Transcript Licence to Publish - two projects NOAP – Mötesplats Open Access Uppsala 2009-11-25--27 Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden.

Licence to Publish
- two projects NOAP – Mötesplats Open Access
Uppsala 2009-11-25--27
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Two projects
• The Swedish project
– supported by SUHF and openaccess.se.
– create a subject neutral Licence for Swedish
HE-institutions
• The NORDBIB project
– translate the SURF/JISC LtP into the five
Nordic languages
– Promote OA and authors’ rights in the Nordic
social sciences and humanities - H-prints
PartnerS
• The Swedish project
 Gothenburg University Library
 Lund University Libraries Head Office
 Stockholm University Library
• The Nordbib project
– CULIS Knowledge Center for Scholarly Communication, Denmark
– Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen
– Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS), University of Copenhagen
•
•
•
Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), Bergen, Norway (a NIAS collaborator)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, (a NIAS collaborator)
Asia Network, University of Turku, Finland (a NIAS collaborator)
 Gothenburg University Library, Sweden
 Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
 Stockholm University Library, Sweden
– Museum Tusculanum Press, Denmark
SURF/JISC Licence to Publish
A Series of Comments
Comments (1)
Jan Rosén
Professor of Private Law, Stockholm University
1.‘The Licence places the Publisher in
the centre in a way that is probably
unprecedented in praxis up till now.’
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Comments (2)
Jan Rosén
 The Publisher becomes the hub around which all
article management turns, even those rights said to
belong to ”the Author”
 These rights are slightly diffuse and very limited
exceptions from the Publisher's world wide rights
 For the Author remains primarily the rights of usage within
his/her ‘own institution’ or its ‘closed network’
 Probably resistance from authors. Possibly also from
employers, faculties, and institutions
 Should not the Library relate to the Author?
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Commnents (1)
Johan Bengtsson, Lund University Legal Dept.
• This proposal is much more advantageous for
publishers than for authors.
• Objects to the Licence of rights in § 2:
§ 2 (1). Avoid granting publishers exclusive global
rights throughout the entire period of copyright.
Limit the licence duration to a specified year range,
depending on the situation.
Comments JB (2)
 § 2 (2) a. Limit the Publisher's rights to a specified period. Specify
the various access formats. Now too vague and inclusive, e,g
“database”, “include in a reader or compilation”(§ 2 (2) e) May
infringe the Author’s moral rights!.
 § 2 (2) b. Far too permissive to let the Publisher translate the
article and communicate this to the public.
 § 2 (2) c. “To create adaptations, summaries- - -or other derivative
works- - “ Exclude.
• Adaptations etc should be kept out of this context.
Not in accordance with Swedish law. Only excerpts allowed.
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Comments JB (3)
 § 2 (2) f. “To rent or lend the article to third parties.” Should be
excluded. No reason to give the publisher these rights..
 § 3 (1) . Educational or research use. Exclude the phrase ”within
the Author’s own institution or the institutions----affiliated.”
 Personal use. Rewrite. This is NOT “personal use”
 § 3 (2) “the Author or the Publisher undertakes always to include
the complete source…unless this is impossible” Remove “unless
this is impossible”
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Comments JB (4)
§ 6. Add a guarantee to be published within a
reasonable time period after the Publisher's
Acceptance:
• “If this does not occur, the Author has the right to submit
the Article to another publisher”
 § 8 (1) “The Publishser may transfer the
exploitation rights-- to a third party…” Remove.
§ 11 Add a defined time period for the Agreement
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Commnents from SURF
Wilma Mossink, legal advisor
 LtP will be re-written. How and when is not yet known
 JB; the proposal is much more advantageous for Publishers
than for Authors
 WM: This licence is written for publication in traditional
subscription journals - not for publication in OA-journals
 Thus the scope of the Licence is totally different and leads to a
rather restricted use for the Author.
 LtP wanted an understanding with Publishers for TA-publishing,
and to reach an agreement about deposit in a repository. A
certain re-use was negotiated.
