OPEN ACCESS CLAUSES IN PUBLISHERS’ LICENSES
CURRENT STATE AND LESSONS LEARNED
October 24, 2013
Produced by the OPEN ACCESS AGREEMENTS AND LICENSES TASK FORCE
Initiated and supported by
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
2
CONTENTS
About the Task Force.......................................................................................................................................................3
Task Force Members........................................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................4
The Role of Licensing in Open Access.........................................................................................................................5
Progress to Date................................................................................................................................................................6
Deconstructing the Clauses............................................................................................................................................6
The Openness Spectrum ...............................................................................................................................................10
Lessons Learned...............................................................................................................................................................11
References.........................................................................................................................................................................13
Appendix: Full Text of Licensing Language................................................................................................................14
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
3
ABOUT THE TASK FORCE
Open Access Agreements and Licensing Task Force is a multi-stakeholder group initiated and supported
by COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories), with members representing a number of
different types of organizations (libraries, licensing agencies, library associations, and open access groups)
who have a common interest in promoting sustainable and effective practices for open access.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
 Kathleen Shearer (Chair), Confederation of Open Access Repositories
 Lars Björnshauge, SPARC Europe
 Anjana Bhatt, Florida Gulf Coast University, USA
 Ralf Flohr, ZBW – German National Library of Economics, Germany
 Saskia Franken, Utrecht University Library, The Netherlands
 Kristine Hillenkötter, Göttingen State and University Library, Germany
 Paul Harwood, Joint Information Systems Committee, United Kingdom
 Anna Lundén, BIBSAM Consortium/National Library of Sweden
 Mayya Revzina, World Bank Publications
 Hildegard Schäffler, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Munich, Germany
 Ralf Schimmer, Max Planck Digital Library, Germany
 Birgit Schmidt, Göttingen State and University Library, Germany
 Yan Zhao, National Science Library, China
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to gratefully thank all those in the licensing community who contributed to this review of
current practices.
Special thanks to Caitlin Tillman and Weijing Yuan from University of Toronto Libraries, Canada for
reviewing the report and providing their insightful comments.
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
4
INTRODUCTION
Open access (OA) is the “free and unrestricted online availability”1 of scholarly literature. OA has been
growing steadily since the first major public declaration of support in 2002 through the Budapest Open
Access Initiative. Most recent developments, including OA policies and laws in the United States,
European Commission, Latin America and elsewhere, suggest that OA will likely become the default
means for delivery of scholarly content in the coming years. As OA becomes increasingly pervasive, the
scholarly community is shifting its efforts away from advocacy and towards implementation and support.
Open access is realized through two primary means: open access journals and open access repositories.
Open access repositories (the “green road”) provide open access to articles, often subscription-based
articles, through their deposit into a digital repository. OA journals (the “gold road”) provide direct
open access to the articles they publish. This report is primarily concerned with the green route and
addresses some of the inherent barriers involved with deposit into OA repositories.
Despite the implementation of OA mandates, the diversity and lack of clarity of publishers’ policies can
be a significant barrier to author compliance of OA policies (COAR 2013). In May 2013, the Global
Research Council issued an “Action Plan towards Open Access Publications”. The plan outlines specific
activities for funding agencies to help promote and expand open access. One of their recommendations
is that agencies “negotiate publisher services to facilitate open access repositories” and urges them to
“discuss with publishers whether and under which conditions they are willing to automatically transfer
publications into designated open access repositories”. 2 Improving workflows for deposit into
repositories is also one of the objectives of the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)3.
Perhaps the players best placed to secure the rights for deposit into repositories are the libraries or
library consortia that carry out licensing activities. Libraries (or groups of libraries) routinely negotiate
licenses that express the terms of access to content and usage rights for journal articles and have
become a major force in the acquisition process of scholarly journals. In the context of these
negotiations, libraries and consortia wield significant power and licenses can be an effective apparatus for
guaranteeing authors or institutional rights to re-use articles and/or deposit articles into repositories.
In 2012, the Open Access Agreements and Licenses Task Force was launched by COAR to monitor,
evaluate and promote the implementation of effective open access agreements and licenses. The task
force has members from the repository, licensing and OA communities who share an interest in
promoting sustainable and effective practices for open access. In 2012/2013 the task force undertook an
environmental scan of the licensing language for article deposit into repositories. This report presents
the result of the review and some lessons learned from organizations that have been successful in
implementing OA clauses in publisher licenses.
