5 ms·

There is a relatively simple alternative. Just declare that if the government pays for most of the research, resulting articles cannot be copyrighted. It is alr

There is a relatively simple alternative. Just declare that if the government pays for most of the research, resulting articles cannot be copyrighted. It is already the case in the United States that most works by US government employees cannot be copyrighted. Once there is no copyright, there is no way to prevent distribution. If people paid to do the research, they should be able to get the results. There really is no excuse anymore for the old publishing System. It was important at one time, but its time has passed.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
Anything NIH/NSF-funded is available through open access since 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy The real problem is that young tenure-track faculty need publications for tenure. This wasn't always the case at teaching colleges, until perhaps 15 years ago at a so-so 4-year college you were perfectly fine with the papers from your PhD. Nowadays it's different, there's a need for publications and gutter journals. At the high end you need papers in high-profile journals and publishers will oblige on that front, too.
- tgb 8y ago
  My understanding was that this was NIH only and not NSF (though the NIH has a much larger budget so it's the majority of such funding).
garmaine 8y ago
Most of the work done by the US government is not done by civil servants but by contractors, and the contractors hold the copyright. That tidbit of copyright law is not as useful as you might expect.
- markdown 8y ago
  I though that nonsense was only something that photographers did. I do contract web dev work for clients all the time. Should I be retaining all copyright?
  - megous 8y ago
    It makes sense, no? It's easy then to use your prior work to make you more effective, by being able to re-use parts of it in the future.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    That's a complex question. Most companies take care of this by requiring you to explicitly sign over the rights to the work. There are two terms that you should look into: 'work for hire' and 'automatic protection'. A good place to start is here: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html
    - user5994461 8y ago
      In many jurisdictions, the work produced as a contractor or an employee belongs to the company. There is no need to have a clause for it.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-code-who-owns-it/ https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-co...
        user5994461 8y ago
        It's poorly written, throwing legal terms around out of their context. It does not state the countries or states where it's supposed to apply. Highly recommend to find a better source that than. Even the title is click bait, the article doesn't talk about source code ownership.
  - tzs 8y ago
    If you are in the United States, and are truly a contractor rather than an employee [1], and there is nothing in your contract that specifically says you are making a "work for hire", then you almost certainly do own the copyrights. If you author a work, copyright only goes to whoever paid you if either (1) you are an employee and work is created within the scope of your employment, or (2) you are not an employee but it is a "work for hire". For a work to be a work for hire, there are three requirements that all must be satisfied. 1. The work must be specially ordered or commissioned. 2. There must be a written contract that states it is a work for hire. 3. It must fall into one of nine categories: • a contribution to a collective work • a translation • a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • a supplementary work (e.g., foreword, illustration, editorial notes) • a compilation • an instructional text • a test • answer material for a test • an atlas A bit of Googling turns up a few articles from IP and business law firms saying that most software does not fall under any of these categories and so cannot be a work for hire [2]. On the other hand, there are at least four district court cases that have concluded that software can fall under compilations and under contributions to collective works [3] and so can be works for hire. (But remember, even if in a particular case your software does fall under one of those categories, without the contract saying in writing that it is a work for hire it isn't, and so you retain the copyright). Probably the best approach, if you want your client to own the copyright, is to include in the contract that you assign the copyright to the client. There is some sample language for a contract copyright assignment in [2]. [1] Whether you are an employee or a contractor for purposes of copyright law is determined by the common law of agency rather than by what your employment contract says. A court would look at how much control the employer has over how the work is done, where it is done, the equipment used to do the work, the scheduling, what other work you can do at the same time, and similar factors. [2] http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almost-never-works-software-development-contracts http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almos... [3] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446-4870-8710-5463bd8ea894 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446...
- dwheeler 8y ago
  > Most of the work done by the US government is not done by civil servants but by contractors, and the contractors hold the copyright. That tidbit of copyright law is not as useful as you might expect. Correct, but I figured most people here would not be interested in the details of government contracting regulations. I actually do know some things about it. If the work is done by contractors (as most work for the government is), then it depends on the contract. Usually the key part is which "data rights" clause is included in the contract from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and/or FAR supplement, which can be modified in various ways in a specific contract. Papers and software get special complicated additional rules. In any case, my point was simply that "eliminating copyright in certain cases to serve the public interest" is not a new idea - there is already some existing practice.

