From: "Price, Keri" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:17:15 -0500

Here is some language that the Library of Congress has been able to
use in some Foreign License agreements:

"The parties may employ nonbinding mediation to help resolve a dispute
if all parties agree to mediation, the choice of a neutral mediator,
and any other aspects of the process.  The parties are not bound to
any country's laws or rules on mediation."

Keri Price

Keri L. Price
Special Collections Coordinator
U.S./Anglo Division
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-4270
Tel: 202-707-9497
Fax: 202-252-3347


-----Original Message-----

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:35:55 -0500

Forwarded from another list for any liblicense-l comment and reply.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan Clark <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Subject: Law clauses in licences
To: [log in to unmask]

Can anyone tell me how they handle foreign law clauses in site
licences please?  Our normal procedure is to ask publishers if they
will change the stated law or remain silent on the subject (allowing
us to cross out the clause).  In most cases publishers are happy to do
this, but occasionally we come across a publisher who is reluctant to
do this.  We are currently experiencing this with Thieme, which may
result in our not being able to subscribe to a particular journal that
has been requested by a department.  The clause mentioning law states:

"6.3 The provisions of substantive law applicable within the Federal
Republic of Germany shall apply exclusively, and the principles of the
conflict of laws under private international law, which would justify
the applicability of foreign law, shall not apply."

Our logic is that we can't agree to abide by laws we don't understand
- but are we being super-cautious?  What do other people do?

Thanks
Jan

Jan Clark
Robinson Library
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE2 4HQ