Copyright statement (US Government) in acknowledgments - what to do as a reviewer?
I am currently reviewing a paper, which has this statement in the acknowledgements:
The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting
the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript,
or allow other to do so, for United States Government purposes.
Source
As a reviewer, I could simply ignore it. However, it seems rather weird to me, since usually after acceptance you have to sign a form which deals with exactly this kind of right transfer / copyright etc. The editors and referees do not have any legal power over this anyway.
Does my role as a reviewer also include to mention this to the editor who should forward it to the publisher, or should I simply ignore it, on the risk that this statement potentially collides with the journal policies?
peer-review acknowledgement
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
|
show 5 more comments
I am currently reviewing a paper, which has this statement in the acknowledgements:
The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting
the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript,
or allow other to do so, for United States Government purposes.
Source
As a reviewer, I could simply ignore it. However, it seems rather weird to me, since usually after acceptance you have to sign a form which deals with exactly this kind of right transfer / copyright etc. The editors and referees do not have any legal power over this anyway.
Does my role as a reviewer also include to mention this to the editor who should forward it to the publisher, or should I simply ignore it, on the risk that this statement potentially collides with the journal policies?
peer-review acknowledgement
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
3
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
3
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
1
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
2
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03
|
show 5 more comments
I am currently reviewing a paper, which has this statement in the acknowledgements:
The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting
the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript,
or allow other to do so, for United States Government purposes.
Source
As a reviewer, I could simply ignore it. However, it seems rather weird to me, since usually after acceptance you have to sign a form which deals with exactly this kind of right transfer / copyright etc. The editors and referees do not have any legal power over this anyway.
Does my role as a reviewer also include to mention this to the editor who should forward it to the publisher, or should I simply ignore it, on the risk that this statement potentially collides with the journal policies?
peer-review acknowledgement
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
I am currently reviewing a paper, which has this statement in the acknowledgements:
The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting
the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript,
or allow other to do so, for United States Government purposes.
Source
As a reviewer, I could simply ignore it. However, it seems rather weird to me, since usually after acceptance you have to sign a form which deals with exactly this kind of right transfer / copyright etc. The editors and referees do not have any legal power over this anyway.
Does my role as a reviewer also include to mention this to the editor who should forward it to the publisher, or should I simply ignore it, on the risk that this statement potentially collides with the journal policies?
peer-review acknowledgement
peer-review acknowledgement
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
asked Dec 14 at 11:25
traindriver
49668
49668
3
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
3
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
1
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
2
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03
|
show 5 more comments
3
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
3
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
1
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
2
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03
3
3
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
3
3
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
1
1
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
2
2
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03
|
show 5 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You can mention it to the editor in your report, but you do not need to. Your job is to evaluate the correctness and other merits of the manuscript's contents, not to deal with issues such as copyrights. Those are the job of the editorial staff. Moreover, the editors and publisher are probably experienced in dealing with the copyright requirements of government employees and should know to be on the lookout for situations like this.
If you want to mention it, I would suggest saying something like:
I noticed an statement about copyright in the acknowledgements, something that I had never seen before. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so it does not get missed.
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
add a comment |
The article (i.e. its contents and references) are within your remit as a reviewer.
Checking copyright details and investigating any the legal ramifications will not be relevant to the review you should be doing.
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
add a comment |
I think it is pretty unlikely that the editor isn't already aware of this, but, yes, you should mention it somewhere in your report to the editor. It amounts to a restriction on what the publisher can claim as "reserved rights".
It says, in effect, that if the publisher, accepts this article (and obtains its copyright) the publisher must thereby grant the U.S. Government a license of a certain sort. This means a conditional transfer of copyright.
My guess is that this is fairly standard for work produced by the government and in some cases, work produced by others on government grants. The government doesn't want to create a work and then have to pay to use it internally (i.e. for U.S. Government purposes).
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
add a comment |
It is your prerogative what to do about this, but it is not your legal duty to review the copyright procedure. It is a publisher's legal duty.
What you mention about standard procedure about copyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open access publishers, for example, do not require any transfer or exclusive license. Most publishers share their procedures online, but most do not check this (nor is comprehension of these agreements obvious, see also this study)
U.S. federal works are not copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 105, so it makes perfect sense the authors state this if they are federal employees. Previously, works by federal employees (for example Barack Obama in Science) have had their copyright claimed by publishers upon publication, which is against this law.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121631%2fcopyright-statement-us-government-in-acknowledgments-what-to-do-as-a-reviewe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can mention it to the editor in your report, but you do not need to. Your job is to evaluate the correctness and other merits of the manuscript's contents, not to deal with issues such as copyrights. Those are the job of the editorial staff. Moreover, the editors and publisher are probably experienced in dealing with the copyright requirements of government employees and should know to be on the lookout for situations like this.
If you want to mention it, I would suggest saying something like:
I noticed an statement about copyright in the acknowledgements, something that I had never seen before. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so it does not get missed.
