning copyright?

Regards

Chris Daniell
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webad...=D&P=70987

a good answer (it would be useful to read them all. )

is here

One of the main issues driving handing over of copyright is digitisation.
Most major journals are now available on line, occasionally free but more
often for sale per article or as a part of an institutional licensing
agreement e.g with university libraries. Other journals sometimes sell
their back issues on cd disks. Sale of digitized knowledge is now big
business. In the last few months I forked out ?30 for year's subscription
to the closed content of British History online so I can search the close
roll indices on line; paid for a digital copy of a US thesis from the 50s
and bought a print on demand reprint of a 19th century French edition of a
medieval cartulary saving myself a train ride to the BL where I probably
couldn't get a seat anyway unless I booked a hotel the night before- its now
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webad...=0&P=78522
full of undergrads writing term essays.

Hmmm... who owns what we right... and why do groups require copyright transfer... I can understand for example when placing records into archive (for example to the RCAHMS) it is easier to transfer copyright, as if they ever do whnt to use anything, imagine having to track people down before being able to print that plan or use the record...
(see this : http://www.scribd.com/doc/25930284/Archi...d-curation )
Archives Best Practice: A guide to best practice in creation, compilation, transfer and curation



Section 5 deals with copyright transfer in Archives)

Archive repositories should have ownership of any archive deposited with them, and ideally should
also have copyright, sole or shared, over the documentary archive. This must be in line with existing
legislation, such as the ?Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 1988?, ?Treasure Act 1996?, ?Merchant
Shipping Act 1995? and ?Burials Act 1857?, and laws and regulations particular to different countries
in the UK. Because of the legal complexities surrounding this issue, it is not possible to establish
any universal standard, but general recommendations can be made. Specific or pro forma agreements
should be the subject of legal advice.

[Unitof1]

didnt oasis ask for copyright recently- i ignored it but then i is ignorant

[Unitof1]

without copyright archaeologists are diggers

[BAJR]

Had an interesting email from RCAHMS which has slight bearing on this - this relates to handing over an archive

There are three versions of the agreements. By all of these we ask that physical ownership of the material is transferred to RCAHMS. The three variants relate to Intellectual Property Rights and the licensing necessary to allow dissemination of the material by RCAHMS. These can be summarised as follows:

By the first ('Whole'), the donor (assuming that are also the copyright holder), transfers copyright to RCAHMS, but is then in return licensed to use the material freely for their own purposes.

By the second ('Part'), the donor retains their IPR, but licences RCAHMS to disseminate copies of the material for private research and educational purposes (and if agreed in addition, for commercial uses).

The third, ('No IPR') refers to material for which the donor is not the copyright holder.