Does a journal retracting a paper also renounce copyright?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Every now and then, a journal retracts a paper for some reason or another. I'm wondering what impact retraction has on copyright, assuming the journal (or its publisher) was given its copyright.
Question: Does a journal retracting a paper also renounce copyright?
The notion of "retracting" a paper implies "we don't want it" to some extent (particularly if it is a journal-initiated retraction), which I feel may be interpreted as renouncing copyright altogether.
copyright retraction
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Every now and then, a journal retracts a paper for some reason or another. I'm wondering what impact retraction has on copyright, assuming the journal (or its publisher) was given its copyright.
Question: Does a journal retracting a paper also renounce copyright?
The notion of "retracting" a paper implies "we don't want it" to some extent (particularly if it is a journal-initiated retraction), which I feel may be interpreted as renouncing copyright altogether.
copyright retraction
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Every now and then, a journal retracts a paper for some reason or another. I'm wondering what impact retraction has on copyright, assuming the journal (or its publisher) was given its copyright.
Question: Does a journal retracting a paper also renounce copyright?
The notion of "retracting" a paper implies "we don't want it" to some extent (particularly if it is a journal-initiated retraction), which I feel may be interpreted as renouncing copyright altogether.
copyright retraction
Every now and then, a journal retracts a paper for some reason or another. I'm wondering what impact retraction has on copyright, assuming the journal (or its publisher) was given its copyright.
Question: Does a journal retracting a paper also renounce copyright?
The notion of "retracting" a paper implies "we don't want it" to some extent (particularly if it is a journal-initiated retraction), which I feel may be interpreted as renouncing copyright altogether.
copyright retraction
copyright retraction
asked 14 hours ago
Rebecca J. Stones
5,68842740
5,68842740
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and the journal retracting the paper still retains copyright (if it was given the copyright in the first place).
Here're some retraction policies: one, two, three. Although the question you ask is not discussed, two things can be noted:
- Even if a paper is retracted, the publisher still distributes it (as in, it's still available from the journal's website). What changes is that the publisher makes it clear that the article is retracted.
- The publisher only stops distributing the paper if they are legally obliged to do so (e.g. if the copyright is actually held by someone other than the authors, and the authors had no legal standing to sign the copyright to the publisher).
Since the publisher needs the copyright (or permission from the copyright holder) to distribute the paper, the logical answer is "no".
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Not automatically. Assuming this is a journal where authors assign them copyright, then the author has signed over the copyright and the article "belongs" to the publisher now. Whether they choose to publish it, retract it, or make and market paper aeroplanes from it is none of the author's concern.
However, copyright transfer agreements sometimes (usually?) have a clause stating that if the journal doesn't publish it, copyright will revert to the author. I'm not sure whether that would apply in the event of a retraction, but the only way to tell would be to check the wording of that agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for have very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and the journal retracting the paper still retains copyright (if it was given the copyright in the first place).
Here're some retraction policies: one, two, three. Although the question you ask is not discussed, two things can be noted:
- Even if a paper is retracted, the publisher still distributes it (as in, it's still available from the journal's website). What changes is that the publisher makes it clear that the article is retracted.
- The publisher only stops distributing the paper if they are legally obliged to do so (e.g. if the copyright is actually held by someone other than the authors, and the authors had no legal standing to sign the copyright to the publisher).
Since the publisher needs the copyright (or permission from the copyright holder) to distribute the paper, the logical answer is "no".
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and the journal retracting the paper still retains copyright (if it was given the copyright in the first place).
Here're some retraction policies: one, two, three. Although the question you ask is not discussed, two things can be noted:
- Even if a paper is retracted, the publisher still distributes it (as in, it's still available from the journal's website). What changes is that the publisher makes it clear that the article is retracted.
- The publisher only stops distributing the paper if they are legally obliged to do so (e.g. if the copyright is actually held by someone other than the authors, and the authors had no legal standing to sign the copyright to the publisher).
Since the publisher needs the copyright (or permission from the copyright holder) to distribute the paper, the logical answer is "no".
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and the journal retracting the paper still retains copyright (if it was given the copyright in the first place).
Here're some retraction policies: one, two, three. Although the question you ask is not discussed, two things can be noted:
- Even if a paper is retracted, the publisher still distributes it (as in, it's still available from the journal's website). What changes is that the publisher makes it clear that the article is retracted.
- The publisher only stops distributing the paper if they are legally obliged to do so (e.g. if the copyright is actually held by someone other than the authors, and the authors had no legal standing to sign the copyright to the publisher).
Since the publisher needs the copyright (or permission from the copyright holder) to distribute the paper, the logical answer is "no".
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and the journal retracting the paper still retains copyright (if it was given the copyright in the first place).
Here're some retraction policies: one, two, three. Although the question you ask is not discussed, two things can be noted:
- Even if a paper is retracted, the publisher still distributes it (as in, it's still available from the journal's website). What changes is that the publisher makes it clear that the article is retracted.
