October 30, 2008

Harvard Says No Thanks to Google Deal for Scanning In-Copyright Works

Harvard University has examined Google’s recent legal settlement with publishers and authors, and found it wanting. The Harvard Crimson reported today that the university would not allow its in-copyright holdings to be scanned by Google Book Search because of concerns over the terms of the $125-million settlement, which was announced on Tuesday.

The deal, touted as a watershed moment in mass access to books, promises to make millions more titles available online. Scanned books could be previewed at designated public-library terminals or at institutions that bought a subscription from Google. Users would have to pay to purchase copies of the books, with Google, the publishers, and the authors sharing the proceeds. The settlement awaits final approval by a judge.

Harvard’s concerns center on access to the scanned texts — how widely available access would be and how much it might cost. “As we understand it, the settlement contains too many potential limitations on access to and use of the books by members of the higher-education community and by patrons of public libraries,” Harvard’s university-library director, Robert C. Darnton, wrote in a letter to the library staff.

He noted that “the settlement provides no assurance that the prices charged for access will be reasonable, especially since the subscription services will have no real competitors [and] the scope of access to the digitized books is in various ways both limited and uncertain.” He also expressed concern about the quality of the scanned books, which “in many cases will be missing photographs, illustrations, and other pictorial works, which will reduce their utility for research.”

Calls to Mr. Darnton’s office were referred to the university’s news office. In a statement, Harvard said it would re-evaluate its position as the settlement moves forward. “If it evolves in a way that makes collections digitized from libraries widely acessible and usable under reasonable terms, we would willingly participate,” the statement said. Harvard will continue to allow Google to scan out-of-copyright works from its collections.

“For now,” the statement concluded, “the Harvard University Library will continue to explore other ways to open up its collections more broadly for the common good.” —Jennifer Howard

Comments

1. Caution may be wise here, but it is disappointing nonetheless. I had hoped that this treasure trove would be made more widely available to all.

   — Dave    Oct 30, 04:14 PM    #

2. I am not at all surprised by Harvard’s position. We should all remember when they pulled HBR from ProQuest. Clearly the hallowed divinity school roots have given way to more worldly concerns of infinite copyright protection in perpetuity with three-foot-thick cast iron bars on every incredibly valuable word ever uttered by one of their glittering literati professoriate.

   — Greg Zerovnik    Oct 30, 06:32 PM    #

3. Chances are that Harvard’s holdings of in-copyright works are not more extensive than those of other participating libraries, so its not joining in this new Google venture will, practically speaking, make little difference to what is available. What Harvard holds in public-domain materials is likely to be much more valuable for Google’s database, and it’s good that Harvard will not be withdrawing from that part of the program.

   — Sandy Thatcher    Oct 30, 08:03 PM    #

4. In response to Mr. Greg Zerovnik, I would like to point out that Harvard Business Review is under the authority of the Harvard Business Press, not the Harvard University Library, and it answers to the Business School, not to the central university. Secondly, Robert Darnton says they’re not joining the deal because it is too restrictive on how the texts can be used, not because they want to enforce extreme interpretations of copyright law (which they don’t make, anyways).

   — Someone from Cambridge    Oct 31, 09:26 AM    #

5. And it’s good that Harvard is questioning their participation in a venture that has suddenly made Google the dominant aggregator/reseller of book content.

   Google has pulled off a huge coup here. By getting libraries to participate, they’ve done an end-run around publishers and built an incredible product. Those whose libraries will be able to pay the subscription fee – and who knows what that will be? – will benefit, as will authors and publishers whose works will get more exposure. But this is not the universal library the libraries initially thought they were participating in, nor is it the bold moment when the definition of fair use in a digital age would be established.

   The real winner? Google. They have the product, thanks to libraries, and they’ve essentially closed the door on anyone else who might compete against them.

   Good for Harvard.

   — barbara fister    Oct 31, 09:31 AM    #

6. Will Google last forever? Only one of the original Dow Jones companies (General Electric) is still on the Dow. Research libraries need to be cautious, and are now admirably so, about placing responsibility for online access to their superb collections in commercial hands. This was a good decision on Harvard’s part and may assist in making online access more widely available and also more affordable. Libraries will last forever and for the common good!

   — S    Oct 31, 11:11 AM    #

7. I don’t think Harvard’s concerns as expressed here are unreasonable. This puts an enormous amount of digital text in the hands of a single company that can dictate the scope and cost of a subscription without any real competition. In the long run monopolies are rarely good things.

   — Sue    Oct 31, 02:05 PM    #

8. Sorry — typing too fast. Harvard’s concerns are not unreasonable.

   — Sue    Oct 31, 02:08 PM    #

9. This article seems misleading. From what I understand, it’s always been the policy of the Harvard – Google project that Google doesn’t touch in-copyright books. They re-considered it due to the settlement, but still found the terms were not adequate for in-copyright books. The second hit on Google is the faq for the project which seems to support this: http://hul.harvard.edu/hgproject/faq.html.

   — amateur fact checker    Nov 3, 10:56 AM    #

10. www.archive.org & www.openlibrary.org are the alternatives! (same org)

    — interested party    Nov 4, 10:48 AM    #

Previous: Former Director of Alabama Fire College Gets 10 Years in Prison
Next: Bomb Injures 28 at University in Northern Spain