At least for some of their journals (e.g. Global Environmental Change), I understand the position is that they will allow you to post the exact final published content, but (a) not as formatted by the journal and (b) not in any kind of organised institutional repository.
In case of (a), I actually prefer to post my own PDFs, because one of the tasks publishers-as-middlemen generally perform is screwing up captions, misapplying 'style guides' and so on.
Regarding (b), they are clearly trying to make it more difficult to find these posted articles, and to reduce the number posted by ensuring that individual authors have to take the initiative (rather than it being a matter of institutional policies).
(Edit: reading your comment again, I see that I'm wholly agreeing with you).
I'd REALLY love to see a court decide on whether adding their logo and running it through a script is a transformation substantial enough to warrant copyright as a separate work.
The contract states that there is no transfer of copyright, yet the assholes attempt to enforce copyright against the authors, while acting, effectively, as their agents. See the problem?
It states no such thing. In fact, the website clearly states exactly the opposite, in "normal" (i.e., not legalese) language:
"For subscription articles: These rights are determined by a copyright transfer, where authors retain scholarly rights to post and use their articles."
In case of (a), I actually prefer to post my own PDFs, because one of the tasks publishers-as-middlemen generally perform is screwing up captions, misapplying 'style guides' and so on.
Regarding (b), they are clearly trying to make it more difficult to find these posted articles, and to reduce the number posted by ensuring that individual authors have to take the initiative (rather than it being a matter of institutional policies).
(Edit: reading your comment again, I see that I'm wholly agreeing with you).