News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Aug. 15, 2005
Google has made relatively few missteps during its phenomenally successful corporate life so far — and its officials probably wouldn’t characterize its announcement Friday that way. But on Friday, Google slightly altered its much-criticized plan to start digitally scanning copyrighted books as part of its Google Print for Libraries Project — though the shift did not come close to satisfying the publishing industry.
Last December, Google announced that it had reached agreement with several leading libraries — those at Harvard and Stanford Universities, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of Oxford, plus the New York Public Library — to digitally scan millions of their books, including many that are copyrighted.
Publishing groups, including the American Association of University Presses and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, challenged Google’s assertion that the “fair use” doctrine of federal copyright laws allowed for such digitization, and urged the company to reconsider its approach.
“The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers calls on Google to cease unlicensed digitisation of copyright materials with immediate effect, and to enter into urgent discussions with representatives of the publishing industry in order to arrive at an appropriate licensing solution for ‘Google Print for Libraries,’ ” Sally Morris, chief executive of the learned societies’ publishers’ association said in a statement in July. “We cannot believe that a business which prides itself on its cooperation with publishers could seriously wish to build part of its business on a basis of copyrightinfringement.”
Despite those complaints, Google had been holding its ground in recent months. But Friday, in an announcement made quietly on its corporate Google Blog, the company said that it “won’t scan any in-copyright books from now until this November,” to give “any and all copyright holders” time to tell Google “which books they’d prefer that we not scan if we find them in a library.”
The statement added: “We’re going to continue talking about Google Print with our partners and the publishing industry. These discussions have been crucial in helping to build a program that benefits the industry and, most important, the millions of users who’ll be able to discover new books. Stay tuned.”
Publishing groups said that they welcomed the concession but that it did not go far enough. “Google’s announcement does nothing to relieve the publishing industry’s concerns,” said Patricia Schroeder, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers. “Google’s procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear.”
Librarians and other observers of the Google project said they were heartened by the company’s concession on timing but unsure whether the delay would be enough to allow it and the publishers to find common ground. The announcement shows Google is “interested in trying to come to terms with the publishers,” Steven J. Bell, director of the Paul J. Gutman Library at Philadelphia University, who maintains a leading blog for librarians, said in an e-mail.
“Right now it looks like the publishers still want more concessions from Google, as well as more information about the project,” Bell added. “I don’t think this will be totally resolved by November, but I do believe the project will continue on, and that Google will forge ahead even if it doesn’t work out an ideal plan with the publishers.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
According to Merriam-Webster’s Legal Dictionary a derivative is: “Arising out of or dependent on the existence of something else". That makes this comment a derivative work of the keyboard that I am using to type it, for these words are dependant on the keyboard. Compaq (the keyboard maker), whose copywrite is printed on the bottom of the keyboard certainly does not own these words. Now, I could simply write these with a pencil, but then Pentel could claim derivative ownership.
What is fair is that I have access to all of the knowledge in the world. Since only a handful of people could afford the 29 million books in the library of congress, and even fewer would have the time to read each one, I need Google to index all the books it can find and allow me to access the world’s knowledge through search.
Publishers barely provide 5% of the roalties to the original writer, and writers hardly become rich from their books. Copywrites on books are merely bariers to publication so that a book publisher (not writer) can get rich off the works. I haven’t seen a writer who is complaining about this, only the greedy publishers.
Publishers need to learn the lessons of the other archaic media. Look at the music and movie business. Either get with the times and listen to your customers who do not want to carry 4000lbs. of books in what could be held in 7oz of modern technology, or get out of the way so that better and smarter people can do it.
Noah Peters, at 9:05 am EDT on August 15, 2005
Noah said it best!
Once again, it seems the label of “fair” is not based on the consideration of sharing information and knowledge, but is based (by some) on governing access to that material without some approval and/or compensation.
There are times when I suspect that “those in control” are more concerned about how to remain in control and not as concerned about how technology can make all of us better informed ... better educated.
