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."