The OAK Law project (Australia) has produced a new report: `A guide to developing open access through your digital repository', ISBN 978-0-9802988-4-0, 121pp. You may be able to request a free copy from the authors.
The report is also stated to be available online (OA) at www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/node/32. The report is 121 A4 pages, and you will need to print it to read it successfully. However this link was down when I tried to check it. Instead you can get it from the QUT repository, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00009671/. [As an aside, I have often been surprised at how many OA participants fail to practice what they preach, and don't put their major writings into an open access (OA-compliant) repository, but opt for a website. For example, the Australian Department of Education, Science & Training fails this test. What this means in practice is poor accessibility, poor searchability, poor version control, poor preservation and survivability of links, and low levels of access information.] Review The Report is a good set of tips, advice and checklists regarding the management of an institutional repository aiming to provide open access to its contents. It presents a strong advocacy of universal open access being provided by universities. As one expects of a law project, the discussion is skewed towards legality, and especially copyright; however that does not detract from its usefulness, as long as you remember that the strictly legal position is promoted rather than any pragmatic or risky option. The footnotes give many references. Section 3 deals with deposit requirement, and as appropriate to authors from QUT (one of the first mandate universities in the world), it deals reasonably with the mandate vs persuasion issue. However it does not clearly distinguish between deposit and making a deposit `open access', which is a critical issue for both mandatory policies and for capturing born-digital items. To be fair, this is mentioned rather obscurely on page 38 (section 4.1 Copyright Issues under the heading Repository-Depositor Relationship, instead of taking centre stage in the deposit process. Also surprisingly, it does not include discussion of the `request a copy' feature often used for restricted items under `fair use practice', or perhaps I missed it. Another thing I missed was a discussion of the prior rights of a university that mandated deposit, over the authority of an academic to sign away subsequent copyright over which he or she did not therefore have unfettered control. Summary - certainly worth acquiring and reading if you are worried about copyright issues. Just remember that its treatment of what repository managers need to consider is incomplete. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania
