Benjamin J. Keele has self-archived "Examining Law Journal Publication Agreements for Copyright Transfers and Self-Archiving Rights" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This study examines 78 law journal publication agreements and finds that a minority of journals ask authors to transfer copyright. Most journals also permit author to self-archive articles with some conditions. The study recommends journals make their agreements publicly available and use licenses instead of copyright transfers.

SHERPA has released a major upgrade of its RoMEO service, which lists publishers' self-archiving policies.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

A major upgrade to RoMEO has been released today, giving:

• Extra Category for the self-archiving of the Publisher's Version/ PDF
• Expanded Journal Coverage
• Extra Search Options for Journal Abbreviations and Electronic ISSNs
• New Tabular Browse View for Publishers
• Selective Display of Publishers' Compliance with Funding Agencys' Mandates . . . .

Previous versions of RoMEO have concentrated on highlighting information on the use of the pre-print and post-print. There has been great support from the community for also providing clearly labelled information on the use of the publisher's version/PDF as a separate item. This feature has now been included and sits alongside information on self-archiving rights for Pre-prints and Authors' Post-prints. The information is available in both individual publisher entries and in the new Tabular Browse View.

RoMEO now provides expanded journal coverage, enabling users to draw from both the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Entrez journal list for the Life Sciences, along with the existing resource of the British Library's Zetoc service.

In addition to searching for journals by Print ISSN, users are now able to search by Electronic ISSN. They can also search for journals using title abbreviations.

The new Tabular Browse View enables users to display comparative charts of publishers, to quickly determine and compare what different Publishers allow them to deposit, and if the Publisher has a Paid OA Option.

If you or your authors receive funding from any of the 50 plus agencies listed in JULIET, you will now be able to restrict your search results to display Publishers' compliance with any of the funding agencies' policies listed in JULIET.

The Association of Research Libraries has released Public Access Policies, SPEC Kit 311. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The concept of a public access policy for research results is based on the premise that government-funded research results should be freely available without barriers to taxpayers, who provide support for the funding. With the recent enactment of the US National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Policy on Access to Research Outputs, much attention has been devoted to public access policies. Many academic and research libraries have taken the lead in developing resources and services to support authors who are required to comply with these policies.

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on staffing, partnerships, and resources and services developed for public access policy (PAP) compliance support, and the challenges related to providing such support. Seventy libraries (57%) from sixty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Of the respondents, sixty-three were at libraries located within the United States (90%) and seven were at libraries located in Canada (10%).

The majority of the responding libraries provide, or plan to provide, resources and services that help authors affiliated with their institution (and/or the author’s support staff) to comply with public access policies. Thirty-seven respondents (53%) indicated that more than one library within their system provides PAP compliance support; eleven (16%) indicated that just one library within their institution is providing this support. Four other institutions (6%) are planning to support PAP compliance. Of the libraries that do not provide such support, eight (11%) indicated that another department or unit within their institution provides compliance support. Eight others (11%) responded that their institution offers no PAP compliance support.

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of PAP Web sites, compliance FAQs and flowcharts, handouts and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff, and sample letters to publishers.

Kevin L. Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at the Duke University Libraries, has published "Open Access and Authors’ Rights Management: A Possibility for Theology?" in Theological Librarianship: An Online Journal of the American Theological Library Association.

Here's an excerpt:

Several academic disciplines have begun to understand the benefits of open access to scholarship, both for scholars and for the general public. Scientific disciplines have led the way, partially due to the nature of scholarship in those areas and partially because they have felt the crisis in serials pricing more acutely than others. Theological studies, however, have largely been insulated from the push for open access; considering the reasons for that is the first task of this article. It is also the case, however, that the missionary impulse that stands behind much theological scholarship is a strong incentive to embrace the opportunities afforded by digital, online dissemination of research and writing. After discussing this imperative for global distribution, the bulk of the article focuses on how theological institutions, and especially their libraries, can encourage and support scholars in making their work freely accessible. Copyright issues, including the elements of a successful copyright management program, are discussed, as are some of the technological elements necessary for an efficient and discoverable open access repository. Options for licensing, both at ingestion of content and at dissemination to users are also considered. Finally, it is argued that the role of consortia and professional organizations in supporting these initiatives is especially important because of the relatively small size of so many theological institutions.

The Association of Research Libraries has published Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on the use of author addenda at their institutions, which rights authors were encouraged to retain, and the methods by which libraries were conducting promotion and outreach efforts on the topic of author rights and addenda. Seventy libraries (57%) responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 35 (50%) indicated that authors at their institutions were using author addenda, and 33 libraries (47%) indicated that they “did not know.” Only two libraries indicated that authors at their institutions were not using author addenda.

The majority of respondents (77%) did not formally collect information on the use of author addenda on their campuses at the time of this survey. Evidence was gathered mostly in an informal way, either when an author contacted the library with a question related to copyright or an author addendum, or through anecdotal stories of success or failure in using an addendum. Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries reported that an author addendum had been endorsed by administrators or a governing body at their institution or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded that there had been no endorsements. There had been more endorsements at the consortial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries (12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was under consideration at the time of the survey. A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that their institution or consortium had worked to promote the use of an author addendum by providing links to an author addendum and copyright information on library Web sites or making faculty presentations on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH Public Access Policy).

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of sample addenda, brochures, handouts, and author rights Web sites and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff.

Heather Morrison has self-archived "Summary and Conclusions. Final Chapter of Scholarly Communication for Librarians" in E-LIS.

Scholarly Communication for Librarians is written from the perspective of a passionate advocate for Open Access and transformative change in scholarly communication, and is based on a course first taught at the University of British Columbia's School of Library, Archival and Information Studies. Topics covered include perspectives from the different groups involved in scholarly communication, including the scholars themselves, journals, publishers, and librarians. There are chapters devoted to Author’s Rights and Intellectual Property, Economics, Open Access, and Emerging Trends and Formats. The following summary highlights the major points of each chapter.

The University of Washington Faculty Senate has passed a "Resolution Concerning Scholarly Publishing Alternatives and Authors' Rights." (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt:

BE IT RESOLVED, that

1. the University of Washington prepare for a future in which academic publications are increasingly available through open sources by encouraging faculty members to:

• assess the pricing practices and authors' rights policies of journals with which they collaborate (as authors, reviewers, and editors) and advocate for improvements therein; and
• adopt and use an Addendum to Publication Agreement such as that provided by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) in order to retain their rights to use their work in the classroom and in future publications and to archive final accepted manuscripts; and
• publish scholarly works in moderately priced journals, in journals published by professional societies and associations, or in peer-reviewed "open access" journals; and
• archive their work in the UW's ResearchWorks or other repositories supported by research institutions, professional societies, or government agencies in order to provide the widest and most affordable access to their scholarship; and

2. UW Libraries is encouraged to

• provide relevant, current information regarding journal publishers, pricing, and authors' rights to departments and individual faculty members; and
• maintain and further develop ResearchWorks and related services; and
• allocate personnel to facilitate the deposit of faculty publications in ResearchWorks, and to obtain publishers' permission to deposit previously published works when possible; and

3. the University of Washington administration is encouraged to:

• provide resources to the Libraries and to academic units to foster these efforts; and
• work with departments and colleges to assure that the review process for promotion, tenure and merit takes into consideration these new trends and realities in academic publication.

The Scholarly Communication Program at Columbia University Libraries/Information Services has released Know Your Rights: Who Really Owns Your Scholarly Works? (Thanks to Digital & Scholarly.)

Here's the announcement:

In this panel discussion, experts on copyright law and scholarly publishing discuss how scholars and researchers can take full advantage of opportunities afforded by digital technology in today's legal environment, and suggest ways to advocate for positive change. The panelists are Heather Joseph, who has been Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC); Michael Carroll, Visiting Professor of Law at American University's Washington College of Law and a founding member of the Board of Directors of Creative Commons; and Director of the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office Kenneth Crews, whose research focuses on copyright issues, particularly as they relate to the needs of scholarship at the university.

The Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the American Physical Society have come to an agreement about how to implement Harvard's open access policies for articles published by Harvard authors.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

As a result of the new agreement, APS recognizes Harvard's open access license and will not require copyright agreement addenda or waivers, in exchange for Harvard's clarification of its intended use of the license. In general terms, in exercising its license under the open access policies, Harvard will not use a facsimile of the published version without permission of the publisher, will not charge for the display or distribution of those articles, and will provide an online link to the publisher's definitive version of the articles where possible. The agreement does not restrict fair use of the articles in any way.

According to Professor Bertrand I. Halperin, Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in the Harvard Physics Department and Chair of the 2008 Publications Oversight Committee of the American Physical Society, "Harvard’s open access legislation was always consistent in spirit with the aims of the APS publication policies, but there were differences in detail that would have required faculty members to request a waiver for every article published in an APS journal. It is a credit both to Harvard and to APS that these differences have been worked out. Since APS journals include, arguably, the most important journals in the field of physics, the fact that faculty will now be able to continue publishing in APS journals without seeking a waiver from Harvard’s policies will strengthen both Harvard and the goal of promoting open access to scholarly publications worldwide."

Jonathan Miller has published "'Publishers Did Not Take the Bait': A Forgotten Precursor to the NIH Public Access Policy" in the latest issue of College & Research Libraries (access is restricted under the journal's embargo policy).

Here's an excerpt:

This article compares the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy (2005-07) with the United States Office of Education policy on copyright in funded research (1965-70). The two policies and the differing technological and political contexts of the periods are compared and contrasted. The author concludes that a more nuanced approach to copyright, the digital information environment, and the support of an energized user community auger well for the success of the NIH policy, but that it is still too soon to tell.