Finally, I would like to drop the two additional phrases of ”legal mumbo-jumbo” in paragraph 7, which go beyond what is written in paragraph E of Michigan, namely: ”It is governed by the laws of [… Commonwealth of Massachusetts… It will bind and benefit our respective representatives and successors, including your heirs. I inherited other agreements, but if the lawyers say it is not necessary, let`s go. […] blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2014/02/19/a-model-oa-journal-publication-agreement/ […] […] Guide/Primer to Contracts Harvard Office for Scol Comm – Stu Schieber Model Lizenz – blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2014/02/19/a-model-oa-journal-publication-agreement/ – always want to get through and make sure you do what you want Panel: […] As long as you create a new review, its content should be as open as possible with the appropriate assignment. This is exactly what characterizes the CC-BY license. It is also an extremely simple approach. Once the author has issued a CC-BY license, it is no longer necessary to grant more rights to the publisher. There is no need to talk about it, give the publisher a non-exclusive license to publish the article, etc.

The CC-BY license already allows the publisher to do so. There is no need to talk about the rights that the author retains, as the author retains all rights subject to the non-exclusive CC-BY license. I have spoken out elsewhere in favour of a CC-BY licence. For Elsevier`s proprietary magazines, the following steps apply: This is an excellent proposal. I think it is a viable agreement and it would be advantageous if it were adapted by different publishers. Very helpful comments. Thank you for referring to the Michigan agreement. I hadn`t seen that before.

It also looks like a model approach that differs in just a few species. I find Article 3 of this model agreement disturbing. This is an agreement between an author and a publisher, and clause 3 is mandatory for the author. But the author is not able to demand that everyone in the world quote the original publication. Perhaps it will apply only to the author`s use of his own works, not to the use of others? If this is the case, it should be made more explicit. Some provisions of the agreement deal with issues applicable to the filing date, in particular the requirements of deroriteity and uniform submission – other provisions when adopting – in particular the licensing rules. The agreement is intended to be used when an article is adopted to be published. In a way, the mandates of the authors come at the time of 6, so a little late.

But I expect there will be few problems here. It is unlikely that the authors would undergo the entire process of submitting an article for $6 simply because they did not know that the newspaper submissions had to be initially proprietary and legal, especially if the magazine publishes these requirements in its submission policy on its website with a copy of the publication agreement that the authors must ultimately sign. The alternative is to reformulate the agreement, much of which has been moved to some kind of conditional language (”If the publication article is adopted, you will be… ) and have it signed at the time of presentation instead of acceptance. Personally, I prefer the simplicity of the approach taken here. From a technical point of view, the term 6c already applies by putting the author in the trap of any use of copyrights of third parties without authorization if such use proves to be a violation. However, Micah is right that magazine publishers are very concerned about it.