4 ms·

As ridiculous as it sounds, many journals, including Elsevier journals, require you to transfer copyright of your article to them. See http://cdn.elsevier.com/p

• logfromblammo 13y ago
  That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. I can't imagine how such a contract could stand up in court if contested, unless Elsevier actually paid the owner of the copyright something. If a contract does not involve an exchange of value between the parties, but instead appears to be a one-sided transfer, a judge might strike it down as unconscionable. If the contract were voided in this way, instead of breached, Elsevier would have to give back everything it got from the author. If you paid for it, even one penny, that sale is much easier to defend in court. But they don't pay. They charge at both ends.
  • gngeal 13y ago
    That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. It's also null and void in my country (.cz), and probably in many other European countries.
    • jahewson 13y ago
      I highly doubt it, the Czech Republic signed the Berne Convention along with the rest of Europe.
      • gngeal 13y ago
        What has the Berne Convention have to do with it? I've compared the Elsevier contract draft with my local legislation, and the wording of the contract is simply unenforceable.
        • anigbrowl 13y ago
          Treaties have the force of law, which is why they're such important documents. Your local law does not apply to materials originating outside of that jurisdiction.
          • fphhotchips 13y ago
            You seem very knowledgeable, so let me only add what I know to be true: this is location and context dependent. For example: If I make a contract with another Australian (company, individual, whatever), no treaty has an effect on that contract unless legislation has been passed to enact that treaty. A judge may refer to the treaty if there is some ambiguity that requires his/her discretion, but the treaty itself is not legally binding.
            • anigbrowl 13y ago
              Quite. But if you make a contract with me (in the US) you wouldn't be able to blow it off under cover of Australian law, is what I mean. So if Elsevier's contract terms are legal in their (Elsevier's) domicile, people who enter into contracts with them need to keep that in mind - which is why most contracts have a 'choice of law' provision saying which laws will govern the enforcability of the contract in the event of a subsequent dispute.
  • hsitz 13y ago
    There is no legal requirement that contracting parties give equal value in exchange. What you're referring to is commonly referred to as the "consideration" required for a valid contract, but it is easily satisfied. It does not require equal value, it requires merely that "something" be given by both sides. E.g., if the author of an article desires to have it published, a publisher's mere promise to publish could serve as consideration for the author's transfer of copyright. "We'll promise to publish this if you transfer copyright to us." That would be a perfectly valid agreement. Also, you say "The authors pay Elsevier to coordinate peer review and publish using their brand names. This necessarily includes granting a license to Elsevier to copy and distribute the author's work." Well, transfer of copyright by author could be seen as simply part of the payment to Elsevier to coordinate peer review and publish the article. Consideration need not be, and very frequently is not, in the form of money. In fact, even in contracts where one party provides consideration in the form of money, the other party usually provides its consideration by promising to perform a service, or to transfer goods other than money. There is a doctrine wherein otherwise valid contracts can be voided because of "unconscionability". Although the term is thrown about a lot, contracts -- even very one-sided contracts -- are almost never voided for unconscionability. The whole idea of contracts is that two private parties agree to terms to apply between themselves. Courts are thus very hesitant to intrude, unless there is a specific legal reason to do so, not just a general charge of 'unconscionability'.
    • rhizome 13y ago
      Equitable consideration is a thing.
      • 001sky 13y ago
        "Elsevier gives NOTHING to the author except the promise of publication and distribution" The "status" of publication has a demonstrable market value, so I'm not sure why we are debating this. I know it sounds stupid, and it's a case of {pschopaths>incompetents>losers}, but in reality the author's "careers" and "reputations" are on the line. And the academics are in the Losers bucket here. The grant-writers and tenure comittees take the title of "incompetents". And yes, the Elseveiers very much psychopaths.
  • jahewson 13y ago
    The typical journal paper costs over $1000 to publish. If the publisher truly provided no value then the paper would still be sat in a PDF file on a laptop - that's clearly not the case. If we're talking about open access where that author pays then peer review, editing, and the publishers reach is still of value.
• jahewson 13y ago
  Yeah, it's excessive, do they really need the TV rights?
• ggchappell 13y ago
  > ... many journals, ... require you to transfer copyright of your article to them. Nearly all of them, in my experience.