Alert on ABC video - site licence for video?
- October 31, 2005 @ 3:13pmsshorb says:Recently had this email from John Riedelbach, our collection management chair. Apparently, ABC news thinks they can avoid a fair use of their product by putting under a site. Pretty much just FYI -- we should be on the lookout for this practice and find ways to resist.
___
We recently ordered a video of an ABC News 20/20 program which (as far as I can tell) appears to have been originally broadcast on 10/18/96. The program, perhaps very appropriately titled in this case, is called Shame on You. When the video was received a few days ago, it was accompanied (to my astonishment) by a site license agreement. I just couldn't believe it.
The site license is evidently something new for ABC. Noted at the bottom of their license is the statement that the license agreement was shipped with orders after May 1, 2005. I have contacted a source at ABC News store twice with questions concerning interpretation of some of the terms and conditions of the license. I don't know if we can expect to see more licensing of this nature in the future, but it has very disturbing consequences for libraries, their collections, and our patrons. This site license seems more like a lease arrangement such as is the case with database content for which we must pay an annual access fee.
Questions I submitted, with responses from ABC News Store follow:
1. What happens if we decide not to renew the site license at the end of two years? Answer: At the end of two years if you choose not to renew your site license it will not affect personal checkouts. Not renewing will void your right to show the video to groups. You do not have to remove it from your collection or return it.
2. How does ABC News Store define "groups?" Answer: Groups in the case of your school would be a classroom of students, staff, or faculty members that intend to view the particular video. If you do not renew the site license students, staff, and faculty members may not check out the video to show to groups. With the site license agreement voided, any person would only be allowed to check out the video for their personal use. Without the site license being renewed any viewing of this video for any reason other than for personal would violate ABC's copyright.
3. A check or money order for $30.00 must be sent at the end of two years for the license renewal. Will ABC News Store send us a renewal invoice at that time? Answer: At this time ABC does not invoice when the two years is up.
4. The license states that the licensee shall provide adequate security to prevent theft....of the licensed media. Under this agreement, what happens if the video disappears from our collection? Answer: If by chance your video is stolen from your library, you will not have a video and will have to purchase a new one if you choose at full price.
5. In the section called Employee Responsibilities, it is stated that ABC reserves the right to immediately terminate this Agreement at any time....if the licensee is in breach of the agreement. I asked what would happen if we were found to be in breach of the agreement? Answer: If the site license is terminated, you will not be allowed to show the video to groups.
Well colleagues, what would you do if you received this site license agreement? We have several choices, none of which I think are ideal.
A. Return the video, we now have less than 30 days to do so for a refund, and refuse to order any further titles from ABC unless ABC comes to it senses and establishes a reasonable license for libraries. We can do that, but I'm not sure how understanding the faculty will be about their inability to offer desired programming to their students.
B. Keep the video and let them send us an invoice in two years for renewal of the license. I doubt they will remember to do so. Pay the renewal if they bill us.
C. Keep the video and refuse to pay the site license renewal. Put a note in the catalog record the video cannot be shown to classes and is for individual use only.
D. Other ideas? What would you do?
I will be forwarding this site license to university counsel seeking an opinion as to what our options might be with regard to this license. The language seems to violate library fair use. It appears to me that this site license is just one more way for publishers/producers to try an obtain a continuing stream of revenue from libraries. - November 1, 2005 @ 7:07amAFry says:My understanding has always been that public performance rights always require either a license or an extremely high initial purchase price.
However, according to http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/mono3.htm , showing a video to a class is an exception to the rule.
What you cannot do without the license is show the video to the general public.
If I were you, I would do the first half of option C: Keep the video and refuse to pay the site license renewal. Forget about putting a note in the catalog. - November 1, 2005 @ 11:55amCOvalle says:Showing a video in class is the exception to the rule as far as the law goes- but you can lose that exception if you sign or agree to a license. This situation appears to be one of the more complicated and disturbing developments in recent copyright trends. Copyright holders are using license to restrict uses that the law recognizes as valid.
I am not clear on receiving the license and the product at the same time. I don't know if that falls under "agreement by assent" or not.
As far as violating fair use, the terms of license certainly seem to deny fair uses and other exemptions. You'll see different arguments for and against the idea of fair use as a right, but the statute itself mentions fair use as an excemption, and many consider fair use an affirmative defense. That is, it is a defense to charges of copyright infringement, but not a right that the user has to begin with. Since fair use isn't considered a right, then the copyright holder isn't violating fair use or other exemptions- you're agreeing to give up your exemptions by assenting to the license.
[Edit: I wanted to also point out that you can give up your rights by agreeing to a license. For example, when you sign a non-disclosure agreement you're giving up some free speech.]
In this specific case, I'm not sure- but as I'm sitting in on a class taught by the person who's site Alfred just mentioned (Georgia Harper of UT System), so I'll ask her and see what she thinks.
What I would do is examine the license to see if it appears to prohibit the education exemption that Alfred mentioned. (It's an education, not library exemption.) Their answers seem to indicate that it would, but I'd look at the license itself first and go on from there.
I'm interested in seeing what your legal counsel has to say about the situation.
Carlos
[quote]My understanding has always been that public performance rights always require either a license or an extremely high initial purchase price.
However, according to http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/mono3.htm , showing a video to a class is an exception to the rule.
What you cannot do without the license is show the video to the general public.
If I were you, I would do the first half of option C: Keep the video and refuse to pay the site license renewal. Forget about putting a note in the catalog.[/quote]
Posting to the forum is only available to users who are logged in.