Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing Situation in New Software Update

[johngordon]

I thought this was pretty obvious. What kind of moron would think differently?

It's like creating a game using, say, Sony's or Nintendo's dev kit. Of course you can't take the exact file and just sell it on your own. You can, however, take the content and create a new work in a different format.

That's exactly what I had assumed to be the case - simply that Apple retain rights over the .ibook file you submit for publication, and certainly not for the actual content within that book.

 

[Xenc]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm glad that's been clarified.

 

[Fandongo]

I'm sure all those commentators who kneejerked about Apple trying gain an evil monopoly over people's creations will retract them now. </sarcasm>

Oooh, ooh OoH, dibs...DIBS.

Dibs on becoming the sole owner of all information, wisdom, and entertainment in the known universe forever and ever. **seals patent**

 

[Winni]

I thought this was pretty obvious. What kind of moron would think differently?

The moron who came up with the first draft of the license agreement, the moron who works for Apple's legal department and exactly knew what he was doing AND saying/writing. Apple tried, and hadn't they taken so much flak for it, do you honestly believe they would have changed the licensing terms so quickly?

I wonder what the very same people defending Apple now would have to say if, let's say, Notepad and Wordpad that are/were bundled with Microsoft Windows would have a similar license agreement. You'd be relentlessly all over the guys in Redmond if they did the same thing. But with Apple, all is well for you. I wonder who are the real morons here.

 

[Crissov]

EPUB is to books like MPEG is to AV

Its their format they can control it how they please.

Actually, with their .ibook format Apple bastardized EPub3 which itself is a hodgepodge of HTML5 and CSS3. They use standardized MPEG formats for audio and video in the iTunes store, they should do so for texts, too.

The .iba format is another thing, entirely, since it’s for production only and not intended for interchange at all.

----------

So theoretically someone could create an ibooks to <other competing format> converter and the user could use iBooks Author to write it. And release the book for both platforms?

Yes, and since it’s almost EPub3, someone will write a converter soon and make a good dime out of it – if Apple accepts it into the App Store.

 

[gnasher729]

The moron who came up with the first draft of the license agreement, the moron who works for Apple's legal department and exactly knew what he was doing AND saying/writing. Apple tried, and hadn't they taken so much flak for it, do you honestly believe they would have changed the licensing terms so quickly?

I wonder what the very same people defending Apple now would have to say if, let's say, Notepad and Wordpad that are/were bundled with Microsoft Windows would have a similar license agreement. You'd be relentlessly all over the guys in Redmond if they did the same thing. But with Apple, all is well for you. I wonder who are the real morons here.

Actually, I haven't heard of any _authors_ who were complaining. Only the professional complainers, and those who desperately try to find fault with anything Apple does. The one who drafted this EULA (and every else at Apple) is probably thinking along the lines of "What the **** are these bloody idiots on about? Is the world completely made up of idiots? ". At least that's what I was thinking. But according to you, apparently Apple has to design licenses not to meet legal requirements, but to make it impossible for Apple haters to pretend that there are faults in it.

And actually, I have posted several times that Microsoft Office Home Edition has license terms that are significantly more restrictive. I suppose I need to clarify that I pointed this out to show the sheer idiocy of some Apple haters, not in any way to put blame on Microsoft; I actually think their license terms for the Home Edition are quite reasonable - just more restrictive than Apple's terms.

Can you prove it? I doubt it. Before you imply malicious intent, you have to remove the notion of a mistake. I think this was a mistake in the license. Apple Legal never thought this to be an issue. I have no problem accepting that notion. An elaborate conspiracy that would involve concepts that would likely never hold up in court? Come on.

Actually, there was no legal problem with the license. The re-worded license gives you exactly the same rights as the original license. No court would ever have accepted the crazy interpretations of some idiot bloggers. Next time Apple will know that any license terms need to be read by the PR department as well.

Here's a question that maybe someone could answer...

