Thank you for thoughtful response, Wilhelmina, much appreciated!

Sean

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 04:26, Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Unless there has been a recent change, Sherpa ROMEO does not keep past
> versions of terms. So if terms change later and Sherpa ROMEO posts the
> update, you cannot get a history of terms and when they were in effect.  I
> think with Sherpa ROMEO, you have 2 goals (1) trying to get accurate info,
> plus (2) showing that you went through the process and tried to get
> accurate info which gives you some protections later.  If you have the
> accurate info and are free to post the paper, then you never need to show
> that you did the checking.  Because no one would have a contract showing
> assigned copyright and ability to sue.  If you got inaccurate info from
> Sherpa ROMEO, then showing that you checked and acted on inaccurate info
> puts you in a better place.  I would tend to save and keep the Sherpa ROMEO
> search with a date shown for that search and keep it however you keep your
> permissions records.
>
> For documenting permissions, I always would try to put the permissions
> documents like signed releases or purchase for perpetual acces in the
> repository in a not public area and label it really well so it won't be
> inadvertently discarded later.  In the past, I have flavored keeping all
> permissions documentation in an administrative area, and having it clearly
> explained within that administrative area what is in the administrative
> area.  In practice, permissions documentation eventually gets lost because
> of staff turnover and lack of institutional memory and the permissions
> documents being discarded.  In a perfect world, the permissions grant could
> be attached to the file, but someone may get upset about posting
> signatures, so you risk institutional pressures later if someone comes in
> who doesn't like the permissions documents being visible and a part of the
> content files.
>
> For open licenses granted by authors (ie. Creative Commons), I recommend to
> put the license in the file rather than in metadata, because metadata can
> be batch changed in a system or mapped in a migration to where it might be
> lost or there might be a question as to whether or not it was overwritten.
> For example, Open Journal Systems can be set to require authors do a click
> through for open licensing, but I think it's better to then put that
> license in the text of the article as part of final copy editing.  That's
> because metadata can be casually changed later or changed by an automated
> process (batch update or migration).  Open Journal Systems even allows a
> batch overwrite, so good luck proving 20 years from now that that license
> in metadata really was done with a click through by the author.  The
> license needs to go in the file for long term not getting lost, and
> metadata is only for search today.
>
> I'm very much in favor of keeping all the documentation and making it part
> of the content files whenever possible.  It's because I have seen projects
> years later when the permissions files are now lost or were discarded and
> the library decides they can prove the permissions and decides to go
> through the process again and reobtain permission by manually contacting. I
> have also come in to managing collections which were purchased for
> perpetual access, where the purchase paperwork was thrown away because
> after the audit period for the purchase ran out, the organization threw it
> away.  Sticking the permissions in the same file as the content will
> eventually save work later.
>
> -Wilhelmina Randtke
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 12:36 AM Sean Carte <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I'm hoping that somebody could provide me with some guidelines regarding
> > what is considered best practice for storing evidence that copyright
> > approval has been granted for items shared on an open access repository.
> >
> > Currently, we have a DSpace repository and, when an item is submitted, a
> > 'license agreement' is attached, according to which, the author grants a
> > non-exclusive distribution licence to the repository to reproduce,
> > translate and or distribute the submission. However, the submissions are
> > not done by the authors, but by other staff on their behalf. Does this
> > licence have any validity?
> >
> > Also, for journal articles that have been published elsewhere, library
> > staff check Sherpa/ROMEO to verify the journal's policies. But that
> outcome
> > is not recorded anywhere. Should we be attaching a screenshot of the
> > Sherpa/ROMEO advice to every journal article item?
> >
> > I'd love to know what other libraries are doing.
> >
> > Sean
> >
>