- The publisher only stops distributing the paper if they are legally obliged to do so (e.g. if the copyright is actually held by someone other than the authors, and the authors had no legal standing to sign the copyright to the publisher).
Since the publisher needs the copyright (or permission from the copyright holder) to distribute the paper, the logical answer is "no".
edited 8 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
Allure
22.7k1371118
22.7k1371118
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
1
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
Quick clarification on the last sentence. The publisher needs the copyright or authorization from the party who has it. (This is why some publishers can get away with not taking copyright in the first place. As part of the submission process you sign agreements to give them the rights to distribute.)
– R.M.
11 hours ago
10
10
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
The publisher absolutely does not need the copyright to distribute the paper. They merely need the permission of the copyright holder, which is much easier if that means "they merely need their own permission."
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
@DavidRicherby Absolutely correct, though its noteworthy that type of permission is almost always referred to as a license.
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Not automatically. Assuming this is a journal where authors assign them copyright, then the author has signed over the copyright and the article "belongs" to the publisher now. Whether they choose to publish it, retract it, or make and market paper aeroplanes from it is none of the author's concern.
However, copyright transfer agreements sometimes (usually?) have a clause stating that if the journal doesn't publish it, copyright will revert to the author. I'm not sure whether that would apply in the event of a retraction, but the only way to tell would be to check the wording of that agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Not automatically. Assuming this is a journal where authors assign them copyright, then the author has signed over the copyright and the article "belongs" to the publisher now. Whether they choose to publish it, retract it, or make and market paper aeroplanes from it is none of the author's concern.
However, copyright transfer agreements sometimes (usually?) have a clause stating that if the journal doesn't publish it, copyright will revert to the author. I'm not sure whether that would apply in the event of a retraction, but the only way to tell would be to check the wording of that agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Not automatically. Assuming this is a journal where authors assign them copyright, then the author has signed over the copyright and the article "belongs" to the publisher now. Whether they choose to publish it, retract it, or make and market paper aeroplanes from it is none of the author's concern.
However, copyright transfer agreements sometimes (usually?) have a clause stating that if the journal doesn't publish it, copyright will revert to the author. I'm not sure whether that would apply in the event of a retraction, but the only way to tell would be to check the wording of that agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
Not automatically. Assuming this is a journal where authors assign them copyright, then the author has signed over the copyright and the article "belongs" to the publisher now. Whether they choose to publish it, retract it, or make and market paper aeroplanes from it is none of the author's concern.
However, copyright transfer agreements sometimes (usually?) have a clause stating that if the journal doesn't publish it, copyright will revert to the author. I'm not sure whether that would apply in the event of a retraction, but the only way to tell would be to check the wording of that agreement.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
answered 14 hours ago
Flyto
4,0141132
4,0141132
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for have very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for have very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for have very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.
In general, no, but there is a lot of nuance to the question.
First, you did not specify your jurisdiction. While many international treaties provide a degree of uniformity to copyright questions, there are significant differences between jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is notorious for have very limited and weak "Moral Rights" while they are quite strong and significant in Canada. I am not actually aware of any differences in any jurisdiction that will make the answer to this question differ, but I cannot guarantee they do not exist. The best advice is that if you face this question in a way that will have real consequences, you should consult a qualified attorney in the jurisdiction in question
With that said, nothing about retraction inherently relinquishes copyrights. In fact, under most circumstances, the copyright holder may elect to not publish something while still forbidding any others from publishing. In other words, a copyright holder may choose to use copyright to prevent any publication.
However, this ultimately comes down to the contracts and specific statements involved. While I haven't ever seen this happen, a publisher could elect to disavow copyright (or release to the public domain) at the same time as they retract.
Its also possible that the publication never held the copyright at all, but only held a license to distribute. This is in fact what I granted with my last publication rather than a transfer of the copyright.
Even if the copyright is transferred to the publishers, there may be a clause that transfers it back if it is not published within the specified time or is withdrawn within that time (2 years is common).
TLDR: Retraction does not by itself change the copyright and it is likely the publisher either continues to retain the copyright or an exclusive license to the article. But that is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute and you will have to evaluate the circumstances around any particular article individually.
edited 2 hours ago
darij grinberg
2,2441919
2,2441919
answered 6 hours ago
TimothyAWiseman
23816
23816
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
add a comment |
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
+1; I've taken the liberty to correct what looked like typos.
– darij grinberg
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
@darijgrinberg Thank you.
– TimothyAWiseman
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119952%2fdoes-a-journal-retracting-a-paper-also-renounce-copyright%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
In general (i.e. when considering non-US jurisdictions), copyright may not even be possible to renounce. Take Germany for example.
– Kevin
4 hours ago
When, e.g., a book publisher wants to let a book go out of print, and they own the copyright, typically they don't renounce the copyright (which may not even be possible). They would be more likely to let it revert to the author, and this would typically be stated explicitly in the contract. That way the author can try to find a new publisher, or self-publish or put it on the internet if they wish. I don't know if this situation is at all analogous.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago