Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, The Exchange Online: The Newsletter of the Association of American University Presses, November 4, 2008. Excerpt:
U.S. Representatives Conyers, Issa, and Feeny introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, HR 6845 [a.k.a. the "Conyers Bill"], on September 9, 2008. AAUP sent a letter in support of the bill to its sponsors and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property....
AAUP’s letter did not express opposition to the open access mandate initiated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but rather focused its concern on the larger issue of whether federal agencies should have the authority to claim a copyright in “extrinsic works” as a result of their funding of underlying research. AAUP is concerned that these types of mandates could conceivably be enacted by other federal agencies funding research in the social sciences and humanities.
The letter of support highlighted the contributions of publishers in preparing both print and electronic versions of scholarly works. Projects like the Founding Fathers’ Papers, which have been prepared and developed for electronic publication by university presses, were cited as examples of the irreplaceable value added by scholarly publishers—added value that is funded only partially, if at all, by federal monies.
AAUP emphasized the importance of member presses’ publishing operations as their primary revenue source: on average, they make up 90% of a university or scholarly press’s operating revenue. The letter expressed concern that certain open access models might hinder the ability of scholarly presses to generate the revenue necessary for continued scholarly publication:
The members of AAUP strongly support open access to scholarly literature by whatever means, so long as those means include a funding or business model that will maintain the investment required to keep older work available and continue to publish new work. However, trying to expand access by diminishing copyright protection in works arising from federally-funded research is going entirely in the wrong direction, and will badly erode the capacity of AAUP members to publish such work in their books and journals.
No further action was taken on the bill before the end of the congressional session, but we understand that Congressman Conyers intends to re-introduce the bill in the next session.
See my blog comments on the AAUP letter, my comments on a subsequent AAUP clarification, and my full-length critique of the Conyers bill (in SOAN for October 2008). All three address the AAUP's misleading claim that the NIH policy "diminishes copyright protection".
The AAUP is right that its letter didn't expressly oppose the NIH policy. More importantly, there are some public signs (1, 2) and private signs that the AAUP does not, in fact, oppose the NIH policy. Nevertheless, the AAUP has expressly supported a bill that would directly overturn the policy. If the AAUP believes the Conyers bill should be refined to target certain practices and leave the NIH policy intact, then it would help everyone if it would say so. Until it does, I stand by my call on university presses to join Rockefeller University Press in disavowing the AAUP letter, and on university faculty, librarians, and administrators to ask their presses to do so.
This is new and disturbing: "[W]e understand that Congressman Conyers intends to re-introduce the bill in the next session."
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/06/2008 02:21:00 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.
