For simple transfers without intellectual property, the NIH recommends a simple matching agreement. For materials that can be patented or for which increased protection is desired, the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement (UBMTA) can be used. Many U.S. educational institutions have signed the UBMTA Masteragrement. [2] AUTM (formerly the Association of University Technology Managers) serves as a repository for UBMTA`s original master`s contracts and keeps the list of signatories. [3] UBMTA signatories must only sign a letter of execution containing the details of each transfer, since they have already agreed to all the terms of the master contract. As stated in the agreement, BFKT has agreed to fully reimburse the Fund any special business tax related to the contract to purchase and transfer goods and products. This is a fundamental discrepancy between the purpose of copyright (i.e. the full choice of an author/creator through the dissemination of works) and its application, because authors lose those rights when the copyright is transferred.

Such fundamental conceptual offences are underlined by the popular use of sites such as ResearchGate and Sci-Hub for illegal file sharing by academics and the general public. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] In fact, broad and unlimited sharing helps to advance science faster than paywalled Articles, so it is possible to argue that the transfer of copyright is a basic misservice to the entire research enterprise. [37] It is also very counter-intuitive that learned societies, like the American Psychological Association, actively monitor and remove copyrighted content that they publish on behalf of authors [Note 3], because it is not in the interest of authors or the reuse of published research, and because the copyright transfer system is counterproductive (because original authors lose control and rights over their own work). Critics have argued that the copyright transmission agreement in the field of commercial scientific publishing “is as important as ensuring long-term asset management that it is a matter of providing services to the academic community,” because the practice seems to give the publisher a subsidy that does not seem to benefit the authors. [14] Copyright transfer agreements are often at odds with or appear to be at odds with self-archiving practices[15] because of ambiguous language. [16] b) The transfer of a contract is subject to the agreement of the other party. This consent may be given in advance or by the taker and ceding it at the time of the transfer. If the other party has agreed in advance, the transfer of the contract comes into effect if the other party provides a transfer notification or if the other party recognizes it. In some countries, the transfer of copyright is not legally permitted and only a license is possible.

[1] In some countries, such as the United States[2] and the United Kingdom,[3] copyright transfer agreements must generally be entered into in writing and signed by the person transferring the copyright. In many countries, when a worker is hired to create a copyrighted work for an employer, that employer is by default the copyright holder[1] so that no copyright transfer agreement is required. In many countries that recognize the moral rights of authors, these rights cannot be transferred and copyright transfer agreements confer only economic rights. [1] Traditional methods of scientific publication require a complete and exclusive transfer of copyright from authors to publisher, usually as a precondition for publication. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This process entrusts control and ownership of the dissemination and reproduction of authors as authors to publishers as broadcasters, who are then able to monetize the process. [23] The transfer and ownership of copyright is a delicate tension between the protection of authors` rights and the interests of publishers and institutions, both in financial and reputational law.