1 OA as coined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
2 Global Research Council, pg. 4
3 Confederation of Open Access Repositories: http://www.coar-repositories.org/
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
5
THE ROLE OF LICENSING IN OPEN ACCESS
One of the well-recognised challenges to providing OA through repositories is the lack of clarity of
publishers’ permissions and policies in regards to dissemination and usage rights implied by the
term ”open access“ (Schmidt and Shearer 2013). As of October 6, 2013 the SHERPA-RoMEO service
indicated that 70% of publishers currently allow posting of a version of their journal articles (pre- and/or
post-print) into an OA repository.4 However details of policies differ significantly between journals and
publishers and policies do not remain static and are subject to change. Therefore, checking deposit
rights on an article-by-article basis has become standard operating procedure for repository managers
and authors when they are submitting articles into an open access repository.
Authors’ rights and other OA language can be inserted into traditional content licenses or can take the
form of a separate arrangement between the institution and the publisher. The language clarifies the
rights of the institution or author to re-use content in the broadest cases, or more narrowly to deposit
articles authored by faculty into an open access repository.
The concept of securing authors rights via licenses is not new. A number of authors’ addenda have been
developed for use by authors to retain their rights when they are submitting articles for publication.
However it is unclear whether there has been widespread uptake of these addenda by authors. At the
other end of the publication lifecycle, licensing language have been created that secures authors’ or
deposit rights at the time the journal publications are being purchased by libraries.
In 2009, Research Libraries Issues #263 published an article outlining efforts by the Max Plank Society and
the California Digital Library to include authors’ rights language into content licensing. The article states,
“Library content license negotiations offer a pre-existing tool to serve this purpose. While individual
author agreements can amount to thousands of individual transactions each year at a single institution,
library-publisher agreements are annual or multi-year arrangements with a broader compass, covering
many journals in a single transaction.” (Duranceau and Anderson 2009, pg. 34) Following this, ARL
produced model language for inclusion in library content licenses entitled Authors’ Rights To Use Their
Own Work.5 Similarly, the NESLi2 model licence (from the UK) included a specific clause allowing for
the deposit of articles on websites and in institutional repositories.6
4 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple
5 http://authorrights.wordpress.com/
6 http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Help-and-information/How-Model-Licences-work/NESLi2-Model-Licence-/
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
6
PROGRESS TO DATE
Since 2009, a number of institutions and licensing consortia have attempted to negotiate clauses in their
licenses that secure the rights of authors or their delegates to deposit their articles into an OA
repository. These clauses not only address the confusion around policies and remove the need to
undertake resource intensive rights checking, but they also signal that open access is a growing priority
for libraries and research institutions.
Our review found several licensing consortia that have successfully negotiated language that allows
deposit of articles into an open access repository in their content licenses. The Alliance of German
Science Organizations, which undertakes licensing negotiations on behalf of a number of German
research organizations and universities, has negotiated the right to deposit published articles into
repositories in over 12 of their licenses to date. The BIBSAM Consortium in Sweden has implemented
OA clauses in a number of its licenses, as has the FinELib Consortium in Finland.
In addition, some individual organizations have also been successful in negotiating self-deposit rights with
publishers. One of these is the World Bank, which recently adopted an OA mandate requiring that all
publications be made available through their Open Knowledge Repository. The Bank’s institutional
posting agreement secures the rights for employees that publish in journals to be able to comply with
their OA policy. The Bank has secured agreements with four publishers to date and is in negotiations
with five others. Similarly, the National Research Council (NRC) in Canada has also entered into specific
agreements with publishers to enable their authors to comply with the NRC OA policy.7
DECONSTRUCTING THE CLAUSES
Our review identified a variety of clauses and agreements that have been implemented by organizations
around the world. To better understand these clauses, we have chosen four licenses that reflect the
range of rights being secured and deconstructed them into the following five elements:
1. Who is being granted the licence? (e.g. author or institution)
2. What rights are being granted?
3. What versions of articles can be deposited?
4. Where can articles be made OA?
5. For how long are articles embargoed?
The full text of each clause is documented in the Appendix of this report.