Michael, at 10:40 am EDT on August 15, 2005
Once again, readers who don’t understand publishing or copyright (or spelling, for that matter) spew on about letting companies like Google profit from a business model that is built on theft. Why do the posters think they are entitled to free copies of everything they can’t afford just because something can be digitized? Just how are authors supposed to be compensated for sitting in front of a blank page until blood starts pouring from their foreheads? (Most of the authors I know or whom I have represented aren’t part-time writers supporting themselves by a teaching job in academia.)
Google has no right to copy books without the authors’ permission and turning copyright on its head by expecting the authors to say “we don’t want to be included” is a step that the law does not require. The law demands that Google request permission from each and every copyright holder to continue this project, not the reverse.
Also, depending on the work in question, an author can expect to receive upwards of 15% of the cover price as a royalty. While not many authors become rich (how large a percentage of anyone working in any field become rich?), a nice percentage can live comfortably and at our house we do look forward to those quarterly royalty checks which will be impacted by the free dissemination of protected work.
I have no quarrel with public domain work being made so available. And while I agree that the latest extension of the copyright term is truly unwarrented, I want to see that work which is entitled to protection is indeed protected.
Christine Valada, Esq., Understanding Copyright, at 3:23 pm EDT on August 15, 2005
Proquest has a wonderful database called Early English Books Online which contains photographic images of every page of every book published in English before 1700. Unfortunately, though, Proquest charges a staggering up-front fee, and the City University of New York and most other universities in New York City simply can’t afford it. I have to go to the New York Public Library to use it, and I would love to have access to it from the comfort of my own home. I can hardly wait for Google to bust Proquest’s destructive monopoly on electronic versions of these out-of-copyright texts. That is where Google should focus its efforts.
I wonder, though, whether Google’s project won’t in the end be beneficial to university presses. The database will enable us to find books we never would have thought of consulting, and it will also allow us to buy electronic versions of those books directly from the university presses. In an optimistic scenario, Google will help eliminate the return of unsold books, the cost of storage and shipping, and the splitting of revenues with bookstores. What publishers seem not to undertand is that the Google service is designed to stimulate the sale of books. There is no other way for Google to realize significant profits from it. Google tries hard to serve up only ads that are relevant to the interests of the user; doing otherwise would damage their brand identity.
Matthew Greenfield, Associate Professor of English at CUNY, at 6:30 pm EDT on August 15, 2005
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
FAS IT
Duties And Responsibilities: The Product Manager for Web and Database Applications plays ... see job
Working Title: Adjunct Faculty — History
Posting Information: Western Carolina University is always ... see job
The Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is recruiting for a ... see job
Position Summary: The Assistant Professor in the area of Child Clinical Psychology will be expected to ... see job
The California State University, Northridge’s (CSUN) Department of Financial Aid & Scholarships seeks an Assistant Director ... see job
The University of Texas at El Paso is accepting applications for an Assistant Dean of Students and Student Advocate. see job
Posting Description: The CSDMS Integration Facility, at the University of Colorado?Boulder, seeks a ... see job
Position Summary: Under supervision of the Assistant Treasurer/Tax Director, the Tax Assistant provides ... see job
The program in Philosophy, Science and Technology (PST) in the School of Public Policy seeks applications for one or more ... see job
Fair Use It is NOT
Google has somehow managed to avoid the obvious. The scanning/indexing projct creates a “derivative” work. ONLY the copyright holder has the right to CREATE a derivative work. Google has somehow asserted that transforming a work into another medium, NOT altering any of the text, preserving the transformed copy in a lasting manner, and doing so for a commercial purpose is fair use. What about it is fair?
Now if Google were to give up ALL commercial rights to the project, give it and the necessary funding to a consortia of university libraries (such as the ones they are “working with") and then find a way to restrict the use of the index to educational ones (users must log in through a library, text is displayed for only limited times and is deliberately fuzzy except say for a floating box which allows you to read paragraphs, and the ability to print and read multiple pages is severely restricted, well that might be fair use .... but that is not the Google project.
Michael Lissack, Director at ISCE, at 7:56 am EDT on August 15, 2005