78

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 ...


48

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 ...


38

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.


35

From your question: This is an article published more than 150 years ago. How long do I have to wait in order to download it and use it for free? From a comment you posted: Yes, I know I do still have to cite it, but I can't download it or use it for free. I have to pay even when it was published in the 19th century As Buffy and anpami note, the original ...


33

To expand a little on user2768's answer, the text provided by the publisher normally explains the benefits and implications of the different options quite well. If you choose to retain your copyright, you are only giving the publisher permission to publish and sell your work, but all rights to your work remain with you. You are in principle free to give ...


33

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.


24

Properly credited, posting a piece that fills in all the details of a published paper (or thesis) should be fine. Indicate clearly that the ideas are not your own - that you are just hoping to help others read the original work. You should probably write the person who did the original research, thanking them for their theorems and telling them what you ...


23

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.


17

Well, regardless of the actual copyright situation, you can get it for free even now. Just use the DOI (10.1017/S0080456800032117) and use it at a, erm, (possibly not 100% legal) "Black Open Access" site called Sci-Hub. (The domain changes constantly, but it currently seems to be this one). As regards a legal response, my guess is the following: ...


12

If you give the original creator credit with a citation, and direct quotes are indicated with quotation marks, it is not plagiarism. If you are unsure, ask your supervisor.


11

I have documents showing that this individual has shared the paper content with other people Nothing necessarily wrong with this. It's polite to get permission from co-authors especially before sharing broadly outside your group, and can be rude not to, but it's normal for academics to talk about what they are working on with other academics close to them. ...


10

In the US, at least, nothing published in the 19th century is likely to still be under copyright. See https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html. For the UK it is similar but very slightly longer in a few cases. See: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/library/copyright/duration. Other places will differ, but probably not by a lot and most likely a shorter ...


10

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 ...


9

To avoid all questions, and in the absence of a clear license, ask the person for permission to use a picture. They might even have a better one that they would prefer be used. For a deceased person, ask the university, either through their former department head or a university publicity office. If they can't grant you a right to use it, they can possibly ...


8

Short answer: Pre-prints are not a big threat to the business models of journals and there are scientific norms that mean that journals are expected to permit pre-prints. Longer Answer: Why do universities and others pay for journals when some of the articles in these journal subscriptions are available via pre-print servers and other means? Readers want ...


8

I can't imagine an existing legal regime in which teaching from a textbook and "publishing" the lectures would be considered wrong unless the instructor explicitly made images or snippets copied from the book open to view. Likewise reading from the text verbatim would possibly be wrong depending on how much was read (fair use principles are ...


8

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.


7

Oh hey a copyright hypo in real life :) There are a couple questions that this question turns on. Is the lecture a derivative work of the textbook? Generally, the holder of a copyright also has rights to derivative works. Derivative works are works which are derived from another work. For example, if I sell a t-shirt with a drawing of Mickey Mouse on it, ...


7

What am I missing? That we are the geese who are laying golden eggs for the publishers. Their business model is to do little and to get paid huge sums of money for it. Scientists do essentially all the work: the writing, peer review, and the editorial work. All that publishers really do is copyediting, and quite frankly they often do a mediocre job of that. ...


7

given the option to still have the paper published while retaining the copyright, is there any reason to still transfer the copyright? There are benefits of a publisher holding the copyright, e.g., they can enforce copyright, whereas you likely cannot. When royalties are involved this is particularly useful. When they aren't, it can still be useful, e.g., ...


7

I don't know whether you can insist on the exact wording the copyright holders asked for, or whether you should, or whether you or the journal faces legal consequences if you don't. I suggest you write the editor quoting the specific requirements directly as they came to you in support of your wish to honor those requests. If the editor says no and there are ...


6

The arxiv has a dedicated field where you can add the DOI. (Note that this will not create a new version.) In addition, most journals will allow you to upload the final accepted version (that is, the version with the corrections you did following the referee comments, but without any copyediting done by the journal), so you can additionally upload that ...


6

@Buffy gives good advice on the copyright situation. As far as downloading that particular paper and using it for free goes, you need wait no longer: the Biodiversity Heritage Library has a copy here.


5

Check the agreement you signed with the publisher. If you transferred the copyright and they don't explicitly allow this, then the answer is no. Another easy way to check is using Sherpa Romeo. For instance, you can see here that the journal SINUM does allow the author to post the published version on a personal website. Meanwhile, you can see here that ...


5

Laozi's work is not protected by copyright, you are free to provide translations. You cannot freely distribute translations of others. This site here, presents many translations...Seeing as it’s still operating, I’m assuming that [the site] hasn’t violated any copyright protection Your assumption is false: The absence of a take-down or prosecution doesn't ...


4

When referring to a preprint being replaced, it is understood that a new version will be generated. Most/all preprint servers do not generally permit editing existing versions in order to maintain a clear timeline. Even though older versions remain accessible, readers would view the latest version as the most up-to-date version to refer to for future use, so ...


4

Here is how it used to work: The university bought journal articles from a publisher. The publisher printed and mailed the article to the university. Any random person could walk into the university library and read the article. The random person could use what they learned to make money, so long as they did not violate any patents. The patents issue is ...


4

There are two options: Upload the revised version that you submitted to the journal (i.e. the one which got accepted finally). But, don't upload the post-produced pdf that you got from the publisher (and did not compile yourself from a .tex); this is not allowed by most journals. Further, you might want to look at the journal's statements about arXiv ...


4

It's certainly allowed, in fact full papers have been published in this way. Example, as the abstract itself makes clear: In this paper, we provide an essentially self-contained and detailed account of the fundamental works of Hamilton and the recent breakthrough of Perelman on the Ricci flow and their application to the geometrization of three-manifolds. ...


4

In the United States, and perhaps elsewhere, copyright exists as soon as a "creative work" is "fixed in a tangible medium." So, in the United States every modern photograph is covered by copyright. The Creative Commons license is just that, a license to use the work. If there's no mention of a license, then the assumption should be that ...


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