JB comments on WM. 2009-10-21
 Still critical. LtP so very ”publisher-friendly” that authors probably
will object
 Wilma claims that LtP should be seen in relation to its aim to regulate
publication in ”traditional subscription journals”. It must therefore be
restrictive for authors.
 This claim is false.
 Regardless of publication type the same questions have to be raised,
e.g. the scope of a Licence, the Author’s rights vs the Publisher etc .
 Fine that Wilma acknowledges the need for limiting the Licence to a
spescified number of years. Her suggested solutions seem feasible
Wilma M (2)
 Agrees with JB that the duration should be defined to a limited





number of years.
WM will include this in her suggestions for changes
Has proposed to give the Publisher an exclusive licence to
reproduce and distribute the article for a certain period.
This period could be linked to the embargo periods used by
most of the publishers now.
After this period the LtP will change to a non-exclusive licence
leaving open all options for the Author to exploit the work.
After the embargo period authors could for instance attach a
Creative Commons licence to their work.
Wilma M (3)
 WM not familiar with Swedish copyright law. Does not know if
publishers are allowed to make adaptations, summaries and
derivative works and exercise rights in them.
 LtP a general licence to be used in several countries. Some
wording could be difficult for some of them.
 Specifying the “databases” where article can be included goes
against the purpose of this LtP to be a model for many
 JB: Not unreasonable that each separate agreement specifies databases.
 More likely that publishers accept an LtP without too many exceptions
 JB: Not acceptable to phrase LtP to make it more palatable to publishers
Wilma M (3)
 Considers JB:s remarks on 3.1 (Educational and Personal use)
and 3.2 (include the complete source ‘unless impossible’)
 What constitutes a derivative work depends on copyright law
 Agrees with suggested amendment to § 6 (guarantee to be
published within a reasonable time period). Will change that.
 NOT remove § 8.1 (publisher may transfer exploitation rights to
a third party). Changed phrasing of the LtP scope will mellow it
 JB: Insists that clause 8.1 should be removed
Comments from DRIVER
 DRIVER: really helpful if an author could use a Creative Commons
licence parallel to the LtP.
 WM: Might be possible with a new version.
 DRIVER: full text indexing and searching should be possible
 Remove the general rights for translation and derivative works by
the publisher .
 These two rights should require affirmation by the author .
 DRIVER would also like to include a right to use the publishercreated copy for self-archiving
Comments from OAK Law
 OAK Law: Why focus on the published version of the article?
 WM: avoid discussions of versioning. Many definitions of postprints, pre-prints, author's version. Good for both parties if
references go to one version only
 OAK Law comments on the LtP use of the term 'sole' licence.
 WM: Only known in British copyright. 'sole' will be removed.
 OAK Law also comments on the wide re-use rights.
 WM: Re-use by third parties is indeed a topic to be
discussed for the next version of the LtP.
Swedish cases for the Nordbib project.
Universities of Stockholm and Gothenburg
• Stockholm 1 main and 2 supplementary cases
– Case 1. Publications by the Dept of Scandinavian Languages,
– Key department with research covering a wide spectrum.
– Annual publications ca 50 titles, published in various series
• E.g. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology, a part of and
published by ACTA Universitatis Stockholmiensis, strongly pro OA.
– Case 2-3. Publications by Dept of French, Italian and Classical
Languages, and from the Centre for Fashion Studies
• Aim twofold. Interviews..
– Why is a portion of the series still outside OA ?
– Is the editor of the Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology aware of or
has discussed with contributors /the possibilities, rights and procedures of
self archiving in a subject specific international open repository.
Cases Gothenburg University
• Research group within The Department of Philosophy,
Linguistics and Theory of Science
• Authirs in the chosen research group publish both
journal articles and chapters in edited monographs.
• How does OA apply to these publication types?.
• Choose 2-3 authors within the research group and
– a) interview them to identify their knowledge of OA and how
their publications are disseminated today
– b) guide them in a hands-on tutorial on self-archiving, both in
the University IR and in Subject Repositories such as HPrints.
Ingegerd Rabow, Lund University Libraries, Head Office, Sweden
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]