[Kliment]

That's bullshit though. The authors retain copyright over their work, and have always had the right to distribute their papers on their personal websites. It's part of the deal. Now the assholes are changing the deal after the fact, and trying to use threats to get the people producing actual value to play along. If, as an author, I was okay with the rest of their evildoing before this, and accepted the deal as it stood, I no longer have any reason to trust them to honor any other agreement.

[zvrba]

> had the right to distribute their papers on their personal websites

Elsevier allows you to post the preprint, but not the final published version (which includes Elsevier's typesetting, logo, etc.)

[gmac]

At least for some of their journals (e.g. Global Environmental Change), I understand the position is that they will allow you to post the exact final published content, but (a) not as formatted by the journal and (b) not in any kind of organised institutional repository.

In case of (a), I actually prefer to post my own PDFs, because one of the tasks publishers-as-middlemen generally perform is screwing up captions, misapplying 'style guides' and so on.

Regarding (b), they are clearly trying to make it more difficult to find these posted articles, and to reduce the number posted by ensuring that individual authors have to take the initiative (rather than it being a matter of institutional policies).

(Edit: reading your comment again, I see that I'm wholly agreeing with you).

[Kliment]

I'd REALLY love to see a court decide on whether adding their logo and running it through a script is a transformation substantial enough to warrant copyright as a separate work.

[roel_v]

That is entirely besides the point. This is a contractual matter, not copyright.

[Kliment]

The contract states that there is no transfer of copyright, yet the assholes attempt to enforce copyright against the authors, while acting, effectively, as their agents. See the problem?

[zvrba]

It states no such thing. In fact, the website clearly states exactly the opposite, in "normal" (i.e., not legalese) language:

"For subscription articles: These rights are determined by a copyright transfer, where authors retain scholarly rights to post and use their articles."

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/author-rights-and-re...

[jahewson]

> The authors retain copyright over their work

Absolutely not. Copyright is spit into several separable rights and the authors have signed some of these away. That they still own the majority of their rights under copyright is irrelevant.

> and have always had the right to distribute their papers on their personal websites

No they haven't. This was allowed (for preprints) under Elsevier's T&Cs only a few years ago. Authors have signed away their right to publish their work, so they need explicit permission.

You may not like the agreement, but it's perfectly valid under the law.