Presentation delivered to The Irish Universities Information Services Colloquium (IUISC), 5th March 2009, Galway, Ireland. 2009-03-05.

1. The right to Open Access -
obtaining copyright for
institutional repositories in
Ireland and abroad
Joseph Greene (Not a solicitor!)
5 March 2009
UCD Library Leabharlann UCD
University College Dublin, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Átha Cliath,
Belfield, Baile Átha Cliath 4,
Eire

2. Outline
• The service
– OA basics and legality
– Summary IPR activity by numbers
– Number of items annually
– IPR activities, general & local
– Irish publishers
• Outputs
– Summary number of items per year
– Publisher response rates, UCD
– Success rate, UCD
• Risk
• Improving the service

3. Sources
• Jones, Mark. Intellectual property rights survey,
University of East Anglia, October, Sept. 2008.
– 73 respondents from UK, Ireland, Australia, South
Africa, USA, Norway, et al.
• Telephone interviews with 4 Irish IRs (conducted
February 2009)
• UCD IR statistics, 2008 to present

4. The changing service relationship-- procuring
copyright for deposit in Open Access
(institutional) repositories
• Collecting and organising scholarly materials for
deposit in IRs, providing free, open access to
publicly funded research
– Peer-reviewed articles
– Conference proceedings
– Books and book chapters
– Reports (technical and government agencies)
– Working papers

5. How is this legal?
• Deposit licenses obtained from authors
• The Post-print (accepted version, author’s final
version, final version after peer-review, etc.)
• Asking for permission
London School of Economics, Versions Toolkit.
February 2008.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/

6. SHERPA RoMEO
Publishers: 63%
Journals: 95%
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php

8. Summary IPR activity by numbers
• 96% of institutions actively manage IPR (4% do
nothing!), the majority of which (86%) is done by
the library rather than allowing individual
academics or schools/faculties.
• 94% of these activities are carried out by 2 or
fewer staff (46% of institutions with less than 1
staff member!)
• When publishers fail to respond to copyright
request, 71% do not proceed with deposit, but
39% do!
Intellectual property rights survey, University of East Anglia

9. Number of items annually
Number of items per year
29%
20%
17% 17%
11%
8%
0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 500 501 - 1,000 Over 1,000
Intellectual property rights survey, University of East Anglia

10. IPR activities
• Check publisher requirements (SHERPA/RoMEO
database and publisher websites)
• Contact publisher for permission and/or
clarification
• Contact author for alternative version of deposit
object
• Add publisher statements to metadata
• Enforce embargoes where necessary
• Provide links to publisher's sites where necessary
• Add acknowledgement of publisher and source
where necessary
Intellectual property rights survey, University of East Anglia

11. Local opinions on IPR practice
SHERPA/RoMEO
Pros:
• Sherpa/Romeo is mostly comprehensive, tend not to
contact publishers directly.
• When publisher policy is not amenable, have had good
results asking authors to contact publishers as
publishers are more willing to grant copyright to
authors.
• Pre- and post-prints widely available, Romeo is very
helpful. Checking publishers websites is too time-
consuming
• Links to publishers' policy on websites is very helpful

12. Local opinions on IPR practice
SHERPA/RoMEO
Cons:
• Sherpa/Romeo is the only tool available, and it is
partial. An improvement would be a forum to discuss
particular IPR issues
• Sherpa/Romeo is mainly geared towards articles; few
conferences, books/chapters, reports, government
bodies
• Not always enough information in Romeo, 'safe' or
ambiguous information
• Irish publishers are not in Sherpa Romeo -- though
Romeo may allow additions to be made from outside
institutions in future

13. Other IPR activities in Ireland
• Publisher's websites are checked extensively
• Contact publishers when required
• Possibility of negotiating an institutional
agreement with publishers including royalties

14. A word on Irish publishers
• Mostly positive experiences, successes with book
chapters
• No policies available, but no refusals when asked
for permission
• Some success obtaining blanket institutional
permission

15. Outputs, results
UCD's success rate for copyright request, publisher
versions
Explicit No,
15%
Granted, 85%
From 351 responses to direct requests.
However…

16. Response rates
Publisher response rates for copyright requests, UCD
24% 25%
16%
14%
11% 10%
2 days 1 week 2 weeks 1 month More Never
than 1
month
100 unique publishers contacted

17. Risk
'An uncertain event or
condition that, if it occurs,
has a positive or a negative
effect on at least one
project objective...'1
1
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 3rd edition. 2004
Project Management Institute, Newton Square, PA.
Image: http://www.tbs-
sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/RiskManagement/giffs/RiskMgmtModel.gif

18. Risk: Local opinion
• Opportunity: journal publication is too slow and is
being bypassed, particularly in engineering;
though publication is still important and
prestigious
• Often there is no precedent, nothing clear to
indicate proper action. Written law is behind the
times
• A matter of limitation of risk -- mostly we don't
know what might happen as very little has yet
happened
• Risk of litigation rather than risk of breaking a
law

19. Risk management: Local opinion
• Most risk management effort put into journal
articles, large (publisher sponsored) conferences
• More risk taken for small conferences
• Checking Romeo, publisher website and sending
email to publisher where necessary constitutes
due diligence
• Work in good faith and maintain an instant take-
down policy

20. Open Access risk tolerance
‘…Self-archive all
papers immediately,
and consider
whether or not to
remove them only
Due diligence-- if/when there
Checking RoMEO should ever be a
and/or publisher request from the
website and sending publisher’1
copyright request to Due diligence;
or
publisher where archiving after
No Open necessary; not set period of Simply not
Access posting until given non-response checking copyright
support permission (39% surveyed) (4% surveyed)2
R R R H
is is is ig
k k k
av n to h
er eu le ri
tr r sk
se a an
l to
t le
r an
ce
1
Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's Paralysis
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12094/1/harnad-jacobsbook.htm
2
Intellectual property rights survey, University of East Anglia

21. Open Access risk actions, summary of
local opinions
• Risk avoidance
– Do not post until permission is positively granted
(SHERPA/RoMEO or direct contact with publisher)
• Risk mitigation
– Work in good faith (academic organisation, not-for-profit,
due diligence)
– Have an instant take-down policy
• Risk transferral
– Asking authors to obtain permission, e.g. when post-
print is not available (obtain record of permission)

22. Things that could improve OA IPR
services – local opinion
• HEA, IRCSET, SFI mandates removing many barriers
(require at least pre-prints be deposited)
• Educate authors on their rights; authors not handing over
copyright (though this is sometimes required by publisher)
• Reduce the ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ with authors; clear policies
from publishers are the answer
• SHERPA RoMEO service for Ireland
• Items other than articles may be of more interest such as
datasets and case studies
• 'Post-print' is hard to define and difficult to obtain from
authors – improve upon this
• Dispel OA misinformation
• A dedicated OA advocacy person
• Is a culture of openness better than (current funder)
mandates?