Can I charge a client to build a .ibook for them as long as they distributed it for free?

You can charge a client to build an iBook for them, period. (It should be obvious how to interpret this sentence in a totally malicious way, the same that iBooks Author's original license was interpreted in a totally malicious way). The client then has in their hands an iBook file created with iBooks Author, and it is their responsibility to comply with the license terms. You are charging for the work involved in creating the book, not for the book. A step further: An employee whose job it is to create iBooks is allowed to accept a salary for their work.

 

[erann]

Apple could still bar you from distributing via any other outlet because the content was originally produced in iBooks Author.

BS! The original version of iBooks Author clearly says:

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
D. Copyright and Content.
...Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner."

----------

Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first.

Imagine if Apple claimed you could write anything you want in Pages, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first.

If you want to compare MS Word to a comparable Apple product, compare it to Pages. Apple has no resctrictions in distributing the outcome of Pages.

 

[hans1972]

Hope MS and Adobe do the same

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

I sincerely hope that Microsoft will do it for Office and Adobe for Photoshop.
It would cause a mass exodus awat from these products and we would have healthy competition.

 

[Rot'nApple]

You know how Apple wouldn't bat an eyelash to go after someone whose logo even vaguely appears to infringe on Apple and their apple logo...

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/09/apple-sues-food-company-for-copying-their-logo/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/apple-sues-woolworths-ove_n_309450.html

http://www.technologytell.com/apple/79611/apple-lawsuit-wrap-up-for-october-2011/

Boy that iAuthor logo, flip it around and change the color, sure looks like a close facsimile of Devon Technologies: DEVONthink application software's logo... surely closer appearance then some of Apple's lawsuits against other apple style logos. Wonder if Devon Tech. knows? If Apple were smart, they'd avoid the nastiness of a lawsuit and go back to the drawing board, because if Apple can sue in those three examples in the links above and claim those apples copy Apple's apple, then Apple's iAuthor "conch shell" looking logo copies Devon Technologies Conch Shell...

Don'tcha think?!
/
/
/

 

[pdjudd]

No court would ever have accepted the crazy interpretations of some idiot bloggers.

That’s what I was going after actually - the crazy idea that Apple owns the rights to your IP just because it touches Ibooks author.

 

[~Ks383~]

You know how Apple wouldn't bat an eyelash to go after someone whose logo even vaguely appears to infringe on Apple and their apple logo...

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/09/apple-sues-food-company-for-copying-their-logo/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/apple-sues-woolworths-ove_n_309450.html

http://www.technologytell.com/apple/79611/apple-lawsuit-wrap-up-for-october-2011/

Boy that iAuthor logo, flip it around and change the color, sure looks like a close facsimile of Devon Technologies: DEVONthink application software's logo... surely closer appearance then some of Apple's lawsuits against other apple style logos. Wonder if Devon Tech. knows? If Apple were smart, they'd avoid the nastiness of a lawsuit and go back to the drawing board, because if Apple can sue in those three examples in the links above and claim those apples copy Apple's apple, then Apple's iAuthor "conch shell" looking logo copies Devon Technologies Conch Shell...

Don'tcha think?!
/
/
/

How does this even remotely relate to the topic of this thread?

 

[LethalWolfe]

BS! The original version of iBooks Author clearly says:

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
D. Copyright and Content.
...Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner."

Displayed or accessed isn't the same thing as "generate" and what you quoted you quoted out of context. That paragraph you cherry picked from was in respect to other material the user could display or access using the iBooks Author software. For example, if you copied and pasted portions of a Stephen King novel into your iBooks Author book that content still belongs to Stephen King, not you. Hence the "respective content owner" part.

The original EULA clearly said that anything the user generated using iBooks Author could only be sold via Apple's store. Regardless of if the original wording was malicious or not I'm glad that Apple changed it and clarified that the restrictions are about using the .ibook format for distribution and not using the iBooks Author for content creation.


Lethal

 

[Bluestrike2]

And what about this ISN'T evil? Imagine if Microsoft claimed you could write anything you want in Word, but don't you dare try to sell it without converting it to PDF first. Better yet, what if Adobe tried to force you to sell your PDF only with their permission and on their own terms (and with a cut of the profits I might add)?

Step away from the cool-aid please.

They're called proprietary systems. You can argue whether they're good or bad, but you can't project a moral judgment onto them.

 

[dethmaShine]

Guess what, Microsoft is worse than you say. If you buy the home user edition of Microsoft money for $100 (not free like iBooks Author), the EULA says that the software cannot be used _for any commercial use_. That means, you can't sell it after converting it to PDF. You can't sell it at all. You cannot even give it away for free if that is for commercial use, like giving away brochures about your hotel or restaurant, if they were created with this version of office.

It would be completely fine for let's say a car manufacturer to produce all their repair and maintenance manuals with iBooks Author and give them to all their distributors and any garage that wants them for free. Clearly commercial use, but absolutely allowed.

It would not be fine for you to write a textbook with the home user edition of Microsoft Word, paste it into iBooks Author, and then sell it, because that would be commercial use which Microsoft doesn't allow.




Not just that. You are not allowed to produce a competing product (like the same contents in an iBooks Author created book) and sell it elsewhere, like on the AppStore. So if you plan to publish the same book both on Kindle and using iBooks Author on the AppStore, then Apple allows it, but Amazon doesn't.

Are you sure? That is just ridiculous.

Looks like no one's calling on Amazon. Butthurt Apple haters as usual.

 

[Judas1]

Yes, any change to the program (The license is part of the program) it’s an upgrade. A minor upgrade yes, but it meets the definition.


Can you prove it? I doubt it. Before you imply malicious intent, you have to remove the notion of a mistake. I think this was a mistake in the license. Apple Legal never thought this to be an issue. I have no problem accepting that notion. An elaborate conspiracy that would involve concepts that would likely never hold up in court? Come on.


No. Not the ibook file. If you build the exact same thing in another format? Yes.

The proof is in the language used. I am not interpreting it as I want to see it. I am interpreting on its face value in terms of what rights are given to the author versus what rights are granted to Apple. The old language strongly suggest that by using Apple's iBook software, the content developed does not belong to the author but to Apple instead. Similar to a paint supplier claiming ownership of an artpiece because the painter used their paint to create the art.

You could be right, but I would never be comfortable pretending that I know something when in fact I don't. People who do that end up looking like an ass a lot of the time.

I am not pretending to know anything beyond what is apparent by the language. I will grant that its possible that it was just a mistake in the language used. But my interpretation of the language used and the implication of it is accurate.

Actually, I haven't heard of any _authors_ who were complaining. Only the professional complainers, and those who desperately try to find fault with anything Apple does. The one who drafted this EULA (and every else at Apple) is probably thinking along the lines of "What the **** are these bloody idiots on about? Is the world completely made up of idiots? ". At least that's what I was thinking. But according to you, apparently Apple has to design licenses not to meet legal requirements, but to make it impossible for Apple haters to pretend that there are faults in it.

And actually, I have posted several times that Microsoft Office Home Edition has license terms that are significantly more restrictive. I suppose I need to clarify that I pointed this out to show the sheer idiocy of some Apple haters, not in any way to put blame on Microsoft; I actually think their license terms for the Home Edition are quite reasonable - just more restrictive than Apple's terms.




Actually, there was no legal problem with the license. The re-worded license gives you exactly the same rights as the original license. No court would ever have accepted the crazy interpretations of some idiot bloggers. Next time Apple will know that any license terms need to be read by the PR department as well.




You can charge a client to build an iBook for them, period. (It should be obvious how to interpret this sentence in a totally malicious way, the same that iBooks Author's original license was interpreted in a totally malicious way). The client then has in their hands an iBook file created with iBooks Author, and it is their responsibility to comply with the license terms. You are charging for the work involved in creating the book, not for the book. A step further: An employee whose job it is to create iBooks is allowed to accept a salary for their work.

We're not complaining. We are making valid criticisms of the old licencing agreement. You are complaining about these criticism like they are just crazy rants. Well let me tell you something, when it comes to contracts, which the licencing agreement is, the words used actually matter a lot. The old language and the new language are worlds apart.

 

[erann]

The original EULA clearly said that anything the user generated using iBooks Author could only be sold via Apple's store.

Certainly, however if you have the copyright to the input of iBooks Author, you can use that input elsewere as you please. Repeat: Apple does not claim copyright to to the input of iBook Author, only to the ouput. You can freely use the same input to any tool on any platfrom you choose.

 

[gnasher729]

We're not complaining. We are making valid criticisms of the old licencing agreement. You are complaining about these criticism like they are just crazy rants. Well let me tell you something, when it comes to contracts, which the licencing agreement is, the words used actually matter a lot. The old language and the new language are worlds apart.

Who is this "we"? The criticisms _were_ crazy rants, started by a blogger who wanted his five minutes of fame. Not a single _author_ has been complaining. First, they haven't been complaining about the terms, which are unchanged, and they haven't been complaining about the wording, which was absolutely clear to anyone from day one unless deliberately misinterpreted.

 

[steveh]

This wasn't a clarification, it was a retraction. The language used made it very clear that they wanted to claim the author's work as their own. It was only later when people called them out on it that they were forced to "clarify" the licence agreement. Typical Apple.

Your argument makes no sense, given that on initial release, Apple made it quite clear that freely distributing the same work in .ibook format at no charge was not restricted by the license. Not to mention explicitly leaving distribution of PDF or text output without restriction.

Really hard to "claim the author's work as their own" if they leave the barn doors open like that.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Actually, I haven't heard of any _authors_ who were complaining.

Did you actually look for reactions from published authors?

Crawford Kilian - "And see this alarming analysis of the end-user licencing agreement (EULA) at Venomous Porridge. That's a show-stopper for me right there."

Sascha Segan - "With iBooks Author, Apple just made a hideous play to kill authors' rights over their work. This doesn't just affect big publishers like Pearson or HarperCollins; it affects every single person who wants to use Apple's new tool to get their word out."

Ed Bott - "I’ve downloaded the software and had a chance to skim the EULA. Much of it is boilerplate, but I’ve read and re-read Section 2B, and it does indeed go far beyond any license agreement I’ve ever seen."

Actually, there was no legal problem with the license. The re-worded license gives you exactly the same rights as the original license. No court would ever have accepted the crazy interpretations of some idiot bloggers. Next time Apple will know that any license terms need to be read by the PR department as well.

Ars, "We consulted several lawyers on the issue, who agreed that the wording was vague enough to allow such restriction, and might even be legal according to contract law."

Sure, maybe no Court would have up held it but do you want to be the person footing the legal bill to take Apple to court (or to defend yourself from Apple in court)?

The reworded EULA is different than the original EULA. The new EULA only speaks to restrictions based on using the .ibook format where as the original EULA spoke to restrictions based on just using the iBooks Author software.

I don't know why people keep thinking that their assumed intent of the language in the EULA is more important the actual language in the EULA. The intent of the parties agreeing to a contract is not relevant. What's stated in the language of the contract is relevant. You don't want there to be a gray area or a misunderstanding which is why Apple changed the language in the EULA. If Apple didn't think the language needed to be changed they would not have changed it.

Certainly, however if you have the copyright to the input of iBooks Author, you can use that input elsewere as you please. Repeat: Apple does not claim copyright to to the input of iBook Author, only to the ouput. You can freely use the same input to any tool on any platfrom you choose.

