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
>