4 ms·

> This is the grey area I am talking about. You licensed the rights exclusively to ACM, in perpetuity. In fact, your own publication of the pdf may also be non-

> This is the grey area I am talking about. You licensed the rights exclusively to ACM, in perpetuity. In fact, your own publication of the pdf may also be non-compliant, but nobody has sued you as that would be political suicide The "Post" section of the page linked by lazyjeff says: >Otherwise known as "Self-Archiving" or "Posting Rights", all ACM published authors of magazine articles, journal articles, and conference papers retain the right to post the pre-submitted (also known as "pre-prints"), submitted, accepted, and peer-reviewed versions of their work in any and all of the following sites: > Author's Homepage > ... So posting a PDF of the "accepted version" to a personal website is not a "grey area" - it is explicitly permitted by the ACM. This is the usual situation: authors retain the rights to put the "accepted" version on their homepage. This includes all the changes made in response to reviewer comments, but is formatted by the author rather than the publisher. Unless they have selected an open-access option (which usually requires paying a fee), they typically do not have the rights to post the "publisher formatted" version. However, in fields like CS the submitted version is usually produced using a LaTeX template for the journal so looks very similar to the publisher-formatted version; the main differences are often things like the journal name and page numbers written in the headers and footers. For lazyjeff's example, you can compare the version on his homepage [1] with the version on the ACM DL [2], and see that they look quite similar, but one obvious difference is the formatting of the last page: in the author-formatted version, the left column fills the full height of the page, and the right column is shorter; in the published version the left column is shortened so that both columns are the same height. [1]: https://jeffhuang.com/papers/SelfE_CHI21.pdf https://jeffhuang.com/papers/SelfE_CHI21.pdf [2]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445100 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445100

bubblethink 5y ago
I maintain that this is a grey area that has not been tested in courts, mainly because ACM would not pursue something like this. In a copyright lawsuit, it is not obvious to me that a judge would agree with your conclusion that slight differences in formatting make it "not the published version". INAL, but to me, the mention of ACM on the paper is itself problematic from a copyright standpoint. Of course, the larger point I'm making in all this is that this is completely unnecessary and regressive.

bubblethink 5y ago

I maintain that this is a grey area that has not been tested in courts, mainly because ACM would not pursue something like this. In a copyright lawsuit, it is not obvious to me that a judge would agree with your conclusion that slight differences in formatting make it "not the published version". INAL, but to me, the mention of ACM on the paper is itself problematic from a copyright standpoint. Of course, the larger point I'm making in all this is that this is completely unnecessary and regressive.