Apple has updated its iBooks Author app in order to clarify the language of its End User License Agreement. The changes to the EULA clarify that Apple does indeed intend the packaged product to be sold on the iBookstore only, but also make it clear that it does not lay claim to the content that you use to create the book, nor does it try to limit what you can do with that content elsewhere.
We took a closer look at Apple’s recently released authoring tool just after it was released. Subsequent to the release, much was said about the terms and conditions set forth in the license agreement that users were subject to in order to use the free tool. Some said that its terms were unfair, or even dangerous to software rights.

The new license agreement has adjusted wording in some sections, including ‘Section 2′, which was singled out for its wording. We’ve included the sections below with the pertinent sections bolded.
The new agreement’s Section 2:
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.
The old agreement’s Section 2:
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.
This change in wording should make it clear, as many right minded people have assumed, that Apple was never interested in limiting the distribution of content that was not packaged in the .iBooks format. The wording of the original was taken by some to mean that Apple was trying to exercise its rights on all kinds of content, including universal formats like PDF, not just .iBooks.
The EULA still includes language that indicates users are free to distribute .iBooks formatted documents free of charge by any means they choose, they just can’t charge for them anywhere else.


















Well, It seems to me that the old analogy of Remington typewriter applies. simply put, if I type my manuscript on a Remington typewriter then Remington claim any and all rights to that Remington produced manuscript. If I want to sell the manuscript in other markets I have to type the work out on a different typewriter. Not much has changed. Apple = Remington. If I use the iBooks App then Apple claims any and all rights to that Apple iBooks (Remington) produced manuscript.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThats exactly what I am talking about dude.
Total-Privacy dot US
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThe ambiguity, IMO, stemmed from the fact that you could make a PDF version of your content from iBooks. This suggests that only the .ibooks version of the file is restricted to the Apple store (which is totally fine by me).
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeKudos to Apple for clarifying these points. Sure, most same people already assumed the intent of the EULA but extra clarity is always good.
While some complained about the EULA, others jumped on the opportunity to publish their own work using a FREE high-quality tool & let Apple take care of the e-commerce issue (credit card handling, file hosting, copy protection, malware filtering, etc.).
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeNick Prudent The problem with the original EULA was that it grabbed all rights for Apple - for example if a movie company wanted to base a film on your book. This issue is very important - e.g. see extensive criticism of music industry contracts.
Seems it was just a mistake, as you assumed, but it was a huge mistake, because the value of the affected rights will be hundreds of billions of dollars if iBooks succeed.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI really wish Adobe would release a touch-based version of inDesign (the application most printed publications use). Now THAT would be a revolutionary program for tablet textbooks, combined with all of Adobe's other creative suite apps.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAlex Murphy Eh... it's great that Apple and other companies are releasing content creation software that loosens Adobe's crusty choke-hold on the professional creative software market.
Have you tried iBooks Author? To my eyes, much nicer than Adobe's cruft.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAlex Murphy InDesign doesn't have the widgets. It would be a start from scratch project for Adobe. The kind Adobe hasn't since done for Design tools (as opposed to developer tools) since InDesign was a poor imitation of QuarkXpress.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAll of this was obvious from the original wording but for those 'haters' who wanted some blog headlines here's the low brow version : )
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likenick moore Try telling a Magistrate or Lawyer something is obvious, Nick. Given Apples predilection for exclusivity, especially with anything iOS, this was decidedly *non-obvious*.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSo Apple has learned what technical communicators have known for ages: words are VERY important.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeJulio Vazquez Apple has learned what they already knew: the internet will intentionally misinterpret any statement in such a way as to generate the most controversy (and thus, the most traffic).
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSteven FisherJulio Vazquez I think you're both right.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like