"NIH has undermined our publishing activities by diminishing a basic principle under copyright—the right to control the distribution of the works we publish," [Martin] Frank said. "The NIH could have provided access to their funded research without diminishing copyright protections." ...
In my opinion, one of the most outrageous comments perhaps made on the subject came from Allan Adler, Association of American Publishers, vice president for legal and governmental affairs, who stated that "Government does not fund peer-reviewed journal articles —publishers do," and that the bill would "preserve the incentives for peer-review publishing." ...
As the Congress is about to recess on Sept. 26, all indications are that the bill will be shelved until next year, although there are concerns that the bill’s language could be re-introduced into another bill. The ATA is calling on supporters of the NIH policy to communicate their support to the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees before Sept. 24.
For a more in-depth (and opinionated) view of this bill, see my Focus on Publishing column in the November issue of Information Today.
Comment. Both the Copyright Alliance and Martin Frank argue as if publishers were the copyright holders and the NIH policy prevented them from exercising their rights. But this is uninformed or deceptive. The NIH policy requires grantees to retain a non-exclusive right for the NIH to disseminate their peer-reviewed manuscripts. Grantees may transfer all their other rights to publishers (and typically do). Hence, publishers receive less than the full bundle of rights they formerly received. They don't like that, and it may be a problem for them, but it's not the problem they describe to the press and Congress. They speak as if they simply are the copyright holders, without qualification, yet without the usual freedoms or privileges of copyright holders. But they are not the copyright holders without qualification. They lack the right authors retain: the key right which authorizes OA. Hence, publishers never even acquire the key right which would allow them to deny permission for OA or claim infringement. With respect to all the other rights, which publishers do acquire, the NIH policy does nothing to diminish publishers' freedom to hold and exercise those rights.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/22/2008 09:12:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
