Taylor And Francis License Agreement
Figure: Triangle representing actors in angles and intellectual property agreements between them along the base and legs. If the library or licensee manages or provides the service to users located outside a single adjoining geographic site or several departments working independently of the higher institution, the library/licensee may be required to acquire a license for several sites or licenses of a consortium. Section 13.2.4 requires “if necessary” that we, the licensee, seek the consent of “any copyrighted author or person” to file articles related to the KU in the IR. This provision is unnecessary, incriminating and contrary to another clause, 13.3 (which is explained in more detail below). Unnecessary because the rights granted in the publication agreement (remember the author and publisher) are generally extended to all authors in the same way, so that if we pay on behalf of a KU author under the publication agreement to KU ScholarWorks (KU`s IR), the explicit consent of all authors is superfluous. Each author of a particular article enjoys the rights granted to all authors of this article on the publication agreement. You don`t need to agree to exercise these rights individually. If we accept this clause, we could limit this right in the name of the faculty of ku and force an agreement between all the authors, which is difficult for many reasons (logistics and power differences, mainly between them). So what should we do? If, as I said above, there is never a “if necessary,” this whole clause is controversial and therefore empty and unnecessary. It is incriminating because it requires the licensee (KU) to obtain this authorization. The only realistic way we can do this is by our author (see above in this case). This is contradictory to another part of the content license, section 13.3 (discussed in length below), which gives priority to author agreements, so this license undermines itself (where have I already seen it?). The most generous interpretation I can imagine is that this contradiction creates unnecessary confusion and ambiguity.
