The transition to Open Access (OA) in scholarly book publishing has been slower and more uneven than in journal publishing, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences. In Croatia, this transition has largely developed without strong national mandates, relying instead on institutional initiatives and shared infrastructures. This paper presents a case of a library-led approach to embedding Open Access within institutional book publishing workflows in such a context.

The case is situated at the University of Zagreb Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, where a dual publishing structure has historically existed: a traditional faculty press focused on print production, and a library-operated digital platform, FF Open Press, established in 2018 to support Open Access publishing. While the platform has enabled the publication of over 180 scholarly books in OA, earlier practices often treated digital dissemination as secondary to print, and licensing conditions were not always consistently defined or communicated at an early stage.

The paper analyses a recent shift towards an OA-first model for scholarly books, in which digital Open Access publication is positioned as the primary mode of dissemination, with print as a complementary format. This shift has been facilitated by changes in internal research and publishing funding frameworks, which created an opportunity to redefine criteria, workflows, and support mechanisms. Within this process, the library has acted not only as a service provider but also as an active contributor to institutional policy development and workflow design.

Particular attention is given to the integration of licensing and copyright considerations into the early stages of the publishing process. Authors retain copyright to their works, and Creative Commons licences are applied more consistently, with clearer communication about licensing options and reuse conditions. The library provides guidance on copyright compliance, including the use of third-party materials, which helps to reduce legal uncertainty and improve transparency.

At the same time, the paper acknowledges that the practical implementation of these principles remains uneven. Despite the adoption of clearer guidelines, the use of third-party materials and the application of open licences continue to present challenges in everyday publishing practice, requiring ongoing support and education.

The organisational dimension is also considered. A dedicated library team supports the platform, collaborates with the faculty press and governance bodies, and provides consultation for authors and editors. There is a strong uptake of the OA-first model among authors, with the majority of recent publishing proposals opting for OA-only, OA-first or simultaneous Open Access and print publication. The case suggests that, in the absence of strong external mandates, sustained institutional engagement and workflow integration are key to the adoption of Open Access in scholarly book publishing.