7 http://cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/cisti-icist/doc/nparc/NPArC-Statement-of-Responsibilities_e.pdf
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
7
1. Who is being granted the rights?
Organization Excerpt from licensing clause
Alliance of German Science
Organizations/12 publishers
Authors from authorised institutions
BIBSAM/Springer Authors affiliated with Licensee
FinELib/Emerald Users working at Licensee institutions (listed in Schedule 1) who
are Emerald authors
World Bank/4 publishers The WORLD BANK shall retain all its rights with respect to the
Works
2. What rights are being granted?
Organization Excerpt from licensing clause
Alliance of German Science
Organizations/12 publishers
free of charge to promptly store their articles appearing in
licensed journals
(institutions are entitled to act on behalf of the authors)
BIBSAM/Springer self-archive
(authors can deposit in OA repositories)
FinELib/Emerald save and/or deposit (no embargo) in OA repositories
World Bank/4 publishers upload and store a digital “Author’s Original Manuscript” copy
and “Author’s Accepted Manuscript” copy
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
8
3. What versions of articles can be deposited?
Organization Excerpt from licensing clause
Alliance of German Science
Organizations/12 publishers
(Typically) the form published by the publisher (e.g. PDF)
BIBSAM/Springer Springer's PDF version, which is posted on www.springerlink.com
FinELib/Emerald non-Emerald branded version of their article... A non-Emerald
version may have all of the editorial changes but it must be in a
different format – i.e. different font, different layout etc. and
must not have any Emerald logos or branding. A link must be to
the journal homepage at www.emeraldinsight.com must be
included.
World Bank/4 publishers digital “Author’s Original Manuscript” copy of each Work (preprint);
digital “Author’s Accepted Manuscript” of each Work
(peer reviewed version)
4. Where can articles be made OA?
Organization Excerpt from licensing clause
Alliance of German Science
Organizations/12 publishers
(institutional or discipline-specific) repository of their choice and
to make them available in Open Access
BIBSAM/Springer his/her own website and or in his/her institutional repository.
He/she may also deposit this version on his/her funder's or
funder's designated repository at the funder's request or as a
result of a legal obligation
FinELib/Emerald current institution’s website/institutional repository or a subject
repository for public access
World Bank/4 publishers (World Bank) database or other searchable archive system now
known or hereafter developed
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
9
5. For how long are articles embargoed?
Organization Expert from licensing clause
Alliance of German Science
Organizations/12 publishers
Immediate deposit, 0 to 36 months embargo for OA
BIBSAM/Springer 12 months
FinELib/Emerald None
World Bank/4 publishers Immediate deposit, 0 for Author Original Manuscript, 18
months on average for Author Accepted Manuscript
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
10
THE OPENNESS SPECTRUM
Based on the five elements outlined above, we have created an Open Access Spectrum for publisher
licenses. The Spectrum, modeled on the SPARC/OASPA/PLOS Open Access Spectrum8, is a rough guide
that organizations can use to help identify negotiating goals. The checkmarks in the spectrum indicate
where existing clauses fall in the spectrum. As you can see, there is significant heterogeneity in the
language being adopted by organizations and publishers, especially in terms of embargo periods and
versions of articles that can be archived.
TABLE 1: OPENNESS SPECTRUM FOR OA IN LICENSES
Degree of
openness
Who can
deposit the
article?
What rights
are being
granted?
What
version of
the article
Where to
deposit
Embargo
periods
Full Open
Access
Closed
Access
Automated
deposit directly
into
repositories
Full re-use rights
for users of
content
Publishers’
final version
√√
All repositories
and authors
have copyright
No embargo
√
Authors and
their affiliated
institutions
deposit
√√√√
Access to
content, but not
CC-BY
√√√√
Post-print
√√
Institutional or
discipline-based
repository
√√√
6-months
√
Authors only
can deposit
Pre-print of
article
Specified
repository
√
12 months or
greater
√√√
Fee-based access
8 http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/OAS_English_web.pdf
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
11
LESSONS LEARNED
Our review found that open access clauses offer a feasible option for institutions to address some
of the barriers to article deposit into repositories and potentially adherence to OA policies.
