If the author can be contacted, ask them politely whether you may distribute the manuscript that used to be available online, explaining the purpose of your request and the size of your class. Perhaps you will get a positive reply or even an updated version of the file. Perhaps the author will reject your request. The answer you get is the answer you get. If ...


The author took a willful, deliberate action of removing the draft from its publicly available location online. The only thing we can infer from this is that he has revoked any implied approval he may have previously given for anyone to download the draft. By the way, giving the right to people to download something does not automatically imply a right to ...


It is just their "business model". I suggest that you ignore them. If they insist, then ask that the paper be retracted. Apparently you still hold copyright. However, IANAL, and don't know what legal remedy they might have. If you can reconstruct the complete history of correspondence with them it would be useful.


You're dealing with a predatory journal. Rights and logic don't apply to predatory journals. You refuse to pay and tell them to retract the article if they wish.


To quote Daniel's comment "Did the copy you downloaded ten years ago state its licence terms?" If the pdf says that you can share it, then you can share it, even after the link has been taken down. If it says otherwise (or more likely, says nothing), then you legally aren't allowed to share it.


You ask "ethical", and asked on academia.stackexchange.com, rather than law.stackexchange.com. This makes this question considerably more complex and interesting than it seems at first sight. Legality As Daniel and Taw point out, if it's explicitly permitted under licensing terms, then it's almost-definitely legal. If you are confident that you ...


I had a similar situation. I did not know it was a predatory journal. As Allure wrote, refuse to pay even a penny and ask for a retraction. Your only fault seems to be that you have submitted, as I did, without a thorough investigation of the journal.


Any of the arXiv licenses can be chosen; they are all compatible with the above quoted terms of the IOP policy. From arXiv Submittal Agreement Terms and Conditions (revision 0.8.3): Management of Copyright This grant to arXiv is a non-exclusive license and is not a grant of exclusive rights or a transfer of the copyright. The authors retain their copyright ...


You should contact a patent attorney for advice on this. And patent law varies over the world. But, my best guess is that you can still obtain a patent, provided that you do so quickly. And you don't hold any patent rights until you file and the patent is awarded. Unlike copyright, patent rights aren't automatic. Reasoning: Copyright is about words - ...


If you don't still hold copyright to the journal article, then you need to get permission to use the figure and you need to cite the original. Your agreement with the publisher or the terms under which the article was published may, already, give you a license to do this. So, no, the requirements aren't different for blogs.


Just what rights the journal has depends on the wording of the website and whatever terms you submitted your work under. A valid contract, at least in US law, requires meeting of the minds and exchange of consideration. If you agreed to terms as a result of a false belief (e.g. you believed that the journal has an impact factor that it does not in fact have, ...


(Disclaimer: IANAL. Well, in the UK, lawyer isn't a regulated profession, only solicitor and barrister are, so I can claim I'm a lawyer all I want.) Short answer: You can do whatever you want with later versions of the manuscript, but previous versions will stay with the licence you gave them. This is seen a lot with open-source computer programs. To change ...


Use the default license (the arxiv.org license). It's the most restrictive one they offer. The ieee page you link is exceedingly clear that posting on arxiv is allowed, with the only restriction that you have to update the arxiv with the DOI once published.


The ethical and legal concepts have been covered already. A solution to this is to request for the book, or a few copies of it, to be stocked in your university library. Students are able to photocopy a few pages at a time out of a library book, and even if not, it can be simply marked as a library read-only/un-loanable book, making it accessible to all ...


I have just gone through this process with the an IEEE publication and TechRxiv. Having 2 revisions before my paper was accepted, these two prints are archived as 2 different versions of the same record, having the same DOI with a versioned suffix. TechRxiv always shows the newest record first. Once your article is published on IEEE Xplore, you can ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible