3 added 1 character in body
source | link

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry isare having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal interpretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively. (Just to be clear, that doesn't guarantee that you win in court, but it does mean you're unlikely to get sued at all.)

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry is having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal interpretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively. (Just to be clear, that doesn't guarantee that you win in court, but it does mean you're unlikely to get sued at all.)

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry are having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal interpretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively. (Just to be clear, that doesn't guarantee that you win in court, but it does mean you're unlikely to get sued at all.)

2 added 120 characters in body
source | link

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry is having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal intepretationinterpretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively. (Just to be clear, that doesn't guarantee that you win in court, but it does mean you're unlikely to get sued at all.)

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry is having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal intepretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively.

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry is having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal interpretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively. (Just to be clear, that doesn't guarantee that you win in court, but it does mean you're unlikely to get sued at all.)

1
source | link

Let's start from the ethical and get to the legal. I have no experience in European law (a bit of experience with Israeli law) so I won't be able to contribute much - except for a perspective, which is often no less important than the legal details.

Ethically the problem lies with the fact that a Journal has copyrights on scientific research papers appearing in it. More specifically, in that the copyright mechanisms and the scientific publishing industry is having a chilling effect - justified or unjustified - on people like you. You should not have had to rewrite your article because of the fear of Wiley or whoever it is. In fact, in hindsight I would even have considered just using whatever parts of the text are scientifically relevant to the thesis, on the good faith basis that society will not allow you to come to any harm for doing your work faithfully as a researcher. On that note, did you know that Copyright (in England anyway) was originally a concession by the Crown to monopolistic book printers? So one monopoly on power props up another. Terrible.

Legally it is not entirely clear from your post what Wiley actually has. First, if they had you sign some standard form, there could be an argument against its validity from the get-go. The interpretation of what the form says can very well be thought of as having an exception for uses such as inclusion in Ph.D. theses, and that it did not occur to you at any point that they are allowed to make demands about placing notices on their behalf in your thesis etc. Then there's the copyright law itself in your country - see what exceptions and allowances it has for socially-beneficial scientific work, use in scholarly/research activities etc.

Finally:

Never ask them for advice on what you can do. They will tend to advise you in a way which is the most useful for them and with the legal intepretation most favorable to them. Also, if you do ask someone for legal advice, don't ask him/her "Can you guarantee that what I want to do is legal?" or "Can you guarantee that the publisher's demands are invald?" Ask him/her just this: "Will you be able to defend me in court if I do this and they sue?" The answers will typically be "Not really", "Not really" and "For sure" respectively.