Showing posts with label licensing agreements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label licensing agreements. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

After COVID boom, ebook aggregators face licensing questions from Congress; The Verge, November 18, 2021

Makena Kelly, The Verge ; After COVID boom, ebook aggregators face licensing questions from Congress

"“Many libraries face financial and practical challenges in making e-books available to their patrons, which jeopardizes their ability to fulfill their mission,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is our understanding that these difficulties arise because e-books are typically offered under more expensive and limited licensing agreements, unlike print books that libraries can typically purchase, own, and lend on their own terms.”

In September, Wyden and Eshoo first questioned publishers over the terms they set for ebook licensing. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many public libraries to shut down in-person service, and people began using online services like Overdrive’s Libby app to borrow digital books in lieu of physical copies. “Ensuring that libraries can offer an array of resources, including e-books, is essential to promoting equity in education and access to information,” the lawmakers wrote to Penguin Random House earlier this year."

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Disney Can’t Use ‘Marvel’ in Disneyland Avengers Theme Park; Comic Book Resources, April 8, 2018

Kirsten Thompson, Comic Book Resources; Disney Can’t Use ‘Marvel’ in Disneyland Avengers Theme Park

"Disney California Adventure Park will be expanding in the next year or so and in the process, will be removing several attractions. The new space will showcase superheroes from Marvel Entertainment’s movies, comics, and video games. The Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man and other characters will be spotlighted. However, this theme park attraction won’t be called “Marvel Land,” even though such a title would encompass the entirety of the entertainment giant’s characters. This is due to legal fine print.

Although Marvel was purchased by Disney in 2009, there are still a myriad of licensing agreements with other movie studios that have to be followed. Some of these are with Disney’s rival, Universal Studios, and they put limits on the company’s intellectual property rights.

In particular, these agreements bar Disney from using certain Marvel characters in Disney theme parks east of the Mississippi River and prohibit them from using the word “Marvel” in the title of any other theme park land."

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

May a library lend e-book readers?; LibraryLaw Blog, 6/20/10

Peter Hirtle, LibraryLaw Blog; May a library lend e-book readers?:

"A recent post at the Citizen Media Law Project about one’s First Sale rights with e-books got me thinking about libraries. CMLP noted that with e-books, one has no first sale rights because they are usually governed by licenses instead. First sale, however, is fundamental to the business of libraries. It allows us to loan to others copies of printed books we have purchased without violating the copyright owner’s rights to distribute the work. Some libraries have started lending e-book readers to faculty and students, including the Lewis Music Library at MIT and the NCSU Library, which are both loaning iPads. Is this legal?...

I hope, therefore, that libraries that are experimenting with lending e-book readers have thoroughly vetted their program with an attorney. Mostly, I hope they are working with Apple, Amazon, etc. to create new library-friendly licenses. We need licenses that will allow libraries to purchase e-books that can then either be copied directly onto patron-owned devices or copied onto library devices that are then lent to patrons. If e-books become as important as people predict and libraries do not have the legal right to lend those e-books, the traditional role of the library as a free source of reading matter will fade away."

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2010/06/may-a-library-lend-e-book-readers.html

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Legal Battles Over E-Book Rights to Older Books; New York Times, 12/13/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; Legal Battles Over E-Book Rights to Older Books:

"William Styron may have been one of the leading literary lions of recent decades, but his books are not selling much these days. Now his family has a plan to lure digital-age readers with e-book versions of titles like “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and Mr. Styron’s memoir of depression, “Darkness Visible.”

But the question of exactly who owns the electronic rights to such older titles is in dispute, making it a rising source of conflict in one of the publishing industry’s last remaining areas of growth.

Mr. Styron’s family believes it retains the rights, since the books were first published before e-books existed. Random House, Mr. Styron’s longtime publisher, says it owns those rights, and it is determined to secure its place — and continuing profits — in the Kindle era.

The discussions about the digital fate of Mr. Styron’s work are similar to the negotiations playing out across the book industry as publishers hustle to capture the rights to release e-book versions of so-called backlist books. Indeed, the same new e-book venture Mr. Styron’s family hopes to use has run into similar resistance from the print publisher of “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller.

On Friday, Markus Dohle, chief executive of Random House, sent a letter to dozens of literary agents, writing that the company’s older agreements gave it “the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats.”

Backlist titles, which continue to be reprinted long after their initial release, are crucial to publishing houses because of their promise of lucrative revenue year after year. But authors and agents are particularly concerned that traditional publishers are not offering sufficient royalties on e-book editions, which they point out are cheaper for publishers to produce. Some are considering taking their digital rights elsewhere, which could deal a financial blow to the hobbled publishing industry.

The tussle over who owns the electronic rights — and how much the authors should earn in digital royalties — potentially puts into play works by authors like Ralph Ellison and John Updike.

Some publishers have already made agreements with authors or their estates to release digital editions. All of Ernest Hemingway’s books, for example, are available in electronic versions from his print publisher, Scribner, a unit of Simon & Schuster.

But with only a small fraction of the thousands of books in print available in e-book form, there are many titles to be fought over.

“This is a wide open frontier right now,” said Maja Thomas, senior vice president for digital and audio publishing at the Hachette Book Group.

While most traditional publishers have included e-book rights in new author contracts for 15 years, many titles were originally published before e-books were explicitly included in contracts.

And with electronic readers like the Kindle from Amazon and the Nook from Barnes & Noble attracting new readers and sales of e-books growing exponentially, authors and publishers are trying to figure out how best to harness the new technology...

There is some precedent for arguments over e-book versions of backlist titles. In 2002, Random House sued RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher, for copyright infringement when Rosetta signed contracts with authors — including Mr. Styron — to release digital versions of previously published novels.

In its suit, Random House relied on wording in its contracts that granted it all rights to publish the works “in book form.” In its letter to agents on Friday, Random House invoked the same wording to defend its right to publish e-books of backlist titles.

In 2002, a federal judge in Manhattan denied Random House’s request for a preliminary injunction against RosettaBooks, ruling that “in book form” did not automatically include e-books. An appellate court similarly denied Random House’s request.

The case never went to trial. In a settlement, Random House granted Rosetta a license to release e-book versions of 51 titles. Under a different agreement with Mr. Styron, Rosetta also published two of his books, though its license to do so has since expired.

Agents say some authors and their estates are seeking alternative routes for e-books in part because they are dissatisfied with the digital royalty rate offered by most traditional publishers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/media/13ebooks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Licensing Agreements Now Covering 'The Universe' And Future Media Not Yet Developed; TechDirt, 10/30/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Licensing Agreements Now Covering 'The Universe' And Future Media Not Yet Developed:

"However, it looks like lawyers drafting such legal arrangements are beginning to recognize this as an issue and are trying to prepare for such eventual new media opportunities. Eric Goldman alerts us to a WSJ article, highlighting how phrases like "in all media, throughout the universe" are becoming increasingly common in licensing contract language. While some decry this as being imprecise and overly broad, I tend to fall on the other side of the fence."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0151366712.shtml

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Post by Georgia Harper to Digital Copyright Listserv, University of Maryland University College, re Publisher Restrictions on Linking, 12/5/08

Post by Georgia Harper [Scholarly Communications Advisor for the University of Texas at Austin Libraries and 2006-2008 Intellectual Property Scholar, University of Maryland University College, Center for Intellectual Property] to Digital Copyright Listserv, University of Maryland University College, re "Publisher restriction on linking":

"Lori: You asked, "Does this licensing agreement just side-step copyright law and guidelines? Can publishers really stop educational fair use in this way? I'd be very interested in outside reading on this topic, links to blogs, etc., and your comments.

Answers: Yes. Yes. Comment: You've stumbled upon the famous Harvard Business Review exception to everything. Contracts that are negotiated, which your institutional subscription to EBSCO was (by someone), allow the parties to agree to just about anything they want to, short of ax murdering (i.e., crimes and misdemeanors, civil wrongs, etc.). So there you have it. HBR wants separate permissions licenses (or a heftier share of the EBSCO dinero) for the uses that everyone expects they are paying for when they subscribe to EBSCO, so be it. Sign here (again, which someone at your institution did). Outside reading - Harvard's explanation that fails to address the basic question, "why do you think your stuff is worth so much more than everyone else's:"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caul.edu.au%2Fdatasets%2Fhbr2008course-use.pdf&ei=06M5SeCjKIyG8gSvyLzoBg&usg=AFQjCNG07SMjR2zJbtgtn-yvJ4j4cvY18Q&sig2=R9dps-NZjzjaAq0j8INM8A
I suppose the answer is, "well, it is worth more if people will pay more,right?" Right.

To learn more about how and under what circumstances licenses trump copyright rights and privileges, well, that's a huge topic. Google 'relationship contract law copyright' for starters. Several good links on the first page, enough to get you going."