RE: KLD Research (business database) indemnification language

["Metz-Wiseman, Monica" <monica@lib.usf.edu>]

Ann,

The University of South Florida Libraries acquired the KLD 
Research datasets at the end of May (2008).  We access KLD data 
through WRDS.  I had a faculty member who needed these datasets 
for a graduate level summer class so I rushed through the 
acquisition.  Jay Carberry was my sales rep and stated since we 
were accessing their datasets through WRDS, no license was 
necessary.  I just called Jay to confirm since I didn't have an 
email to that effect.  However, Jay has left the company to 
pursue his MBA.  While we are not a peer institution in relation 
to Yale, there may be some unevenness as to how they conduct 
business among academics.

Monica Metz-Wiseman
Coordinator of Electronic Collections
University of South Florida Libraries
Tampa, FL.  33620
monica@lib.usf.edu

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Okerson, Ann
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:21 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: KLD Research (business database) indemnification language

Background:  The Yale Library has in place numerous e-resources 
agreements, and we are successful in securing appropriate terms. 
One of BEWARE signals all along for us has been indemnification 
language.  We will not sign language that asks us to indemnify a 
database provider.  It is common for producers of educational 
resources to either not have such language, or to remove it, or 
to agree to some kind of mutual indemnification or some 
alternative that doesn't put the onus on the Library or 
University.

However, we now have a database subscription that asks us to sign 
indemnification language (1) that we have said we cannot and will 
not sign; (2) that the publisher, KLD Research, will not remove 
or alter; and (3) that our librarians have been told is a 
must-have for their business and SOM users.  Furthermore, KLD has 
said that several other peer institution's libraries have signed 
this kind of language, though in truth we don't know what the 
circumstances of those arrangements were, so we don't know if 
they are comaprable to ours.

The language reads:  INDEMNIFICATION

"Except as otherwise set forth in Section 9 below [NOTE: SECTION 
9 DOESN'T HELP US], Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold 
harmless KLD against damages, costs and expenses (including 
attorney's fees) arising from any claim made against KLD by any 
third party alleging damages related to Licensee's use of the 
license granted herein or Licensee's use of the Product or access 
thereto from or through Licensee."

This is, we believe, excessive, overbroad, and impossible.  We 
have tried and tried but while they were reasonable on other 
clauses, on this point they said that they feel too vulnerable to 
make any changes.  Possibly, they normally deal with businesses 
rather than educational libraries and haven't enough experience 
or trust us enough to use education-friendly language here. And, 
other peer libraries have signed such language?!

I would welcome any comments or insights from libraries that have 
signed up with KLD Research and how they managed to get this 
clause changed, or if they did, or if they signed anyhow?

Many thanks, Ann Okerson/Yale Library