Slashdot Mirror
Nature Publisher Requires Authors To Waive "Moral Rights" To Works
cranky_chemist (1592441) writes "Megan O'Neil has published a story on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website noting some unusual language in the license agreement between authors and Nature Publishing Group. 'Faculty authors who contract to write for the publisher of Nature, Scientific American, and many other journals should know that they could be signing away more than just the economic rights to their work, according to the director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke University. Kevin Smith, the Duke official, said he stumbled across a clause in the Nature Publishing Group's license agreement last week that states that authors waive or agree not to assert "any and all moral rights they may now or in the future hold" related to their work. In the context of scholarly publishing, "moral rights" include the right of the author always to have his or her name associated with the work and the right to have the integrity of the work protected such that it is not changed in a way that could result in reputational harm.'
Nature Publishing Group claims the waivers are required to ensure the journal's ability to publish formal retractions and/or corrections. However, the story further notes that Nature Publishing Group is requiring authors at institutions with open-access policies to sign waivers that exempt their work from such policies."
Nature Publishing Group claims the waivers are required to ensure the journal's ability to publish formal retractions and/or corrections. However, the story further notes that Nature Publishing Group is requiring authors at institutions with open-access policies to sign waivers that exempt their work from such policies."
as I still maintain immoral rights.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yeah yeah April Fools...
How bad it could be not writing for Nature or SciAm until they change their policy to something more moral?
You want that tenured position? Suck it up.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
How about for once we get some posts on time & edited well, wouldn't that be hilarious!
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
From http://blogs.nature.com/ofsche...
"...NPG’s commitment to open access has been questioned, following our request that authors provide a formal waiver of Duke University’s open access policy. NPG is supportive of open access. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005:
'When a manuscript is accepted for publication in an NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit the author’s version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to PubMedCentral or other appropriate funding body’s archive, for public release six months after publication. In addition, authors are encouraged to archive this version of the manuscript in their institution’s repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites, also six months after the original publication. ' ...
We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the grant of rights asserted in its open access policy: 'In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to Duke University a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do so, provided that the articles are not sold. The Duke faculty author remains the copyright owner unless that author chooses to transfer the copyright to a publisher.'
If we do not request a waiver, the general language of this policy means that Duke University has the rights not only to archive the manuscript in Dukespace, but also to distribute and publish to the world at large the final version of a subscription article freely, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author." [emphasis added]
Since the issue seems to be about publishing in the open immediately vs. waiting 6 months, asking for a waiver of all moral rights seems like using a cannon to swat a fly.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
also waive their moral responsibilities?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
A bit of contract law that would:
1) Mark these rights as unwaivable
2) Mark as unenforcable or nonactionable any part of any contract that would bar or establish consequences for asserting these rights
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I am no fan of Obama, but "income gap" is a useless and purely rhetorical metric.
If you are concerned with "the poor", you need to look at mass average measurements of wealth and health. These tend to skyrocket in economically free areas, and suffer in non-free ones, whether hat be because of a failed state, a dictatorship, a corrupt state with kickbacks everywhere, or a heavily-taced one.
Currently, said average wealth of poor ***is*** skyrocketting -- in China and India and similar.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Oh I agree, it's just that around here the constant and never ending meme is this bullshit about Republicans and the party of the rich evil capitalists tyrannizing the poor. It's false beyond a doubt, but it's what the media pushed, it's what the universities teach, it's what the Democrats accuse, it's what the misguided believe and it needs to be countered with facts.
Statists just hate facts. You'd think self described 'nerds' would favor facts and reason, but it's sorely lacking at least as it relates to social issues is seems.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Party-of-the-rich-In-Congress-it-s-the-Democrats-5363121.php
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.
Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.
Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents."
What about contributors from countries where waiving moral rights is prohibited by law?
Ezekiel 23:20
This highlights a key difference between IP laws in the US and in Europe: in the US, the law only recognizes economic rights, while in (continental) Europe, the law explicitly defines what moral and economic (aka. "patrimonial") rights are, and especially, it considers moral rights as a basic /human right/: such rights are inalienable, and thus, waiving moral rights is not possible under EU law.
Perhaps some people in Nature Publishing Group think that this kind of pseudo agreement will make their life easier, but the fact remains that in fact, what they ask from authors is simply illegal in continental Europe (thus: null and void, with regards to the law).
Nope...
So what you're saying is, rich people don't want to live anywhere Republicans are in charge? Makes sense to me.
