[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


John says,

> 2.  The Licensee indemifies the Publisher against abuse of 
> the material. This indeminity is strictly limited to abuse 
> that is caused or knowingly assisted or condoned by the 
> Licensee, and excludes abuse by a User of which the Library 
> is unaware.  The indemnity text is prefaced by the phrase 
> 'subject to applicable law'.

John is right to point out that the model license he's designed does a
very good job of providing for local restrictions on indemnification.  I
do wonder at the logic of the above, though.  I'm not a lawyer, so there
are probably legal nuances I'm missing here, but if the library has
knowingly condoned or assisted in a breach of copyright law, why is
indemnification necessary?  By so doing, hasn't the library itself broken
the law, and can't the library simply be charged with whatever illegal act
it's committed?  (In this case, is the purpose of indemnification to avoid
getting stuck with legal fees?)

Rick Anderson
Head Acquisitions Librarian
Jackson Library
UNC Greensboro
(336) 334-5281

"Which is the greater
miracle: to cause a stone
to speak, or a philosopher
to stop speaking?"
  -- Overheard at the
     Council of Nicaea