Traditional methods of scientific publication require a complete and exclusive transfer of copyright from authors to publisher, usually as a precondition for publication. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This process entrusts control and ownership of the dissemination and reproduction of authors as authors to publishers as broadcasters, who are then able to monetize the process. [23] The transfer and ownership of copyright is a delicate tension between the protection of authors` rights and the interests of publishers and institutions, both in financial and reputational law. [24] In OA publications, authors generally retain copyright in their work, and articles and other editions benefit from a wide range of licenses depending on the type. Some commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, exploit ”nominal copyrights” when they require the transfer of full and exclusive rights from authors to the publishing house for OA articles, while copyright remains in the name of the authors. [38] The assumption that this practice is a precondition for publication is misleading, as even works that are publicly available can be redirected, printed and disseminated by publishers. Instead, authors can grant a simple, non-exclusive publication license that meets the same criteria. However, according to a 2013 survey by Taylor and Francis, nearly half of the researchers surveyed said they would continue to simply transfer copyright to OA articles. [39] Critics have argued that the copyright transfer agreement in the field of commercial scientific publishing ”is so much about long-term asset management as it is about providing services to the academic community,” since the practice appears to provide the publisher with a subsidy that clearly does not benefit authors. [14] Copyright transfer agreements are often at odds with or appear to be at odds with self-archiving practices[15] because of ambiguous language. [16] Copyright transfer agreements have become commonplace in publishing under the Copyright Act of 1976 in the United States and other similar laws in other countries[9] and have redefined the copyright that belongs to the author from the time the author was created (instead of publishing) a work. [7] This required publishers to acquire copyright from the author to sell or access the works, and written statements signed by the rights holder were necessary for the transfer of copyright to be considered valid. [5] [10] This represents a fundamental discrepancy between the purpose of copyright (i.e.
the full choice of an author/creator beyond the dissemination of works) and its application, because authors lose those rights in the transfer of copyright.