However, many publishers are reluctant to implement these clauses and will only do so when it is
clear that this is a priority for the organization. In fact, several organizations reported that they had
dropped the OA clause from their negotiations in favour of other aspects such as price reductions.
Below we have documented a number of lessons learned from others in order to assist
organizations in successfully implemented OA agreements.
Provide evidence that OA archiving does not lead to subscription cancellation
Many publishers assert that allowing deposit of articles into OA repositories will lead to cancelation
of subscriptions.9 However there is no strong evidence to date that supports this claim. Indeed
studies show that libraries cancel subscriptions for many other reasons including subscription costs,
low usage and relevance of journal content and not because articles are available through OA
repositories (Publishers Communication Group 2012). It is helpful to have this kind of evidence on
hand when entering into negotiations, as it counters the publishers’ major objection to adopting
such language.
Look for incentives and other forms of leverage
Ideally negotiating staff should have a basic knowledge of OA including the existing policy landscape.
Many publishers already have a self-archiving policy that allows deposit of articles into a repository.
An OA licensing clause, therefore, is simply further formalizing a practice that has already been
approved by the publisher. In advance of negotiations, be sure to document the publisher’s selfarchiving
policy (many of which can be found using the SHERPA-RoMEO service10). Furthermore, a
growing number of funding agencies now require open access. If researchers at affiliated
institution(s) receive grants from funders with open access policies, this can be another incentive
for publishers to agree to include such a clause. Funding agency policies can also help libraries
determine specific negotiating goals. For example, if funders have a 6-month embargo in their policy,
this would be a valid reason to request a 6-month embargo period in the license. Negotiating staff
should also be familiar with the open access policies of relevant research funders in advance of
sitting down at the negotiating table (available via the SHERPA-JULIET service11). And finally, there
are very compelling ‘moral’ arguments for public access to research papers which can also be put
forward during negotiations (see SPARC resources, for example12). Put together, this information
can provide a compelling case for including an OA clause in the publisher license.
9 See this blog post bt Joseph Esposito on Scholarly Kitchen for a more detailed view of this position:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/
10 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
11 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/
12 http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
12
Be flexible but firm on your negotiation goals
The fullest form of open access is always the most desirable, however, if it becomes apparent that
you are not able to achieve this, then it is helpful to determine in advance the points on which you
are willing to negotiate and those on which you will stand firm. For example, you may be willing to
accept a longer embargo time in exchange for receiving the publishers’ final version of the article.
The World Bank found it almost impossible to get publishers to agree to make the Author
Accepted Manuscript available to the public upon acceptance under CC BY (since publishers are
interested in exploiting the content commercially). However, publishers were quite willing to allow
access to the working paper version (pre-print or Author Original Manuscript) under CC BY.
Therefore, the Bank adopted a two-stage approach whereby they make the pre-print available
immediately under CC BY and Author’s Accepted Manuscript following embargo under CC BY-
NC-ND.
In addition, many publishers prefer to use their own licensing agreements and so library negotiators
should be prepared to spend time on negotiating changes to pre-existing publisher templates, rather
than implementing new clauses. Publishers’ negotiators can also be unfamiliar with open access or
do not have the authority implement such a change to their licence. It is helpful to request the
presence of someone with knowledge of OA and is senior enough to make appropriate changes.
Share your experiences with others
Don’t sign nondisclosure clauses. Scholarly publishing is undergoing rapid changes and learning from
the experiences of others can help to significantly mitigate risks and reduce the work involved in
adopting new models, processes and services. Consider adopting a policy that promotes openness
around licensing, such as the one at Cornell University, which states, “Cornell University Library
will not enter into vendor contracts that require nondisclosure of pricing information or other
information that does not constitute a trade secret”13 . The International Coalition of Library
Consortia’s (ICOLC) supports this approach and asserts, “Non-disclosure language should not be
required for any licensing agreement, particularly language that would preclude library consortia
from sharing pricing and other significant terms and conditions with other consortia”14.
In terms of implementation, to date there is little information about the impact of OA licenses on
the repository; whether they have resulted in significant increases in repository content at
participating institutions; and what are the resources required by repositories and libraries to
support their adoption. An important next step will be to gather evidence that justifies these
negotiating efforts and demonstrates that these clauses result in increased adherence to OA
policies and increased deposits into the repository.
