Besuche uns im Netz:
Klartext | Software Copyright Transfer Agreement
120225
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-120225,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-11.0,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.1.1,vc_responsive
 

Software Copyright Transfer Agreement

Software Copyright Transfer Agreement

The situation in which authors own copyright is generally linked to considerable efforts in the form of correspondence and recordings and often results in unnecessary delays. While this may seem trivial for some applications, a good scientific journal, which publishes exciting work, can expect several hundred applications per year; A task of this magnitude can become cumbersome. On the other hand, if the Journal holds the copyright, applications, value judgments and authorizations can be dealt with quickly to the satisfaction of all parties involved. An alienation agreement and a licensing agreement may include either compensation or no licence fee. If an agreement is reached with compensation, the fee for the exclusive right is due by the new holder. In the field of academic publishing, copyright transfer contracts generally do not involve remuneration or royalties. [4] These agreements are a key element of subscription academic publication[5] and are intended to facilitate the processing of copyright in pure print publishing. [6] In the era of electronic communications, the benefits of copyright transfer contracts have been called into question[7] and, although they remain the norm, open licenses as used in open access publications have been established as alternatives. [8] Copyright transfer agreements are a means of regulating copyright on the basis of copyright. Since the advent of digital publishing, several commentators have drawn attention to the benefits of copyright protected copyright [7][40] and publishers have begun to implement it[41] with licensing agreements, with the author retaining copyright and giving the publisher permission (exclusive or not) to reproduce and disseminate the work. A third model is the „Browse Wrap“ or „Click Wrap“ licensing model,[42] which is becoming increasingly popular in the form of Creative Commons licenses: it allows everyone (including the publisher) to reproduce and distribute the work, with some possible restrictions.

Creative Commons licenses are used by many open-access newspapers. [43] Therefore, critics[28] argue that copyright in scientific research is largely ineffective in its proposed use, but that it has also been wrongly acquired in many cases, and that it is in practice contrary to its fundamental objective of protecting authors and scientific research. Plan S requires authors and their respective institutions to retain copyrights to articles without transferring them to publishers; also supported by OA2020. [Note 4] The researchers found no evidence of the need for a transfer of copyright for publication or, in all cases, where a publishing house exercised copyright in the best interests of the authors. Although one of the publishers` arguments in favour of copyright transfer is that they allow them to defend authors against copyright infringement, [Note 5] Publishers can assume this responsibility even if copyright remains in the hands of the author, as is the policy of the Royal Society. [Note 6] This is a fundamental discrepancy between the purpose of copyright (i.e. the full choice of an author/creator through the dissemination of works) and its application, because authors lose those rights when the copyright is transferred. Such fundamental conceptual offences are underlined by the popular use of sites such as ResearchGate and Sci-Hub for illegal file sharing by academics and the general public. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] In fact, broad and unlimited sharing helps to advance science faster than paywalled Articles, so it is possible to argue that the transfer of copyright is a basic misservice to the entire research enterprise.

[37] It is also highly counter-intuitive for scholarly societies, such as the American Psychological Association, to actively monitor and remove copyrighted content that they publish on behalf of authors [Note 3], because this is not in the interest of authors or the reuse of published research, and the copyright transfer system is counter-pr

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.