By Dong Danping, Senior Librarian, Research & Data Services
Understanding copyright transfer, exclusive rights and CC licences
When your paper gets accepted by a journal publisher, as part of the process to get your paper published, there is a publisher agreement to sign, and clicking on "I Agree" seems like the obvious next step.
In those agreements are terms like "copyright transfer," "exclusive rights," and "Creative Commons Licence". These agreements decide who owns your article, who can grant or restrict its use, and even whether it can be used for AI training. In some cases, you may technically 'own' your work but have no control over how it is used.
This article highlights a few key concepts in publishing agreements, their meaning and implications to help authors make more informed decisions.
1. Copyright transfer
When you sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA), you are handing over full ownership of your paper to the publisher. From that point on, the publisher — not you — is the legal copyright holder. That means they decide who can reuse, adapt, or licence your work in the future. Publishers use standard contracts, and individual researchers usually do not have the bargaining power to negotiate.
As the author you usually just keep a few narrow rights; for example, using your paper in teaching, uploading a version to your university's repository (sometimes immediately or after an embargo period). At SMU, this means you can still deposit a version of your paper in InK, subject to the publisher policy.
But many things you might assume are harmless — like reusing figures in a future article, translating your own work, or even feeding your paper into an AI tool to generate an explanation — may technically not be allowed once you signed a CTA.
2. Licence to Publish
When you sign a Licence to Publish (LTP) agreement, this means you retain copyright to the paper. With some publishers, a LTP comes with an exclusive licence, where you remain the copyright holder, but the publisher has the exclusive right to manage your article, e.g. publish and distribute the published work.
A non-exclusive LTP is different. You grant the publisher the right to distribute your article, but you keep the ability to approve reuse and to grant a licence to other parties. This model gives authors more control — but it is less common among commercial publishers, who want an exclusive LTP, especially for subscription articles.
3. Open access
Open access can be a way to balance some of the downsides of copyright transfer. Instead of your article being locked behind a subscription paywall, anyone can read it freely, which usually increases visibility and impact.
If you want to make your article open access on the journal website, it might come with an Article Processing Charge (APC). This raises the question: if I pay thousands of dollars for the APC, do I keep full copyright and control over my work?
Often, the short answer is still no. Many publishers still require an exclusive licence to publish — sometimes depending on which Creative Commons licence you choose — even when you pay an APC.
Another important point is that paying an APC usually means your article will be published under a Creative Commons (CC) licence (see an overview here). The most common is CC BY, which permits reuse — including commercial reuse — as long as proper attribution is given. The more restrictive variants, such as CC BY-NC-ND (Non-Commercial, No Derivatives), may feel safer because they appear to block commercial reuse including AI training.
Remember that CC licences only set the public-facing rules — how readers can access and reuse your work. Behind the scenes, you still need to sign a publishing agreement. With some publishers, you may still be asked to sign an exclusive LTP, sometimes with different rules depending on which CC licence you choose. For example, under CC BY your article can be reused commercially because the licence permits it; under CC BY-NC-ND, commercial reuse and derivatives are restricted, but the publisher — not you — decides on the exceptions (for a deeper discussion, see this article by TU Delft). Some publishers offer more flexible options where authors retain copyright and grant a non-exclusive LTP to the publisher.
Some publishers have adopted the SPARC Author Addendum which is designed to help authors negotiate more favourable publishing terms. Funder mandates like Plan S require that the Author Accepted Manuscript be openly licenced as CC BY, regardless of publisher restrictions. These examples show that with the right support, authors can secure better agreements.
As researchers, requirements for publishing, getting tenure, and securing grants, drive your publishing decisions. Copyright transfers, exclusive licences, and APCs may feel like small matters during the publishing process, yet they decide who controls your work, how it can be reused, and ultimately how much impact it can have.
Side Note: APC support at SMU
At SMU, the APC may be covered by the SMU Libraries transformative agreements with several major publishers, or an APC fund to support publishing in eligible journals. Contact SMU Libraries to find out more.
Summary: A quick guide to common scenarios
| Scenario | Who holds copyright? | Who decides on reuse? | Self-archive allowed? (e.g., InK) | Author control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright Transfer (CTA) | Publisher | Publisher | Depends on publisher policy | ❌ Almost none |
| LTP (Exclusive) | Author | Publisher | Depends on publisher policy | ❌ Very little (same as CTA in practice) |
| LTP (Non-exclusive) | Author | Author (can grant reuse to others) | Yes | ✅ Some control |
| Open Access (CC-BY) | Author | Free reuse so long attribution is given | Yes | Not applicable (open licence) |
| Open Access (CC-BY-NC-ND) | Author | Free reuse based on licence, but often publisher decides on commercial use (including AI training) | Yes | If LTP is signed, author has no control over commercial reuse |
Note: Publisher policies can differ in the details. The scenarios reflect common practices. Always check the agreement.
