2 added 5 characters in body
source | link

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 Agreementscopyright transfer agreements or licenses is not obvious, given that it's dependent on the publisher's procedure what this entails. Open Accessaccess 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.A. federal works are not-copyrightable 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.

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 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.A. 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.

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.

1
source | link

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 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.A. 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.