1. Title Rachel Proudfoot White Rose Research Online eprints@whiterose.ac.uk

2. Disclaimer  I am not a copyright specialist

3. Good news  RoMEO  More clarity in publisher agreements – may even refer to “institutional repository”  Publishers / copyright holders often say “yes”  Huge academic publishers cover a substantial proportion of outputs (you may disagree that’s good news!)

4. Not so good..  Variation at title level  Knowing who (whether) to contact for permission can be tricky  Author’s want black and white answers  Author’s are nervous about copyright  You won’t always be thanked for your diligence – we don’t make the rules  Your responses…

5. RoMEO Usage

6. Expertise uploading research papers

7. Copyright checking model

8. Issues raised  Terminology for describing files (preprint / postprint “as published”  Ambiguity in copyright statements  What does “institution’s web site” mean  Copyright checking beyond RoMEO / for chapters, conferences etc.  Has anyone been asked to take down papers?  Embargo / non published PDF version  Non-responsive publishers

9. John Wiley and me… Dear John We have this great paper on flocculation in glacial meltwaters 1. will you give permission for this paper to be added to the institutional repository? 2. if yes, do you permit the use of your own PDF copy of the paper as it appeared in the printed / online journal? TTFN Ms Repository

10.  Dear Ms Repository  Please be advised that permission is granted for the use requested.  Great  http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/275/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/275/

11.  Dear John Me again. Same request as the last few. By the way, your copyright statement – all that business about “on an author’s web web site” could I seek one further point of clarification? Do the permissions allow re- use of the published PDF within the institutional repository?

12. Dear Ms Repository As my previous email suggested, please contact the editor with any further questions. This is not a permission issue. ??.. Later… Please be advised that permission is granted for the use requested. However, please be advised that we can only permit the use of pre-prints of the articles to be posted on your universities website and not the published versions.

13. Dear John What do you mean by preprints? Dear Ms Repository We can confirm that the post-refereed papers are acceptable for inclusion on your website. Please be advised for your information that this format of post-refereed papers would apply to all your permission requests.

14. 3 years later….  RoMEO updated to say  “Not allowed on institutional repository “ … (Unless JASIST)  Ms Repository b*****

15. Observations  Policies change  Policies are ambiguous  Ambiguity can be useful… but it can also lead to madness!  Need to decide – if in doubt “do” or if in doubt “don’t”  People make mistakes  Versioning vocabulary is used inconsistently – that’s before we even consider the authors

16. Observations  We have (inadvertently) copyright breaching papers in White Rose the world is still intact I’m not in prison.. Yet  I probably ought to have a better permissions recording system  Would it be good to associate permission directly with records in the repository? (Audit trail)

17. Author with publisher copyright agreement

18. What would you do..?  “.. Please note that the copyright was transferred to Elsevier. Do not make the document available without written, explicit permission from this publisher. Moreover, I require a statement from the University of Leeds that they will be liable for any copyright infringement the republication in the white rose repository might cause. This statement should be printed on headed paper and signed off by the Legal Advisor.”  “I am not sure whether the potential benefits make up for existing legal risks.”

19. Oh no, it’s not on RoMEO  NB How many repositories go for “low hanging fruit” to begin with? Known “green” content is great … then

20. I’ve got several book chapters – can I archive these?  The author doesn’t always knows what was signed  Elsevier (but 3 rd party copyright)  Springer  Wiley – “We regret to advise that we are not able to allow the placing of this chapter in an open-access repository. We must therefore deny permission on this occasion.”  Oxbow – OK but 5 year embargo

21.  Prospect books - “.. the copyright rests with the authors. You are welcome to make them accessible electronically. I would be grateful if you included full bibliographic details and if you are able to add a link, could it be to www.prospectbooks.co.uk where full information regarding our publications is displayed.” www.prospectbooks.co.uk  Éditions Édisud – that’ll be €500.  York Archaeological Trust - “.. we are very happy for the authors to make their chapters available electronically, if they are agreeable and you see no copyright problems.”

22. Blackwell  “.. Thank you for your e-mail. Due to the nature of the request, we do ask that the original author contact us directly to clear this permission.”

23.  If something is obscure, the author’s the most likely source for an contact. (Journals, book chapters)  Editors often say yes  Never had a “no” re a conference paper (possibly about to find exception)  No response is not unusual  Need automated chaser system (we don’t have one!)  Many items straightforward; other items will take the majority of time  What other library sections are checking copyright? What systems are used? What’s the staffing like?  Concentrate on more recent work?

24. Group discussions  Thanks!  Rachel Proudfoot  r.e.proudfoot@leeds.ac.uk r.e.proudfoot@leeds.ac.uk  Questions?