13 http://www.library.cornell.edu/aboutus/nondisclosure
14 http://legacy.icolc.net/statement.html
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
13
REFERENCES
COAR (2013): Incentives, Integration and Mediation: Sustainable Practices for Populating Repositories.
Available at: http://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Sustainable-best-practices_final2.pdf.
Duranceau, E. & Anderson, I. (2009): Author-Rights Language in Library Content Licenses. Research
Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI and SPARC, 263, 33-37. Available at:
http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/rli/archive/rli263.shtml.
Global Research Council (2013): Action Plan towards Open Access Publications. Available at:
www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_magazin/internationales/130528_grc_annual_meeting/grc_action_pla
n_open_access.pdf .
Publishers Communication Group (2012): Renewals and Cancellations Trends Over the Last Five Years.
Available at: http://www.pcgplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Vantage-Oct.-2012-Renewals.pdf.
Schmidt, B. (2012): National Licenses and Open Access in Germany, COAR Case Studies – Open Access in
Licensing. Available at: http://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Birgit-Schmidt-Promoting-OA-through-
National-Licenses-in-Germany.pdf.
Schmidt, B. & Shearer, K. (2012): Licensing Revisited: Open Access Clauses in Practice. LIBER Quarterly,
22 (3). Available at: URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-113939.
SPARC, PLoS, OASPA (2013): How Open Is It? Open Access Spectrum. Available at:
http://sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf.
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
14
APPENDIX: FULL TEXT OF LICENSING LANGUAGE
Organization Licensing clauses or agreements
Alliance of German Science
Organisations
Authors from authorised institutions are permitted free
of charge to promptly store their articles appearing in
licensed journals generally in the form published by the
publisher (e.g. PDF) in an (institutional or disciplinespecific)
repository of their choice and to make them
available in Open Access.
Authorised institutions to which the respective authors
belong have the same right. An agreement by which the
publisher itself stores articles written by authors from
authorised institutions in a repository may also be
reached.
Adopters listed on website
(http://authorrights.wordpress.com/
adopters/):
Boston Library Consortium
(BLC) (USA)
LYRASIS (USA): Consortium has
added the language to their model
license (January 2011)
NorthEast Research Libraries
(NERL) (USA): Consortium
added the language to their model
license (Fall 2010)
Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL’s) Model
Language
Authors’ Rights To Use Their Own Work (Version 0.8,
April 2010): “Notwithstanding any terms or conditions
to the contrary in any author agreement between
Authors and Licensor, Authors affiliated with Licensee
whose work (“Content”) is accepted for publication
within the Licensed Materials shall retain the nonexclusive,
irrevocable, royalty-free right to use their
Content for scholarly and educational purposes,
including self-archiving or depositing the Content in
institutional, subject-based, national or other open
repositories or archives (including the author’s own
web pages or departmental servers), and to comply with
all grant or institutional requirements associated with
the Content.”
Linked from
http://www.library.yale.edu/NERLpublic/licensingprincipl
es.html and specifically at:
http://www.library.yale.edu/NERLpublic/NERLGenericLic
jeRev092410.pdf
California Digital Library (USA) Authors’ Rights to Use Their Own Work.
Notwithstanding any terms or conditions to the
contrary in any author agreement between Authors and
Licensor, Authors affiliated with Licensee whose work
(“Content”) is accepted for publication within the
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
15
Licensed Materials shall retain the non-exclusive,
irrevocable, royalty-free right to use their Content for
scholarly and educational purposes, including selfarchiving
or depositing the Content in institutional,
subject-based, national or other open repositories or
archives (including the Author’s own web pages or
departmental servers), and to comply with all grant or
institutional requirements associated with the Content.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the intent of the parties
to this agreement that Authors are third party
beneficiaries of this provision of the Agreement.
California Digital Library (USA) CDL Standardized License: Authorized Users may use
the licensed material to perform and engage in text
mining /data mining activities for legitimate academic
research and other educational purposes.
