iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

Summary: Apple has clarified its iBooks Author EULA. You retain all rights to content created with it, however, you can't sell an .ibooks file through anyone other than Apple. Satisfied?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
50

iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA

Apple today pushed out an incremental (1.0.1) update to it's controversial iBooks Author software for creating EPUB 3-based iBooks for the iPad. I say based because Apple extended the open EPUB 3 format by adding proprietary extensions (for embedding Keynote files and 3D object, for example) turning it into a proprietary format. But that's not what got people upset.

The iBooks Author 1.0 EULA carried some hefty restrictions around distributing for-profit works created with the tool -- namely that they could only be distributed through the iTunes Store, and were thus subject to Apple's 30 percent commission.

Here's the Important Note from 1.0 EULA:

IMPORTANT NOTE: 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.

Here's the same section from the 1.0.1 EULA (differences in bold):

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, you may only sell or distribute such work through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple. This restriction does not apply to the content of such works when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format.

That new sentence at the end says that Apple gets to participate in any revenue generated from work created with iBooks Author that is output in the .ibooks format, but that it doesn't own the content itself.

Therefore you can use IBA to author your masterpiece then port said content to another, non-proprietary output format and retain all the profits. I had assumed this from the beginning, but many had read into the 1.0 EULA that Apple was claiming ownership to the content itself -- which is clearly not the case.

Here's the more controversial Section 2B of the EULA ("Distribute of your Work") from IBA 1.0 that drew the most ire:

B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:

(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means; (ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution.

Here's 1.0.1 Section 2B of the EULA (differences in bold):

B. Distribution of Works Generated Using the iBooks Author Software. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, works generated using iBooks Author may be distributed as follows:

(i) if the work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute it by any means; (ii) if the work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service) and includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, the work may only be distributed through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary); provided, however, that this restriction will not apply to the content of the work when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author. You retain all your rights in the content of your works, and you may distribute such content by any means when it does not include files in the .ibooks format generated by iBooks Author. Apple will not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, losses (including without limitation lost business opportunities or lost profits) or other liabilities you may incur as a result of your use of this Apple Software, including without limitation the fact that your work may not be selected for distribution by Apple.

Apple's pretty clear here. You can use iBooks Author to create commercial content and you will retain all rights to it. However, you cannot sell an .ibooks file created with iBooks Author with anyone other than Apple.

Seems fair to me.

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

50 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

    I thought this was obvious before the re-wording...
    doh123
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      @doh123

      Apparently not obvious to enough folks that Apple felt it needed to rewrite the EULA.
      As was asked in Ed Bott's blog on this subject: How warm and fuzzy would you (or the Apple Core) feel if Microsoft or IBM altered their EULAs to compell all works authored using their software, that generated income, be subject to a 30% 'fee'? How about Adobe?
      whatagenda
      • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

        @whatagenda

        "How warm and fuzzy would you (or the Apple Core) feel if Microsoft or IBM altered their EULAs to compell all works authored using their software, that generated income, be subject to a 30% 'fee'?"

        Apple's not saying that at all!
        They require 30% of .ibooks files sold. You can just copy and paste your content into another tool. Did you even read the post?

        In fact, I'm pretty sure that you can simply print your iBook on paper and hawk it on the street corner if you want.

        Geez.
        Jason D. O'Grady
      • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

        @whatagenda as is witnessed by your "challenged" comment, Apple reworded it's EULA to get it down to a version that even the bitter and the jealous folks can comprehend...... so now you can go waste your hate at a bookstore, where the authors pay more than 60% of their earnings to publishers... geesh man....<br><br>Authors will gladly pay 30% rather than the 80% to their former publishers for the exposure to the vast storeFront and market that is the Apple App store, not your version of fantasy land where it is for the use of the software... THAT is what the agreement is really about.... GET IT?<br><br>and next time MSFT gives away Office for free let us know... any bells and whistles going off with that...MSFT took their cut upfront... nothing wrong with either version... and Authors are celebrating not having to give up more than 80% of the profit any more to their publishers.
        honkj
      • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

        @whatagenda
        A hint: Don't use Word, use Pages. You can freely distribute the outcome (provided of course that you have the IP of the content you feed in Pages).
        erann
    • It was, but a number of tech pundits were busy whipping up a mob

      so Apple decided to dumb down the language accordingly.
      baggins_z
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      No question it was poorly worded the first time, leaving the intent unclear. Those who tend to trust that they know Apple tended not to worry; others worried that it might be a grab or could at a later time be so construed. In legal documents clarity is always preferred. I suspect the original sloppy EULA was rushed to meet some delivery deadline. Fixed now; move along.
      Boltarus
    • Why would you want to assume

      @doh123

      Anything more than what was absolutely written in the EULA before? The change is positive. Perhaps that's what Apple intended all along but it's not what they said originally. And Apple would never use their legal team to enforce their EULA right?

