Publishers hate you. You should hate them back.
So library-types, let’s get our story straight. Publishers have contempt for the authors they need to write works, and the readers they need to read works. Publishers are scared that the internet is going to disintermediate their asses into the dustbin of history, and the best response that many of them have come up with is to express their fear through hatred. For all the things that we might need to improve in libraries or apologize for, this isn’t one of them.
- Next The Not-So-Much Dystopian Future Of Public Libraries
- Previous ‘Plotto’: An Algebra Book For Fiction Writing
Recent Posts
- E-Books Can Subvert Book Bans, But Corporate Profit-Seeking Stands in the Way March 10, 2024
- Ten Stories That Shaped 2023 December 15, 2023
- War Sows Disruption at the National Book Awards November 16, 2023
- “No one else is saving it”: the fight to protect a historic music collection November 16, 2023
- No, I Don’t Want to Join Your Book Club November 9, 2023
- Iowa election 2023: Pella Public Library retains independence November 9, 2023
- A door at a Swedish library was accidentally left open 446 people came in, borrowed 245 books. Every single one was returned November 9, 2023
Recent Comments
- Examining Arab and Muslim librarians in fiction – Pop Culture Library Review on Librarian Combats Muslim Stereotypes
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
LISNews Archives
- March 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (5)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (22)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
Buy more books
If libraries want to have shorter hold lists on books maybe they should buy more copies. If not that what is the suggested fix? Publishers should allow unlimited distribution of copies.
Yes, but…
It’s easy for academic authors to share their published articles by emailing PDFs to people who ask for them. ‘
Yes but unless you have paid for Open Access or it has already been distributed to PMC that is actually copyright theft. Don’t forget, they own the work, you had to give it away to get published. At the very least they have typographical copyright over the style/font etc so you can’t use the official publishers PDF either.
Recent example: http://gavialib.com/2012/02/salvo-in-the-samizdat-wars/
I think the way the recent Unshelved strips have covered it show the basic differences between what people expect and what we have to deal with in a perfect way. They should be available in poster form!
Libraries do put the line in online, that they have no choice is a seperate issue. Until someone else gives you an alternative there isn’t anything else you can do. Publishing is a business. That a customer is an individual or a library doesn’t make a difference to them as long as they get their money. I’m sure they’d say you are free to offer an alternative if you want to put the money into offering one. Hopefully one day someone with a lot of money will do it for the love of literature, not financial gain.
Typographic copyright?
Pretty sure there’s no such thing.
Anyway, the point is that while sending out a few copies of the article you wrote may be a copyright infringement (not “theft”), it’s the kind of thing that publishers were willing to live with in the past as something they couldn’t control. Now they are acting out of fear and hate and trying to control this innocuous practice.
I fully support your other main idea, that authors should keep control of their copyrights as much as possible.
Oh yes there is
It’s a major part of the difference between paid OA which uses the publishers final pdf and making your material freely available from the post print version you still have in Word (for example).
It’s the style they have which means you can tell from a difference when something is a Nature paper, or a Springer paper. The different fonts, the spacing. It’s also the formatting as well. That is some of the added stuff you are having to pay for when you pay for OA deposit.
Look it up on Google, it’s real.
I know what you mean but as with many things we’ve been freely able to do since the WWW kicked off to the public it’s not something we should have been doing in the first place. You can’t now go ‘it’s not fair, I’ve been doing it for years’, that makes no difference. As they say ignorance is not an excuse.
In fact it all really depends on the publisher. Some publishers allow people, or more often the Librarian, to send pdf’s to other people outside of your institution. But others don’t, and don’t forget by using the publishers site you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.
Elsevier/ScienceDirect is the best example, you can’t send a pdf to anyone outside of your instutition, but also you can’t print off a pdf and then post that printout to someone outside your institution. But how many end users actually bother reading terms and conditions?
The answer to all this is to make everything OA and then people don’t need to ask for copies, they can just go to PMC/UKPMC or the publishers website and get it for free. But without major changes in funders (especially university) mandates, money being available for OA publishing of any type (pure OA or hybrid) and publishers changing too, it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
Not authors as much as their funders. Authors never own the copyright.
Oh no there’s not
There is not a typographic copyright in the U.S.? Are you talking about the U.K.?
Nonsense
Last things first: “Authors never own the copyright.” is sheer and utter nonsense. If authors didn’t own the copyright to their articles, how could they assign that copyright to publishers? (For some authors under some circumstances, copyright may indeed be owned by the sponsoring or employing agency, but that’s certainly not universal or law.)
And, no, there simply is no such thing as typographic copyright in the U.S.: The typography or layout of an article is not why it’s protected by copyright.
Incidentally, “Look it up on Google, it’s real” is also nonsense. Millions of things that aren’t real are present on Google.
*sigh*
The authors are giving the copyright away on the behalf of their employer. Try looking at some of the agreements scientists have to sign to see this.
Where I work the admin boss often has to sign it away, it depends on the publisher.
Don’t forget, you are a work for hire. If you have grant funding then the work could belong to them yes but unless you are self funded you are an employee and all work belongs to your employers.
Moral rights are one thing, copyright is another. Don’t forget, until the NIH and other OA deals EVERYONE gave away their copyright to get it published. But it’s amazing how many people don’t seem to realise that fact. Why do you think you need permission to reproduce something you’ve already published in say a book? Because it’s not yours.
Of course not everything on Google is right but be realistic, if you’d searched for it you would find several governmental agencies and publishers agreements giving you rules and regulations. If I search for CNN and find it on Google does that mean it’s not real?
And don’t forget that you are dealing with the rules of where the publisher is not where you are. And just because it’s not in the US doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I should know better than to argue with Anonymous, but…
Some universities require that copyright in articles belongs to the university. Many, in the US at least, do not. Where you work, your on-the-job writing may be work for hire. That doesn’t make it universally true, which your (if there’s only one of you) comments have implied, no, stated.
Oh, and at least for me, I can guarantee you that I own copyright in the books I’ve published, with limited rights assigned to the publishers.
It’s amazing how many people–clearly including you–don’t realize that there’s no single set of circumstances. It has never been true that “EVERYONE gave away their copyright to get it published” prior to OA.
And I’ll stop now. There’s little point in continuing a discussion with someone who continues to assert that what’s true for them must be true for everyone. I have 40+ years experience demonstrating otherwise, but that apparently doesn’t count.