America's been the brunt of an epic April Fools prank for the last 15 years or so.. A prank that is not the least bit funny..And its gotten a LOT worse in the last five years.. I, for one, am NOT laughing nor pleased....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Are you really this dense that you continue to assert, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is the Republicans that are the rich, corrupt and detestable forces financing the erosion of our civil liberties and individual rights? It's simply untrue and you cannot privide any evidence that it is.
Go on then, prove me wrong. You cannot.
Moral rights can cause some really, really weird situations. For example, Canada has strong moral rights. This meant the Eaton Centre (a large mall in Toronto) was in serious hot water because they added some red ribbons to some geese they had commissioned. The artists didn't like the Christmas decorations. Lawsuitarity ensued. These were not rented geese, they had been specifically requested to be made by the artist by the Eaton Centre, and then purchased to keep there forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v._The_Eaton_Centre_Ltd.
It is unsurprising anyone would want to buy ANY author's work and leave their moral rights intact when you know about this.
Yes, in Canada, if you are bored and draw mustaches on the picture of the couple that came with the picture frame that you just bought, you've committed a felony.
Fuck Moral Rights.
Why is there autoplay bullshit on this story?
Moral rights is a copyright concept. Moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to deny modification, and so on. Generally these rights are NOT a part of the US copyright system. Moral rights arise under EU law, however, and that is probably where this provision is targeted.
I doubt this is an April Fool's joke.
It's all about averages. A few mega-wealthy in the Republican party aren't enough to skew the numbers. They don't live in the same places that their willing dupes do.
On the other hand, the large number of relatively affluent people manage to average out large numbers of urban poor in more wealthy urban centers. The "rich" part of Democratic party is much larger than the "rich" part of the Republican party. The middle is far less likely to be taken in by "defend your Robber Baron" type rhetoric.
Your mega-wealthy GOP types are more likely to live in some bright blue high density urban center rather than out in the shire where it's more red.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
nice
They are insane,
everyone should simply stop publishing to nature/sci.american completely.
Honestly, this is crap of the first order.
If everyone stops, they'll change the draco-policy or go under, I could care less which.
Go read up on him, he gives Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all a bad name, and he's been elected under all three, including doing such sleazy things as getting term limits extended so he could stay in office longer.
Score one for the Demublidents!
If you are concerned with "the poor", you need to look at mass average measurements of wealth and health
I think the term you're looking for is median, which will swiftly prove his point.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
(the wealth part, not the partisan politics part)
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Kevin, I’m posting this as a comment here to provide clarity for all, given the interest this has generated. I’ve also written to you to suggest a conversation. I am sorry that we didn’t talk with you before we started requesting waivers from authors at Duke University, that would have been better all round. You raise two concerns: about our requesting that authors provide formal waivers of Duke University open access policy; and the ‘moral rights’ statement in our license to publish. I’ll start with the second. We take seriously our responsibility for the integrity of the scientific record. The “moral rights” language included in the license to publish is there to ensure that the journal and its publisher are free to publish formal corrections or retractions of articles where the integrity of the scientific record may be compromised by the disagreement of authors. This is not our preferred approach to dealing with corrections and retractions, and we work with authors and institutions to seek consensus first. We always attribute articles to authors, we have clear contribution policies. See: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... and http://www.nature.com/authors/... We believe researchers should be credited for their work, and as a founding member of ORCID, we have implemented ORCID integration on nature.com to foster disambiguated accreditation. We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the wide grant of rights as per your open access policy. If we do not request a waiver, Duke University has the rights not only to archive in Dukespace, but to publish and distribute the final version of a subscription article freely to the world at large, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author. NPG is supportive of open access. We have no problem with you archiving accepted manuscripts in DukeSpace, for public access six months after publication. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005: http://www.nature.com/authors/... This is in addition to open access publication options available on many journals we publish. We are happy to try to answer further questions, and would welcome a discussion with you. We have worked constructively with PubMed Central and institutional repositories for many years, and do not want our intentions and commitment to academic integrity and open access to be misunderstood. Grace Baynes Head of Communications, Nature Publishing Group
This is why in many countries the law says you cannot give up, sell or otherwise lose certain rights. Even if you signed a contract saying you're giving it away, the law trumps the contract and it's still yours, so you can't be pressured into doing it (well you can, but it's meaningless).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
want to talk politics? want to engage in productive discussion?
don't troll and blast out rhetoric...it's a shell game
look at **policy**
look at how each party votes...**virtually every policy** the GOP supports is a gift to Oligarchs...ex: Net Neutrality
democrats are the only party trying to be a competent, functioning polity...
if you disagree, **list a specific policy we can check**
Thank you Dave Raggett
hey Rob, are you being sarcastic?