HarryHirsch 8y ago

Anything NIH/NSF-funded is available through open access since 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy The real problem is that young tenure-track faculty need publications for tenure. This wasn't always the case at teaching colleges, until perhaps 15 years ago at a so-so 4-year college you were perfectly fine with the papers from your PhD. Nowadays it's different, there's a need for publications and gutter journals. At the high end you need papers in high-profile journals and publishers will oblige on that front, too.

tgb 8y ago
My understanding was that this was NIH only and not NSF (though the NIH has a much larger budget so it's the majority of such funding).

garmaine 8y ago

Most of the work done by the US government is not done by civil servants but by contractors, and the contractors hold the copyright. That tidbit of copyright law is not as useful as you might expect.

markdown 8y ago
I though that nonsense was only something that photographers did. I do contract web dev work for clients all the time. Should I be retaining all copyright?
- megous 8y ago
  It makes sense, no? It's easy then to use your prior work to make you more effective, by being able to re-use parts of it in the future.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's a complex question. Most companies take care of this by requiring you to explicitly sign over the rights to the work. There are two terms that you should look into: 'work for hire' and 'automatic protection'. A good place to start is here: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html
  - user5994461 8y ago
    In many jurisdictions, the work produced as a contractor or an employee belongs to the company. There is no need to have a clause for it.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-code-who-owns-it/ https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-co...
      - user5994461 8y ago
        It's poorly written, throwing legal terms around out of their context. It does not state the countries or states where it's supposed to apply. Highly recommend to find a better source that than. Even the title is click bait, the article doesn't talk about source code ownership.
- tzs 8y ago
  If you are in the United States, and are truly a contractor rather than an employee [1], and there is nothing in your contract that specifically says you are making a "work for hire", then you almost certainly do own the copyrights. If you author a work, copyright only goes to whoever paid you if either (1) you are an employee and work is created within the scope of your employment, or (2) you are not an employee but it is a "work for hire". For a work to be a work for hire, there are three requirements that all must be satisfied. 1. The work must be specially ordered or commissioned. 2. There must be a written contract that states it is a work for hire. 3. It must fall into one of nine categories: • a contribution to a collective work • a translation • a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • a supplementary work (e.g., foreword, illustration, editorial notes) • a compilation • an instructional text • a test • answer material for a test • an atlas A bit of Googling turns up a few articles from IP and business law firms saying that most software does not fall under any of these categories and so cannot be a work for hire [2]. On the other hand, there are at least four district court cases that have concluded that software can fall under compilations and under contributions to collective works [3] and so can be works for hire. (But remember, even if in a particular case your software does fall under one of those categories, without the contract saying in writing that it is a work for hire it isn't, and so you retain the copyright). Probably the best approach, if you want your client to own the copyright, is to include in the contract that you assign the copyright to the client. There is some sample language for a contract copyright assignment in [2]. [1] Whether you are an employee or a contractor for purposes of copyright law is determined by the common law of agency rather than by what your employment contract says. A court would look at how much control the employer has over how the work is done, where it is done, the equipment used to do the work, the scheduling, what other work you can do at the same time, and similar factors. [2] http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almost-never-works-software-development-contracts http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almos... [3] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446-4870-8710-5463bd8ea894 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446...
dwheeler 8y ago
> Most of the work done by the US government is not done by civil servants but by contractors, and the contractors hold the copyright. That tidbit of copyright law is not as useful as you might expect. Correct, but I figured most people here would not be interested in the details of government contracting regulations. I actually do know some things about it. If the work is done by contractors (as most work for the government is), then it depends on the contract. Usually the key part is which "data rights" clause is included in the contract from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and/or FAR supplement, which can be modified in various ways in a specific contract. Papers and software get special complicated additional rules. In any case, my point was simply that "eliminating copyright in certain cases to serve the public interest" is not a new idea - there is already some existing practice.