[Videolib] Re: lending video and film

Tobin Nellhaus (tobin.nellhaus@yale.edu)
Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:00:26 -0400

For what it's worth, I've dealt with sellers whose licensing terms
stipulated that the video can't leave the library building and (in one
case) could only be shown in its entirety! Clearly that would have made
classroom viewing impossible -- the license was really designed for
exhibitors. I've been able to negotiate these vendors into a more
intelligible position, but it might be wise for libraries to have a
consistent national policy on the most restrictive terms we'll accept,
beyond which there'll be no sale.

As for sending videos on ILL, we don't, but the policy is likely to be
reviewed. Personally I don't like the idea, but that's mainly because most
of the videos I acquire are in a special subject area, cost on average
about $200, and have nasty license terms so we'd have to track the
restrictions for each individual video, which means a steep overhead.

Tobin Nellhaus
Librarian for Drama, Film and Theater Studies
226 Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University
130 Wall Street, P.O. Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240
Tel: 203/432-8212 Fax: 203/432-8527

> >> "infringement because he had sold this copy to this particular
> >> organization for their use and their use alone."
> >
> >
> > Did the buyer sign a contract detailing this explicitly as a condition
> > of commercial sale?
> >
> > If not: the Doctrine of First Sale allows the buyer to do any damn
> > thing he or she wants with the film (except making illegal copies):
> > resale, rental, loan, gift...what have you.
> >
> > (sue? No one sues without issuing a cease and desist letter...)
>Again, details are very hazy, but I believe there was some kind of
>licensing agreement situation. In checking the person's web site, it
>seems that there are many different kinds of licenses (including one for
>inter-library loan) offered by this company. I'm imagining that the
>video in question was purchased without the acquisitions or media
>department being aware of what was available / required in terms of
>licensing. If more and more companies offer such varying license
>packages, I could see how this issue would crop up on occasion. There
>may have been a cease & desist letter, which I'm supposing that the
>library in question contested due to Doctrine of First Sale. Sounded
>like there was confusion and adamant folks on both sides....

Videolib mailing list