RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use

["Seeman, Corey" <cseeman@bus.umich.edu>]

Hi -- I think that Jill, Rick and Andrew hit the nail on the head 
with this.

I have been asked by vendors (especially those new to the library 
market) for similar language and I have been able to point out 
that this is not reasonable for us to enforce.  A similar type of 
condition is when the vendor asks that we destroy all copies of 
the electronic files if the contract is not renewed (including 
those on patron machines). What I will do is respond that I 
cannot control or regulate this activity and most vendors are 
reasonable.

This may come about from a desire, especially with a template 
contract, to ask the customer for everything.  It might be less 
important to them, but something that will allow them to get 
something else in the contract.  Sometimes we ask vendors for 
multiple things knowing that we can give some up in the spirit of 
cooperation or negotiation.

All our legal documents have to go through the Office of General 
Counsel. I will often let them play the bad cop with classes that 
are unreasonable or unenforceable.  But when possible, I try to 
get those out of the document before they even go over for 
review.

Hope this helps.

Best -- Corey

Corey Seeman
Director
Kresge Business Administration Library
Stephen M. Ross School of Business
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234
cseeman@umich.edu

http://www.bus.umich.edu/kresgelibrary/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cseeman/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Jill Taylor-Roe
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 6:11 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use

I would echo Rick's response on this one - If there are any 
licence clauses I feel uncomfortable about signing up to, I 
usually run them past a very helpful contact in our Law School, 
and if he thinks the terms are excessive, he will often suggest 
an alternative wording which we then pursue with the 
publisher/vendor.  We are usually able to reach an accommodation 
that suits both parties. We are particularly wary about indemnity 
clauses which imply that we accept responsibility for things we 
clearly have no control over.

regards.
Jill Taylor-Roe

________________________________

From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Rick Anderson
Sent: Sat 24/02/2007 15:55
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use

> Have any of you encountered this statement or a similar one?
> How did you handle it? Thanks for your help.

I've encountered it several times, and it's always been a walking
point for us -- there's no way we would agree to license terms
that hold the library institutionally responsible for end-user
behavior.  The library will accept responsibility for what it's
capable of doing: informing end-users about the terms, doing what
it can to prevent a breach of license terms, and acting quickly
to cure a breach if it occurs.  But to accept institutional
responsibility for what patrons do would be insanity.

In my experience, it's very rare that a publisher fails to see
reason on this issue when it's clearly (and firmly) explained. In
ten years of license negotiation, I think I've walked away from
one deal over this issue.

---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu