I’m keynoting at NASIG in late May, and I’m trying to suss out this agreement. I had anticipated that, per usual, I would put my presentation online, and possibly stuff it into our library’s IR. It sounds as if I would have to wait for it to appear in Serials Librarian to do that. Do I read that correctly? Should I modify this agreement and send it back with a Creative Commons license?
I wonder when anyone looked at this last. Gopher? WAIS? As for film rights… can you say YouTube?
Understand I have some sympathy for old-school publishing models. If my presentation were some finely-honed literary essay I was shipping out to traditional publishing venues, well, yeah. That’s pretty much how things are done in that venue. But this is a talk to librarians, and–ready for the punchline?–my presentation is about the “state of emergency” caused by predatory publishing models–a riff extended from my Code4Lib talk.
——————-
Section 1.
Under the contract and agreements between Haworth Press and the North American Serials Interest Group the following rights have been designated:
X The author(s) or his/her assignee(s) owns the copyright to the work he/she writes for the NASIG proceedings.
X Haworth Press owns rights to first print publication in the NASIG proceedings issue of Serials Librarian, along with rights to conduct its normal business: UMI filming and relationships; article or document delivery relationships; classroom anthologies; permission for granting reprint rights of the Abstracts to indexing and abstracting services.
X NASIG owns the rights to produce a NASIGNET version in suitable forms for reading by members: e-mail, listserv, Gopher, WWW, and WAIS access.
Section 2.
Under this agreement, the author(s) warranties and promises that:
a. the manuscript submitted is his/her/their own original work
b. the work has been submitted only to NASIG and that it has not been submitted elsewhere without the express permission in writing of the NASIG officers or the duly appointed Editors of the NASIG proceedings
c. the work contains no libelous or unlawful statements and does not infringe upon the civil rights of others
d. the work does not infringe upon anyone else’s copyright
The author(s) agree that if there is a breach of any of the above representations and warranties that (s)he will indemnify both NASIG and NASIG’s publisher, The Haworth Press, Inc., and the elected or appointed Executive Board and Editors of NASIG, and hold them harmless.
AUTHOR REUSE OF WORK
X The author(s) may not submit this work to any other journal or book publication until after it has appeared in the NASIG proceedings issue of the Serials Librarian.
X Author(s) retain the right to reprint their work as it appears in the NASIG proceedings issue of the Serials Librarian as part of classroom handouts, reading room reserve, and traditional interlibrary loans. All other policy regarding permission for reprinting are decided by the NASIG Board.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Dropped my MOOC. Picked up a doctoral program. - 2013
- Brewing David, Part 1 - 2009
- Invasion of Grantistan! - 2006
- What I'm Giving Up for Lent - 2006
- Please Do Not Googlebomb LII - 2004
- HBO Special: Human Rights in Cuba - 2004
Karen if you’re wanting to be free to do your own thing with your own work, I think you’ve sussed out a problem for you with this agreement.
While it looks in Section 1. like Haworth Press only claims rights to first print publication, by Section 2. it expects you to warranty that you have not submitted the particular work anywhere else without NASIG permission. If you decide to go along with that the end also requires that any later reuse or reprint to which you retain the right must be as it appears in the NASIG proceedings issue.
Considering the likelihood that the agreement hasn’t been modernised it would seem reasonable to modify it as seems reasonable to you, and see what the response is.
JMTC (Having had no experience negotiating such an agreement)
Yes, do see if you can modify it with a Creative Commons license. It’s disturbing that a publisher with so many library titles is worse than Elsevier when it comes to open access. I have been leery of dealing with Haworth ever since they canceled the publication of an issue of Journal of Homosexuality because of complaints from a group that believes homosexuality is evil. (They did eventually publish the article in a supplementary volume, since they were getting so much heat over those who thought it a bad idea to cave to a cranky right-wing group.)
The author of the article they yanked was a co-author of an article in the Bulletin of the American Psychological Association that was condemned by Congress after “Dr.” Laura called it to their attention. The gist of the article: after conducting a meta-analysis of research, it appeared there was evidence that not every minor who engaged in sex with an adult was traumatized by the experience. This kind of good news is, of course, bad news because we want our young people irreparably harmed by things they shouldn’t do.
All of which is an aside to the copyright issue, but I do hope you push for a better copyright agreement.
I’m not a lawyer and maybe I’m just stupid about law, but I don’t see anything in that agreement that prohibits you from putting the presentation on your own website/blog before the conference (and maybe not after, either).
I don’t see a problem; looks pretty generous to me. Sections 1 and 2 do not conflict to my eyes: NASIG wants to be the first to publish, so to do that, they need you to say you haven’t published elsewhere without their knowledge yet.
Once they publish, looks to me as though you can do whatever you want. The end of Section 2 refers to reprints *of the NASIG publication* (typesetting and all), not to other uses of the work.
Thanks for making the agreement public! That’s valuable information.
Considering the audience – these are serials librarians, after all – and that they’re paying us to speak, I don’t think it’s outrageous for them to ask us to assign copyright and publishing rights for a written expression of our talks. You don’t have to accept the terms, of course, and whether you do or not, you can probably at least negotiate a clause for retaining rights to your slides and posting them yourself.
Having a little experience with publishing contracts from the publisher’s side, I would encourage you to request the contract revisions you would like. You probably won’t get everything you want, but it’s worth a try. The publisher might even be grateful for the nudge to update their boilerplate. Let us know what happens!
Susie Lorand (Editor-turned-library-student)
Dan, in re “they’re paying us to speak”–I did not ask for payment, just agreed to have them cover my costs. This is a professional presentation on company time, so I would not ask for or accept an honorarium, so that was a fair exchange, up to the point where I have to give up any rights to my content. Since that’s the case, it appears you and I are on different negotation grounds, and I’d rather keep my paws on my content and negotiate publication of it separately.
I think it will be best for all concerned if I modify the agreement and send it back the way I’d like to see it handled, then let them respond. No criticism of NASIG, but I would prefer to have this arrangement on different terms. Susie, I think you’re right–it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve encouraged a publisher to update an agreement. (I mean, if they’re running a WAIS server, I’m tempted to let them publish it that way..!)
Barbara, I knew there was something that bugged me about Haworth Press. Thank you.
Indeed, then, we are on different grounds, and either way, I shouldn’t have assumed otherwise. I took this opportunity before I had a job, and am doing it on my own time, and will not be representing my employer, and my views do not reflect blah blah blah.
I guess this means that I buy the drinks. 🙂
I agree with Dorothea Salo (April 15, 2007 10:32 AM);
a) much lot revolves around definition of the word ‘print’, IMHO this does not include IR/Website
b) IR/website does not equate to journal of book publication; ‘The author(s) may not submit this work to any other journal or book publication until after it has appeared in the NASIG proceedings issue of the Serials Librarian.’
c) IR/Website does not equal reprinting; ‘All other policy regarding permission for reprinting are decided by the NASIG Board.’
d) I would argue that placing in IR/website does not equate to submitting; ‘2b. the work has been submitted only to NASIG and that it has not been submitted elsewhere’
e)Seems that publisher only claiming rights to first print; (Section 1)’Haworth Press owns rights to first print publication in the NASIG proceedings issue of Serials Librarian’
Conclusion: I would interpret their claims much more narrowly…
Mark Perkins
Dan, that’s fair. 🙂
Whether it’s fair of them to ask for those rights or not also has something to do with how much, if anything, they are to pay you.
Never, never, never, never, ever do anything for Haworth Press if you want to retain any rights.
This is why I will never again write for any Haworth journal.
If you are speaking at an event not owned by Haworth, and they want to make like they own your speech, they are nuts, bananas, or some other food product with which you do not wish to identify. I don’t really see how NASIG can require its speakers to abide by any old banana-split-like terms it agreed to in its scandalous drunken night with Haworth (about which better people have remained silent).
I have never suffered from publish-or-perish, so I don’t really care if they don’t like my terms. If you insist on letting Haworth publish you, insist that they accept your terms, and stop agonizing about theirs. If they don’t like your terms, screw ’em. No, you don’t literally have to do so.
Thanks, Genny!
FWIW, we’re not using Gopher or WAIS. At least, in my two years as the NASIG webmaster, neither format has come to my attention. As for filming, although UMI has changed ownership and names over the years, most serials folks know that it is in reference to microfilm.
Anna, thank you. I suspect that NASIG has simply used this form from time immortal (adding in “gopher” and “WAIS” 15 years ago, but forgetting to later add other forms of Internet-tube) without anyone really pondering what it means. I’m going to rework it and send it back.