      You should always believe that a company will do exactly what it states. There is no reason to think any company is out for your best interests, they aren't. They're out for their own best interests. The best you can hope for is for those two things to align.
      LiquidLearner
  • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

    Has anyone had any publishing experience? Get your "Great American Novel" published by any paper publisher and unless you're Stephen King you'll be lucky to see 5% of the gross. I'll take Apple's 70% any day.
    dheady@...
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      @dheady@...

      I have zero problem with Apple taking their cut for sales through their storefront. I did have a problem with Apple's original EULA stating that their storefront was the ONLY sales venue if you used their software ... period.
      whatagenda
      • you are missing the point...

        @whatagenda

        What you are missing is that it states if you wish to sell the content you create using our tools you MUST sell it through the Apple store, ergo Apple then takes 30%.

        This is truly despicable. Imagine if ANY other company MANDATED that you sell through them any work you created with their tools. Word docs, Adobe artwork or videos, etc.

        Defending this policy is truly pathetic!
        omdguy
      • One simple suggestion

        @whatagenda Don't like the license, don't use the product.

        As simple as that.
        wackoae
      • iBooksAuthor is a prep tool the publisher (Apple) gives

        you to help produce a nice book for them to publish. It's no different than any of the other number of prep tools other publishers (like Create Space) offers, except that it's not web-based and totally kicks butt on anything else out there.
        baggins_z
  • Ed Bott gets a ton of credit

    While it is imossible to prove that Apple made these changes because of Bott's blog, no one can deny that Ed Bott was totally and absolutely right in what he wrote and all you Apple fanbois who insulted him should go apologize to him if you had any decency.

    I expect Ed will get no such apologies. Connect the dots.
    toddybottom_z
    • Ed didn't do anything beyond regurgitating what others said

      @toddybottom_z NT.
      wackoae
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      @toddybottom_z

      To be fair to all that commented on Ed's blog posts, most "pro Apple Defenders" objected to Ed's Greedy and Evil adjectives. Actually, most defenders were correct in their interpretation of the original EULA's intent which was only clarrified through this revised EULA's language.

      Or, another way to interprete Ed's contribution to Apple's iBook Author ELUA evolution is that thanks to Ed, insane interpretations of the original EULA language have been eliminated except by really insanely evil and greedy anti-Apple fanatics. Grin.
      kenosha77a
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      No, unlike Bott claimed, it was not a nefarious effort to take over the planet. The correction simply affirms what cooler heads were saying all along. To my knowledge no one with pertinent legal experience has claimed that Apple could have leveraged the EULA to claim copyright over content just because it was included in an iBooks document, but that was essentially what Bott claimed.
      Boltarus
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      @toddybottom_z The thing is, it was always obvious you could do this. Ed's view was always nuts (deliberately so, he's devious not stupid). Apple's video shows content being pasted in. You NEVER use iBooks Author to create a large manuscript (well not if you had any sense anyway). You'd use something like Final Draft, or (personal preference) Scrivener (and yes, you Windows fanboys can use your preference of OS too, in fact this has to be seen as a major advantage of Scrivener - it's not tied to the Mac). Apple could never have legal claim over that content (nor did they ever WANT legal claim over it).

      Think about this logically, and let's see Apple as a company that wants great content on their devices to help them sell devices (no illusions here).

      If an existing book is popular - let's say it's a cookery book by a famous chef. Apple might covet this title in their format. Nobody else has a version like that, this IS exactly the kind of content that would help sway someone into buying an iPad (okay not this book alone, but it's a straw for the camel's back).

      If Ed's view was Apple's view then there would be no way for the writer of that book to make a .ibooks version and comply with the EULA. Now use your cynical mind, do you believe that was EVER Apple's intention? Doesn't seem very likely does it?
      jeremychappell
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      @toddybottom_z <br><br>DOT 1<br><br>CBSi buys last.fm and spends about billion dollars trying to compete with itunes and fails <br><br>DOT 2<br><br>Last .fm is a now dashboard widget on xbox <br><br>DOT 3<br><br>CBS pushes and endorses lime wire <br><br><br>DOT 4<br><br>CBS get sued <br><br> The lawsuit claims that CNET editors performed speed tests to see how effective Limewires software was, and downloaded copyrighted material as part of that speed test. The lawsuit describes a CNET video review this way: As the viewer looks at the screen demonstrating a sample search, they see a list of copyrighted works, including those from several well-known musical artists. In the same video, Defendants admit that they downloaded files generated by these searches to test the speeds that Limewire could deliver for users. But unless the downloads by CNET editors were files actually copyrighted by the plaintiffs in this suit, its hard to see how this matters much; remember, Limewire will already have to pay record labels as a result of the damages trial going on this week. <br><br><br>DOT 5<br><br>ED writes last year awarding blog smashing the itunes license agreement<br><br><br>Should we connect the dots on the Ibook Blog too!!
      Serious _Yahoo
    • RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

      x
      Serious _Yahoo