 |
 |
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 > > >