Re: Legal Question

Jessica Rosner (
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT)

Just cause I can't resist let me point out the flip side of this.
>From time to time I get purchase orders in which the institution has written
something like " includes closed circuit cable broadcast" or " Public
Performance rights. I toss these in the garbage but I am sure that these are
also sent to generic venders like Facets or Baker & Taylor. These also are
not worth the paper they are written because unless the buyer gets a
SPECIFIC contract ( or in my low key paperwork, a little note on your
invoice) they DON'T GET THESE RIGHTS. I have tried from time to time to call
such places and explain that they should not put these on orders as they are
meaningless and they should not think they would have these rights. I
usually get no where. I also get the check off form of this in which the
buyer ASKS for the form to be filled out & returned. In most cases this is a
VERY BAD idea. Kino is the exception rather than the rule in that we do own
these rights for most of our films, the majority of venders of feature films
don't own these rights so even if they mistakenly filled the form out, the
buyer would still have a worthless piece of paper.

My general advice is that if you ever need these rights MAKE sure the
permission is on the SELLER'S letterhead or Invoice or it is worthless

Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018

> From: Mark Richie <>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <>
> Subject: Re: Legal Question
> Here we go again.
> Low cost video vendors have been using that warning for years. It is hot
> air for libraries. A warning label can't superceed the first sale
> doctrine, fair use or the face to face teaching exemption for public
> performance outlined in the copyright law (Title 17).
> Contract law in most staes requires that BOTH parties agree to
> something. You cannot create a unilateral contract. Unless you SIGNED
> a licence or agreement in which you agreed not to loan the video, the
> federal law is your guide. Accepting and paying an invoice is not enough
> to constitute a contract governing what you can do with the product.
> On the other hand (don't you love this) under advice of none other than
> Ivan Bender we put roughly the following wording on the bottom of all
> our purchase orders as a fair warning to the vendors about our intent.
> "Copyrighted materials listed on this Purchase Order are intended
> for loan to the public and for use by educational institutions under
> the provisions of section 110(1) of the US Copyright Law (Title 17)."
> As a public or academic library you could probably modify this to
> include the section
> covering first sale. If they don;t like it, they can reject the PO. In
> 12 years none have.
> Don't let 'em BS 'ya.
> Cheers - MLR
> John Holland wrote:
>> Recently I have run across some new video releases, mainly on smaller
>> specilaized labels (but presumably not bootlegs) with the following
>> disclaimer on the label:
>> "Warning: This videocassette is licensed for private home use. All other
>> rights including duplication, broadcast by any means, RENTAL OR LOAN
>> public display are prohibited." (The emphasis in caps is mine).
>> Most of this is familiar and understood, but the part about renting or
>> loaning through a video store or library is new to me. Is this legit? And
>> if so, why are they selling their videos through vendors which sell to
>> libraries and video stores? Or is it a lot of hot air?
>> I remember seeing this on some videos which were purchased by the library
>> a long time ago, and assumed it was no longer valid, but as I mentioned, I
>> have several recent purchases that claim the same rights (I will refrain
>> from naming names right now).
>> Any opinions and/or expert knowledge is welcome!
>> John Holland
>> Chicago Public Library
>> Media Express
>> (312)747-4100