Закон о справедливом авторском праве на исследовательские работы ( законопроект HR 801 IH, заархивированный 5 ноября 2015 г. в Wayback Machine , также известный как « Законопроект Коньерса» ) был представлен как прямой ответ на Политику публичного доступа Национальных институтов здравоохранения (NIH). ; намереваясь обратить его вспять.
Альтернативное название законопроекта связано с представителем США Джоном Коньерсом (демократ от Мичигана), который представил его на 111-м Конгрессе США 3 февраля 2009 года. [1]
Инициатива законопроекта заключается в внесении поправок в Раздел 17 Кодекса США в отношении работ, связанных с конкретными соглашениями о финансировании. В конечном итоге это запретит федеральным агентствам устанавливать какие-либо условия передачи авторских прав в соглашениях о финансировании; фактически делая текущую политику НИЗ незаконной.
Раздел 17 Кодекса США — это заголовок, в котором излагается закон США об авторском праве. Разделы 106 – об исключительных правах на произведения, защищенные авторским правом – и 201 – о владении авторскими правами и передаче права собственности – оба упоминаются в HR801. Предлагаемая поправка будет относиться к соглашениям о финансировании в рамках этого сегмента названия.
Политика публичного доступа НИЗ — это политика, которая требует, чтобы статьи, сообщающие об исследованиях, финансируемых Национальными институтами здравоохранения, были бесплатно доступны общественности через PubMed Central в течение 12 месяцев с момента публикации.
HR801: Закон о добросовестном авторском праве на исследовательские работы, в частности, внесет поправки в разделы 201 (d) и (e) раздела 17 Кодекса Соединенных Штатов , которые относятся к передаче права собственности на авторские права.
The code would be amended by way of adding limitations on the Federal Government, with regard to funding agreements – i.e. "a contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities" – on extrinsic works – i.e. "any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement" which represents or stems from the value or process of one or more non-federal and non-party affiliated entities – who have "funded [it] in substantial part".[1]
The bill states that:
1. On the transfer of copyright ownership:
2. Federal agencies are also prohibited from imposing or facilitating terms that may result in the approval or waiver of any of the previously stated bans, for a funding agreement.[1]
3. Federal agencies may not apply any of the rights granted by Title 17 in an extrinsic work, to material developed under a funding agreement that may "restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of [said rights]."[1]
The law would only be applicable in the event that:
As of March 16, 2009 H.R.801 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has in turn referred it to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.[3]
This bill has not become law. Sessions of Congress last two years, at the end of which all proposed bills and resolutions that have not been passed are removed. Members may and often do reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate.[4]
An exact replica of this bill (H.R. 6845.IH Archived 2009-08-07 at the Wayback Machine) was first introduced in the 110th Congress, where it died.[5]
The bill has been the topic of numerous articles, in online civic and scholarly publications. Its supporters are predominantly professional associations and publishing houses, while the opposition includes library associations and educational institutions.[6]
Groups, including the Association of American Publishers (AAP), support Conyers' bill, as they feel that the NIH Policy "infringes on their business rights, insofar as it grants the public a right to this publicly funded work".[7] In December 2008, the AAP contacted President Barack Obama voicing concerns that "the NIH mandate severely diminishes both the market and copyright protection for these copyrighted works to which not-for-profit and commercial publishers have made significant value-added contributions".[8]
One of the concerns regarding this bill is the possibility that average Americans will lose access to medical research, that the NIH Public Access Policy grants them. The American Research Libraries, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access,[9] and a coalition of patients' rights organizations, are among numerous critics of the act.[10] Academic institutions including Harvard University, Cornell University,[11] and Earlham College are openly supporting the NIH Public Access Policy and opposing Conyers' Bill along with their respective libraries, also stressing the importance of public access to biomedical research and results.[12] Cornell University claims to be affected as the NIH is one of the components of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), "the largest funder of research at Cornell. According to the Office of the Vice Provost of Research, the DHHS accounted for more than 50 percent of federally sponsored research – or over $190 million per fiscal year – in both 2007 and 2008". Their Libraries view the bill as a threat to the "state-of-the-art digital repository where research can be preserved," that the policy provides and a potential loss of acquired research due to the bill's prohibition of copyright transfer from author to publisher.[13]