I tend to think you are, because the attitude of "just suck it up" in the face of corruption and mismanagement...or just bad business...it's ruining our industry.
We absolutely should not "Suck it up"...I think you'd agree but I'm wondering...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Duke is a GOP-run money machine....going back 100+ years....Duke Energy has the monopoly in the region....Duke family made their money in slave-labor tobacco farming originally
It touches *every part of their organization*
Look at Duke's basketball team...
It's all about **Duke** getting more money.
Thank you Dave Raggett
CC0:
If you want to quote mine and manipulate my CC0 works and misrepresent me as saying something I didn't mean, then go right ahead. The Internet may bite bullshit hard at first, but it is a cybernetic system of self correction, and it is my friend. I am not afraid.
Perhaps instead of signing over the copyright directly the author can post it as (cc0) or (cc by), etc, or if not, retain a license to publish the original text on their blog. Shouldn't state funded research be public domain by federal law? Not that it all is but I paid for lots of research via taxes, including many that don't come to fruition, yet I can't access a lot of research papers without paying again? That's asinine, In fact, I don't accept that -- such backwards concepts are not allowed to exist in my reality.
This shouldn't even be a problem in the Age of Information. Research should be posted free for all to see, the work to complete it has already been paid for. Peer review and/or verification of the work should be included in the grant / subsidy contingent upon success or crowd-funded. It is a conflict of interest to fund the vetting of science in any journal that benefits by its publication. Instead, I ask: Where the hell is my Scientific Hitchhiker's Guide? -- It is ridiculous that this world doesn't have an open wiki of research simply because journals leverage the economically untenable sale of artificially scarce information.
If such a Digital Alexandrian Library did exist, then we'd be able to look up the first version posted without said corrections ala wayback machine or a research repo SCM, so waiving your "moral rights" wouldn't matter. Corrections and validation would require citations from other research, it would be easier to reference a paper, and if it were like the Hitchhiker's Guide: Earth Edition, then one could filter by verified research approved by editors, or go with the unfiltered firehose of information. You could then point people to the part where their defaming statements about you were created, by whom, and contest the information in a neutral way.
If you're worried about folks saying bad things about you then GTFO THE INTERNET FAST, MORON! (oops, too late) There is no objective test for offending remarks! I could say, "$PERSON loves kitties!" and you could sue me for defamation claiming I made offensive remarks about you participating in bestiality. It's these laws that are the problem.
There are no such things as rights. There is only freedom, or restriction. In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action. We make laws to help prevent your actions from limiting the freedoms of others. The problem is that laws can be made that limit freedom for no good reason. We should always seek to reduce the number of laws restricting us to achieve maximum freedom and peace. Speech isn't violence, and thus should never be restricted, not even when Nature has to show how much of an idiot you were when printing a correction. You can not prove that something someone presented is offensive or derogatory because that is a matter of the observer's opinion. Things can only be true or false objectively, not subjectively. Get over it. If your lawmakers had any sense, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place, you litigious prick.
In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action.
Meant: In absence of all freedom there is only restriction of action.
and conversely: In absence of all restriction there is freedom of action.
It's been months since I've read commented on a /. post. I picked a bad day to come back to look at /. I don't know what's real or fake any more. I have no idea (nor do I really care) what a 'moral right' is. Should I be outraged for being fooled by an April Fool's joke or outraged at Nature?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Is signing over your "moral rights" another legal term for "signing your soul over to Satan"? That shouldn't be too hard for Duke University, I suppose,. . .
Just start a new group to replace Nature Publishing...
Hmmm Publish du Au Natural :)
where authors retain their rights, all of them, and we only skim a lil off the top, less than half of what Apple would steal.
...as both should die a horrible fiery death!
Unfortunately, this story is true. I have decided that this policy means I will not be renewing my subscriptions to their magazines. (Well, not Nature, as I am not currently a subscripter, but to others of their magazines.) Their response is not an acceptable explanation.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I have no clue what FBI "gun runner" you're referring to. You should have linked to some info if you expect discussion.
Do you want to talk about "gun control"? because we certainly can...but we have to set out what we're discussing b/c "gun control" draws the trolls hard
Thank you Dave Raggett