<copyright-statement>

[Melissa37]

The copyright symbol - should JATS4R be recommending one use? Either © or ©

Some publishers add the text Copyright, with commas or colons following it, others do not use anything and just the symbol. Should we recommend a consistency here?

Some publishers add the first author name et al, others say The authors. Should we recommend a single style? This could provide processing difficulties for some publishers who use "The authors" as this was probably picked for simplicity

[hubgit]

Either © or ©

These are identical… Luckily, they're both Unicode U+00A9 (© or ©), which is the correct copyright symbol.

Some publishers add the text Copyright, with commas or colons following it, others do not use anything and just the symbol. Should we recommend a consistency here?

The © symbol is shorthand for "Copyright", so "© Copyright" is shorthand for "Copyright Copyright".

In the United States , the copyright notice consists of:

• the © symbol, or the word "Copyright" or abbreviation "Copr.";
• the year of first publication of the copyrighted work; and
• an identification of the owner of the copyright, either by name, abbreviation, or other designation by which it is generally known.

e.g. © 2011 John Smith

[Melissa37]

Sorry, one was the symbol direct, and the other was the Unicode/UTF-8, keep forgetting github converts for you! If you look inside at the comment direct you'd see what I mean :-)

[Melissa37]

I think we should go by the US recommendations then! And propose them for JAT4R

[hubgit]

one was the symbol direct, and the other was the Unicode/UTF-8

Those are still identical, as far as XML is concerned. The real confusion could be with the enclosed C character, but it's an easy recommendation to ensure the copyright symbol is used.

[hubgit]

The © symbol is shorthand for "Copyright", so "© Copyright" is shorthand for "Copyright Copyright".

On the other hand, apparently "some countries will not accept the symbol alone, they also require the word Copyright to appear in order to consider the notice valid."

:confused:

[Klortho]

My own feeling is that these are really issues of style, that we should be trying to avoid. Unless folks think that there will be use-cases where bots (I'll use that as a generic term for any automated process trying to discern metadata from these documents) will have to get the explicit copyright info, then I'd suggest we don't try to provide any recommendations.

On the other hand, if there are such use cases, then the above don't go far enough -- then we might want to start considering how to identify institutions using various authority vocabularies, or individuals using orcids, or that kind of thing.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the presence of the alone is enough to assume that it's under copyright, and that a bot would have to look in the to figure out what it's allowed to do. In fact, isn't it true that in most jurisdictions, copyright is the default, unless there's an explicit public-domain statement?

[Melissa37]

Fair point. Also, best to start with low hanging fruit and move on as and when required.

[Klortho]

Shall we close this one, then?

[Melissa37]

Yup!