Therefore, critics argue that copyright in scientific research is largely ineffective in its proposed use, but that it has also been wrongly acquired in many cases, and that in practice it is contrary to its fundamental purpose of protecting authors and other scientific research. Plan S requires authors and their respective institutions to retain copyrights to articles without transferring them to publishers; also supported by OA2020. [Note 4] The researchers found no evidence of the need for a transfer of copyright for publication or, in all cases, where a publishing house exercised copyright in the best interests of the authors. Although one of the publishers` arguments in favour of copyright transfer is that they allow them to defend authors against copyright infringement, [Note 5] Publishers can assume this responsibility even if copyright remains in the hands of the author, as is the policy of the Royal Society. [Note 6] 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.      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.  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). The more a customer controls how and when you create intellectual property, the more likely you are to be considered an employee and not an independent contractor.
An employer-employee relationship generally ensures that the employer`s owner is copyright. If, on the other hand, you are an independent contractor and you have more creative control over your project than an employee would have, then you are the copyright holder. Some commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, exploit “nominal copyrights” when they require the transfer of full and exclusive rights from authors to the publishing house for OA articles, while copyright remains in the name of the authors.  The assumption that this practice is a precondition for publication is misleading, as even works that are publicly available can be redirected, printed and disseminated by publishers. Instead, authors can grant a simple, non-exclusive publication license that meets the same criteria. However, according to a 2013 survey by Taylor and Francis, nearly half of the researchers surveyed said they would continue to simply transfer copyright to OA articles.  A copyright transfer contract or a copyright transfer contract is an agreement that transfers the copyright of a work from the copyright holder to another party. It is a legal option for publishers and authors of books, magazines, movies, TELEVISION shows, video games and other commercial artistic works who want to include and use a work of a second creator: for example, a video game developer who wants to pay an artist to draw a boss to enter a game. Another option is to allow the right to include and use the work instead of transferring copyright.