TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> It's worth noting that STC's "requirement to transfer copyright for
> symposium papers" is neither unusual nor greedy. It is, in fact, the
> standard practice adopted by most "not for profit" academic publishers
> (journals in general and STC in this particular case). Since these
> publishers barely make enough money to cover their costs, they can't
> afford to pay authors.
Cry me a river.
> Please note that I don't extend the courtesy of this understanding to
> the for-profit publishers, who by and large are a bunch of monopolistic
> pirates. But that's another rant.
Rant noted with a nod. ;-)
> Because of the way copyright law is interpreted in the U.S., it's far
> easier for such publishers to ask for a full copyright transfer than to
> negotiate one-time publication rights or something more complicated.
> If, for example, the contents of a journal or symposium proceedings
> will be included in an abstracting journal (e.g., Biology Abstracts) or
> similar publication (e.g., Current Contents), or is archived at a
> national library (e.g., Library of Congress), it would be prohibitively
> difficult to keep contacting the author to ask for permission each
> time.
So pay the author and be done with it.
> I'm not fully convinced of this logic, since a good lawyer (ahem <g>)
> should be able to write a "permission to publish" agreement in such a
> way as to leave the copyright in the author's hands without tying the
> publisher's hands, but since the "all rights" transfer is the standard
> (and I say this having worked with journals for nearly 20 years), I
> have to assume that the lawyers know something I don't.
You have no idea what a mess that can be. In this case, lawyers are
worth every penny.
> The key thing to note here is that STC "will grant a non-exclusive,
> royalty-free license or will reassign the copyright back to the author"
> on request. This is more than fair; many commercial publishers will go
> to just about any length to avoid letting you republish your own work.
Why can't the author grant the STC a non-exclusive royalty-free
licence instead, then?
> If you object to this practice, the simplest solution is to publish
> your article on your own Web site before you submit it to a conference
> proceedings or journal, thereby securing copyright to the specific
> version that you published. In my experience*, most proceedings and
> journal editors are quite happy to accept "2nd publication rights", or
> rights to the version of the article they publish. That way, everyone's
> happy.
> * 8 years signing copyright releases for the Canadian federal
> government and 10 more for my former employer.
That can still get sticky, but more times than not that'll work.
> Chuck Martin observed: <<And I'll bet this policy keeps many popular
> and well-known industry writers from presenting at the STC
> conference.>>
>
> This is indeed true, at least based on the anecdotal evidence that I
> have heard. But on the other hand, it doesn't stop many exceedingly
> well known authors (Saul Carliner, for instance) from publishing in
> journals. The decision comes down to your goals for publishing: if you
> publish solely for money, you go to paying markets (not non-profits)
> and try to keep whatever rights you can; if you're publishing as a
> public good, you keep the right to republish your own material, but
> don't get paid for publishing. Speaking as someone with more than 250
> publication credits, both are satisfying strategies.
I gave up on presenting at conferences. Even the paid ones were still
expensive to do. Those who consult for a living can do well at paid
conferences, as they can dedicate themselves to several sessions and
reap a profit, while marketing their services to boot. As a FTE, I
usually presented to get a kickback to reduce the cost of my trip, but
because I went to also learn, I didn't get enough out of the
conferences because I was rehearsing my own presentation in my head.
;-)
But, I can see why these consultants don't often present at the STC
conferences... they need to make money. They can't work on client
projects and be at a conference at the same time (maybe after hours
and so forth, but it's not a solid working time and certainly not a
vehicle for their best work). Therefore they look to be conpensated
for their time, which the STC doesn't do beyond a reduced entry fee.
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
