At 11:47 12/11/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
> > as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least
> > one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year
> > asking them to, amongst other things, "waive" their moral rights -- the aim
> > being I believe to be able to build up their article database without the
> > tiresome addition of bylines (and maybe also with an eye to the Tasini
> > ruling). This is as near transferring your rights as it gets I would think.
>
>True, but irrelevant to Elsevier, and the refereed-journal literature
>that is the concern of this Forum.
>
> 1. Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions:
> 1.1. Distinguish the non-give-away literature from the give-away
> literature
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1
>
>Journalists work for-fee (free-lance) or salary. They write their texts
>as works for hire. Their texts are not author give-aways. For that reason,
>they are in exactly the same category as the non-give-away books which
>are likewise not the focus of this Forum.
Right but one of the problems refereed literature faces is that it is
increasingly being appropriated by commercial organistions who, in the
pursuit of profit, don't necessarily understand (or certainly agree) with
the distinctions you are making. So the likelihood that you will be able to
force them into separate beds (let alone divorce them) is becoming less and
less likely as time moves on.
>On the contrary, it is most important to distinguish the author
>give-aways that are the concern of this forum (refereed research
>papers) from the rest of the literature (non-give-aways) as the two
>have been needlessly forced to share the same Procrustean Bed
>PostGutenberg for far too long already, to the great cost of research
>and researchers!
>
>Please, in interviewing Elsevier, do not conflate refereed journal articles,
>written by scientists and scholars to be given away for free (to maximaize
>their research impact) with newspaper or magazine articles, written by
>journalists for income. The disanalogy could not be more extreme.
Actually I have hit an obstacle with the interview. I'm hoping I can
resolve it, but if not I will be happy to share my experiences with the
mailing list.
Received on Mon Nov 12 2001 - 13:41:58 GMT