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
add a comment |
You can mention it to the editor in your report, but you do not need to. Your job is to evaluate the correctness and other merits of the manuscript's contents, not to deal with issues such as copyrights. Those are the job of the editorial staff. Moreover, the editors and publisher are probably experienced in dealing with the copyright requirements of government employees and should know to be on the lookout for situations like this.
If you want to mention it, I would suggest saying something like:
I noticed an statement about copyright in the acknowledgements, something that I had never seen before. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so it does not get missed.
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
add a comment |
You can mention it to the editor in your report, but you do not need to. Your job is to evaluate the correctness and other merits of the manuscript's contents, not to deal with issues such as copyrights. Those are the job of the editorial staff. Moreover, the editors and publisher are probably experienced in dealing with the copyright requirements of government employees and should know to be on the lookout for situations like this.
If you want to mention it, I would suggest saying something like:
I noticed an statement about copyright in the acknowledgements, something that I had never seen before. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so it does not get missed.
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
You can mention it to the editor in your report, but you do not need to. Your job is to evaluate the correctness and other merits of the manuscript's contents, not to deal with issues such as copyrights. Those are the job of the editorial staff. Moreover, the editors and publisher are probably experienced in dealing with the copyright requirements of government employees and should know to be on the lookout for situations like this.
If you want to mention it, I would suggest saying something like:
I noticed an statement about copyright in the acknowledgements, something that I had never seen before. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so it does not get missed.
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
14.4k94775
add a comment |
add a comment |
The article (i.e. its contents and references) are within your remit as a reviewer.
Checking copyright details and investigating any the legal ramifications will not be relevant to the review you should be doing.
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
add a comment |
The article (i.e. its contents and references) are within your remit as a reviewer.
Checking copyright details and investigating any the legal ramifications will not be relevant to the review you should be doing.
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
add a comment |
The article (i.e. its contents and references) are within your remit as a reviewer.
Checking copyright details and investigating any the legal ramifications will not be relevant to the review you should be doing.
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
The article (i.e. its contents and references) are within your remit as a reviewer.
Checking copyright details and investigating any the legal ramifications will not be relevant to the review you should be doing.
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:44
Buzz
14.4k94775
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
answered Dec 14 at 12:24
Solar Mike
12.3k52449
12.3k52449
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
add a comment |
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
4
4
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
Right, the arrangement between authors and journal is for them to handle. In fact, except in rare cases, I see little need to comment on the comments of the acknowledgements section.
– Anyon
Dec 14 at 13:09
add a comment |
I think it is pretty unlikely that the editor isn't already aware of this, but, yes, you should mention it somewhere in your report to the editor. It amounts to a restriction on what the publisher can claim as "reserved rights".
It says, in effect, that if the publisher, accepts this article (and obtains its copyright) the publisher must thereby grant the U.S. Government a license of a certain sort. This means a conditional transfer of copyright.
My guess is that this is fairly standard for work produced by the government and in some cases, work produced by others on government grants. The government doesn't want to create a work and then have to pay to use it internally (i.e. for U.S. Government purposes).
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
add a comment |
I think it is pretty unlikely that the editor isn't already aware of this, but, yes, you should mention it somewhere in your report to the editor. It amounts to a restriction on what the publisher can claim as "reserved rights".
It says, in effect, that if the publisher, accepts this article (and obtains its copyright) the publisher must thereby grant the U.S. Government a license of a certain sort. This means a conditional transfer of copyright.
My guess is that this is fairly standard for work produced by the government and in some cases, work produced by others on government grants. The government doesn't want to create a work and then have to pay to use it internally (i.e. for U.S. Government purposes).
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
add a comment |
I think it is pretty unlikely that the editor isn't already aware of this, but, yes, you should mention it somewhere in your report to the editor. It amounts to a restriction on what the publisher can claim as "reserved rights".
It says, in effect, that if the publisher, accepts this article (and obtains its copyright) the publisher must thereby grant the U.S. Government a license of a certain sort. This means a conditional transfer of copyright.
My guess is that this is fairly standard for work produced by the government and in some cases, work produced by others on government grants. The government doesn't want to create a work and then have to pay to use it internally (i.e. for U.S. Government purposes).
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
I think it is pretty unlikely that the editor isn't already aware of this, but, yes, you should mention it somewhere in your report to the editor. It amounts to a restriction on what the publisher can claim as "reserved rights".
It says, in effect, that if the publisher, accepts this article (and obtains its copyright) the publisher must thereby grant the U.S. Government a license of a certain sort. This means a conditional transfer of copyright.
My guess is that this is fairly standard for work produced by the government and in some cases, work produced by others on government grants. The government doesn't want to create a work and then have to pay to use it internally (i.e. for U.S. Government purposes).
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:45
Buzz
14.4k94775
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
answered Dec 14 at 11:40
Buffy
35k7110179
35k7110179
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
add a comment |
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
2
2
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
As an FYI if the US Government pays for something to be created, it can be illegal for the government to pay for access it (Intellectual property law varies across US Government agencies).
