[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
KLD Research (business database) indemnification language
- To: "liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: KLD Research (business database) indemnification language
- From: "Okerson, Ann" <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:20:36 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
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
- Prev by Date: Re: Blackwell journals now on Wiley InterScience
- Next by Date: July issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
- Previous by thread: Blackwell journals now on Wiley InterScience
- Next by thread: Re: KLD Research (business database) indemnification language
- Index(es):