Re: NEW VERSIONS OF MODEL LICENSES RELEASED

["Diane Frake" <DFRAKE@vermontlaw.edu>]

John, thanks for putting this on the listserv.  It's good stuff.  I have
only glanced at the consortial agreement and have a concern about one of
the provisions - the indemnity clause.  At an excellent workshop on
understanding license agreements, the presenter, a lawyer from MIT, said
under no circumstances should you agree to an indemnity clause (especially
if it's for any claims that might arise).  It could result in unlimited
damages for your institution.  I don't sign any agreements with an
indemnity clause.  When I am modifying an agreement, I always remove the
clause.  It would be great if this were not in the model agreement, or
indemnity was limited to bad acts and was reciprocal.  It would give
libraries more leverage in negotiating agreements.

Diane F. Frake, Associate Director
Julien and Virginia Cornell Library
Vermont Law School
P.O. Box 60
So. Royalton, VT 05068
(802)763-8303, ext. 2444
Fax: (802) 763-7159
_____


>>> John.E.Cox@btinternet.com 05/09/00 10:57PM >>>
Licensingmodels.com: new updated versions of the model licenses released 
in May 2000

New, updated, versions of the generic model licenses for electronic
journals on www.licensingmodels.com have been released. The revised text
of each license, together with the detailed commentary and guidance for
use on each, has been developed as a result of extensive consultation with
users in the publishing, vendor and library communities.

It was always intended to update the model licenses as the market for
online scholarly information matures.  I have received more feedback as
publishers and librarians increasingly use the license models as a tool
both as an agenda for discussion and as a simple means of recording their
agreement on completing their negotiations.

Most of the revisions are made to give greater clarity to some provisions.
A form of words to cover archiving has been included, and there are some
changes to the clause on termination in response to comments made.

It is worth noting that the number of publishers who have adopted these
licenses as a model continues to grow: Arnold, Cambridge University Press,
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, MCB UP, the OECD, Portland Press etc.  In
addition, they are clearly being used as a reference point in negotiations
between publishers and librarians when an alternative text is on the
table.  Let me have any further suggestions to improve their usefulness.

John Cox

John Cox Associates
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com