LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  February 2014

LIBLICENSE-L February 2014

Subject:

Re: License agreement for Microfilm?

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:56:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (86 lines)

From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:55:29 +0000

We should be a little careful here.  In regard to the UCLA v. AIME
case, the Court did make a ruling interpreting a license, but it did
not involve fair use.  The court did not actually rule on the fair use
argument, since it dismissed the case on the grounds that AIME did not
have standing.  The court said that the fair use argument was
"plausible," but did not actually rule on it.  And there was nothing I
can recall that would reflect on the relationship between fair use and
a license.

My opinion is that a license can restrict fair use, but it must be
quite explicit to do so.  The mere existence of a license does not
trump fair use, but it's specific wording might.

As for the original message about contracts and first sale, the claim
described is very odd.  Early in the 20th century the Supreme Court
ruled that even a statement printed in a book could not trump first
sale. I think the same presumption would apply to a retrospective
attempt to revoke first sale.  Once the print book is bought, the
buyer has the right to lend or resell.  I am doubtful that a court
would enforce a retrospective effort to limit those rights, and if a
vendor tried to do it I would insist that they take those print copies
back and refund the purchase price.  But really, I think someone has
misinterpreted the agreement.  I hope so, because otherwise it is an
outrageous and dumb idea.

Just to be clear, as with fair use, a contract could limit first sale,
but it would have to be explicit and, I believe, signed as part of the
purchase transaction.  There have been a few attempts to sell books
with an agreement that forbade lending.  If someone were foolish
enough to accept such conditions on a purchase, they might, in my
opinion, be enforceable. But a
library could never buy printed material on that basis.

Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
P.O. Box 90193
Durham, NC 27708


> On Feb 20, 2014, at 20:23, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Todd Puccio <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:05:43 +0000
>
> Some folks believe that the ruling in the AIME v. UCLA videostreaming
> case sets a precedent that Fair Use will be upheld even if license
> terms are in place.
>
> Thus saying that a license can't trump Fair Use.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=video+streaming+case+against+UCLA+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
>
> Todd Puccio
> Director of Technical Services / Librarian
> Nova Southeastern University
> Health Professions Division Library
> Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:08:37 -0500
>
> Contract law trumps the doctrine of first sale.  If anyone signs a
> contract agreeing to the terms of the sale including giving up some of
> what would be the normal rights that transfer through a sale then
> those rights are gone. This is particularly concerning to me because
> we've seen a recent instance where a well-known business publisher
> suggested that the terms of their licensed electronic content also
> applied to the print copy on our shelves.   Full disclosure, I did not
> see the document myself, I learned of it through a call from a branch
> library asking if it were possible for an electronic license to also
> restrict use of print copy that had been in the collection for
> decades.  With the usual "I am not a lawyer" caveats I said no, unless
> we had signed new terms wherein we had agreed to restrictions on use
> of the print then it was bluster.
>
> Collette Mak
> [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1