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:18
8
8
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
You are right -- this is fairly standard for work performed under government contract. It's likely also applicable for a fair amount of grant-funded work as well. Note in particular that the license only extends to government-purpose use -- it does not grant them permission to further publish or resell it.
– Tristan
Dec 14 at 14:35
1
1
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
Yeah, your guess is correct. This is completely normal and required by law.
– reirab
Dec 15 at 0:28
add a comment |
It is your prerogative what to do about this, but it is not your legal duty to review the copyright procedure. It is a publisher's legal duty.
What you mention about standard procedure about copyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open access publishers, for example, do not require any transfer or exclusive license. Most publishers share their procedures online, but most do not check this (nor is comprehension of these agreements obvious, see also this study)
U.S. federal works are not copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 105, so it makes perfect sense the authors state this if they are federal employees. Previously, works by federal employees (for example Barack Obama in Science) have had their copyright claimed by publishers upon publication, which is against this law.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
add a comment |
It is your prerogative what to do about this, but it is not your legal duty to review the copyright procedure. It is a publisher's legal duty.
What you mention about standard procedure about copyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open access publishers, for example, do not require any transfer or exclusive license. Most publishers share their procedures online, but most do not check this (nor is comprehension of these agreements obvious, see also this study)
U.S. federal works are not copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 105, so it makes perfect sense the authors state this if they are federal employees. Previously, works by federal employees (for example Barack Obama in Science) have had their copyright claimed by publishers upon publication, which is against this law.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
add a comment |
It is your prerogative what to do about this, but it is not your legal duty to review the copyright procedure. It is a publisher's legal duty.
What you mention about standard procedure about copyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open access publishers, for example, do not require any transfer or exclusive license. Most publishers share their procedures online, but most do not check this (nor is comprehension of these agreements obvious, see also this study)
U.S. federal works are not copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 105, so it makes perfect sense the authors state this if they are federal employees. Previously, works by federal employees (for example Barack Obama in Science) have had their copyright claimed by publishers upon publication, which is against this law.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It is your prerogative what to do about this, but it is not your legal duty to review the copyright procedure. It is a publisher's legal duty.
What you mention about standard procedure about copyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open access publishers, for example, do not require any transfer or exclusive license. Most publishers share their procedures online, but most do not check this (nor is comprehension of these agreements obvious, see also this study)
U.S. federal works are not copyrightable under 17 U.S.C. § 105, so it makes perfect sense the authors state this if they are federal employees. Previously, works by federal employees (for example Barack Obama in Science) have had their copyright claimed by publishers upon publication, which is against this law.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
edited Dec 14 at 13:47
Buzz
14.4k94775
14.4k94775
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
answered Dec 14 at 12:25
Chris Hartgerink
3012
3012
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Chris Hartgerink is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
add a comment |
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
3
3
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
As an FYI, journals own the formatting of US Government works (e.g., the formatted PDF version of the article), but the content is non-copyrightable. For example, one can reuse the text and figures or re-distribute the manuscript version (non-formated text), but one often cannot re-distribute the journal's PDF of the article.
– Richard Erickson
Dec 14 at 13:19
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
Along with @RichardErickson comment, there may be trademark rights in the formatted article that the Government and public does not receive unlimited rights to exploit. This would be the name and logo of the publication, and also things like distinctive colors, art and formatting on the page.
– user71659
Dec 14 at 17:55
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
You could improve this by being more specific. Works by the federal government are not copyrightable. It makes perfect sense for a publication to note that. But the statement in question here does not say that it is a federal work or is not protected by copyright. That would require a different statement.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121631%2fcopyright-statement-us-government-in-acknowledgments-what-to-do-as-a-reviewe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Clearly the author is a federal employee and their work is in the public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The publisher is legally mandated to include such a disclaimer, see also law.resource.org/pub/us/works cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html . Many publishers have their own language for this, see e.g. Springer "If you are employed by NIH" springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/funder-compliance/…
– Nemo
Dec 14 at 20:36
3
This isn't a transfer of copyright, this is a retention of a right already held.
– Acccumulation
Dec 14 at 21:41
@Nemo That does not state that the work is in the public domain, it states that the U.S. government has a limited but perpetual license. And, while a good practice, a publisher is not required to include a disclaimer that a portion of the work in the final publication is in the public domain.
– TimothyAWiseman
Dec 15 at 0:37
1
@TimothyAWiseman "public domain" is not defined in the law, so you will not find a disclaimer saying something is in the public domain; the license may be limited (in which case it's a contractor rather than an employee) but "or allow other to do so" is a right to sublicense or worldwide unlimited use which is more easily affirmed for public domain material. The publisher is required to include a notice, read the law again: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/403
– Nemo
Dec 15 at 9:45
2
Keep in mind that copyright transfer forms tend to have explicit allowances for these kind of cases. (At least where I have seen them.) - If anything, I'm sure the editor will discuss this with the authors if it were the problem. I don't see a scientific problem in that statement - nor a conflict of interest which would be relevant to a reviewer.
– DetlevCM
Dec 15 at 18:03