World Bank The WORLD BANK shall retain all its rights with
respect to the Works and, in particular but not limited
to, it can exercise the following rights:
1.1. to upload and store a digital “Author’s Original
Manuscript” copy of each Work in its database
or other searchable archive system now known
or hereafter developed, at any time, and to
make it available under a public licence, such as
one of the Creative Commons licences,
including but not limited to the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence, for
further use and distribution, where possible
with the following acknowledgement:
“This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an Article
submitted for consideration in the [JOURNAL TITLE]
[year of publication] [copyright Publisher]; [JOURNAL
TITLE] is available online at ... [Article DOI].”
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
(Germany)
§ 2 Licence grant, Rights Holder obligations
1. The Rights Holder grants BSB the right to fully digitise
the works, to make them digitally accessible at the level
of the work, the table of contents and the full text using
OCR and indexing and store them permanently in an
electronic database. In this context, BSB acts as
“producer of databases” [Datenbankhersteller] within the
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
16
meaning of Sec.87 of the German Copyright Act
[Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG].
Moreover, the Rights Holder grants the right to make
the works thus stored available free of charge to any
third party for access on an individual basis via Internet,
i.e. make them publicly available, and to allow such third
party reproduction in non-physical form and download
for its own personal use.
Apart from that, the Rights Holder grants BSB the right
to incorporate the digitised versions in the offerings of
BSB and include the search engine index built from the
metadata and full texts in external library portals.
JISC Collections (UK) 3.1.6.7 save and/or deposit in perpetuity parts of the
Licensed Material in electronic repositories operated by
the Licensee and/or by an Authorised User on a Secure
Network. Access to and use of such repositories shall
be limited to Authorised Users. [Bold and emphasis
added]
3.1.6.8 use the Licensed Material to perform and engage
in text mining/data mining activities for academic
research and other Educational Purposes.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium) Elsevier and Vrije Universiteit Brussel have developed an
agreement to enable the local archiving of articles
published by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel to their
repository. This archive is not intended for external use,
but is developed to enable the university to maintain a
PDF archive from ScienceDirect licensed content for its
own internal use.
BIBSAM Consortium (Sweden) 5.2 Notwithstanding any terms or conditions to the
contrary in any author agreement between Authors and
Licensor, Authors affiliated with Licensee whose work
("Content") is accepted for publication ( i.e. the
accepted manuscript, the post-print and not the
published version) within the Licensed Materials shall
retain the non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use their
Content for scholarly and educational purposes,
including self-archiving or depositing the Content in
institutional, subject based, national or other open non
for profit repositories or archives (including the
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
17
Author's own webpage or departmental servers), and to
comply with all grant or institutional requirements
associated with the Content, provided that a link to the
Definitive Published Version is included. For the
avoidance of doubt, it is the intent of the parties to this
agreement that Authors are third party beneficiaries of
this provision of the Agreement.
(except from the phrase in red, the above is the exact
formulation of http://authorrights.wordpress.com/)
BIBSAM Consortium (Sweden) Notwithstanding any terms or conditions to the
contrary in any author agreement with Springer, authors
affiliated with Licensee may self-archive an authorcreated
version of his/her article on his/her own
website and or in his/her institutional repository. He/she
may also deposit this version on his/her funder's or
funder's designated repository at the funder's request or
as a result of a legal obligation, provided it is not made
publicly available until 12 months after official
publication. He/ she may not use Springer's PDF version,
which is posted on www.springerlink.com. for the
purpose of self-archiving or deposit. Furthermore, the
author may only post his/her version provided
acknowledgement is given to the original source of
publication and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: “The final publication is available at
www.springerlink.com. For the avoidance of doubt, it is
the intent of the parties to this agreement that Authors
are third party beneficiaries of this provision of the
Agreement.”
FinELib Consortium (Finland) “Authorises Users working at Licensee institutions
(listed in Schedule 1) who are Emerald authors may save
and/or deposit (no embargo) in perpetuity a nonEmerald
branded version of their article within that
current institution’s website/institutional repository or a
subject repository for public access. A non-Emerald
version may have all of the editorial changes but it must
be in a different format – i.e. different font, different
layout etc. and must not have any Emerald logos or
branding. A link must be to the journal homepage at
www.emeraldinsight.com must be included. This clause
will take precedence over a conflicting provision in
Open Access Clauses in Publishers’ Licenses:
Current State and Lessons Learned
18
individual author agreements regarding such saving
and/or depositing.”