Under the new EULA I agree. Under the old EULA I wouldn't be so sure because it specifically said, "If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a "Work"), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple."
Under the old rules if I started my Great American Novel in iBook Author the only place I could sell it, according to the EULA, was via Apple regardless of what application(s) I may have used to complete the work besides iBook Author. Yes, the IP would still be mine (Apple couldn't claim ownership of my words) but I would be in an exclusive distribution agreement w/Apple if I wanted to sell my product.

Copyright isn't an all or nothing thing. I can give away or sell some rights while retaining others. I can choose to retain all rights or I can choose to retain no rights. If I make a deal with Distribution Company X to exclusively distribute my book I still own my IP, but only Distribution Company X can distribute it for the agreed upon time period. I can license my IP to a t-shirt maker and to a movie studio but I just can't license the distribution rights to anyone else while the contract w/Distribution Company X is still valid.


Lethal

 

[gnasher729]

Did you actually look for reactions from published authors?

Most of these are just quoting the infamous "Poisonous Porridge" blog (or whatever it is called). All of them are trying to get visits to their websites - they are not in the business of publishing books.

As far as Ed Bott is concerned, he obviously never read the license for Microsoft Office, Home Edition.

 

[Judas1]

Most of these are just quoting the infamous "Poisonous Porridge" blog (or whatever it is called). All of them are trying to get visits to their websites - they are not in the business of publishing books.

As far as Ed Bott is concerned, he obviously never read the license for Microsoft Office, Home Edition.

Microsoft has always made a distinction between their home edition products versus their professional edition products. The professional ones have more features, less restrictions, and also cost a lot more.

And of course there are real authors that were concerned about the language. From a legal standpoint, everybody should be concerned. You're making yourself look like a fool by saying that there are none and the ones that complain are just looking for attention.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Most of these are just quoting the infamous "Poisonous Porridge" blog (or whatever it is called). All of them are trying to get visits to their websites - they are not in the business of publishing books.

You said that you hadn't heard of any authors speak up about the original EULA so I did a quick Google and found some published authors that did speak up about the original EULA.

But now that you have heard that some authors complained you dismiss it because they cite their source of information (what bastards!), they only write things to get people to read them (who do these people think they are, authors?!), and they aren't book publishers (because, of course, you originally said you hadn't heard of any book publishers complaining). Instead of moving the goal posts again how about we just pretend this conversation tree never happened?


Lethal

 

[highdough]

I am not pretending to know anything beyond what is apparent by the language. I will grant that its possible that it was just a mistake in the language used. But my interpretation of the language used and the implication of it is accurate.

You seemed fully confident in what you felt Apple's intentions were, even so far as to assume that they changed their mind due to the backlash, not because the language was inaccurate. Or would you like to, perhaps, go back and change some of your language for clarification?

You're making yourself look like a fool by saying that there are none and the ones that complain are just looking for attention.

Hey, at least he's not pretending to know the motivation behind the original language of the agreement as well as why they changed it. THAT would certainly be foolish.

 

[erann]

Yes, the IP would still be mine (Apple couldn't claim ownership of my words) but I would be in an exclusive distribution agreement w/Apple if I wanted to sell my product.

Nope, even the original EULA didn't claim exlusive distrbution through Apple. You could feed your own words also in Word and sell the .doc file (or whatever format you choose) anywhere you want.

 

[NakedPaulToast]

Most of these are just quoting the infamous "Poisonous Porridge" blog (or whatever it is called). All of them are trying to get visits to their websites - they are not in the business of publishing books.

As far as Ed Bott is concerned, he obviously never read the license for Microsoft Office, Home Edition.

You've commented a few times that MSOffice Home Edition EULA doesn't allow commercial use, and I'm not suggesting that it doesn't have language that suggests that. But, as this topic demonstrates, contract language is critical and can be interpreted differently.

How about quoting the relevant parts of the MS EULA so we can interpret it ourselves, instead of depending on your interpretation of it?