October 28, 2008
Google, Publishers, and Authors Settle Huge Lawsuit Over Book-Scanning Project
Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers announced today that they had settled their longstanding legal battle over Google’s mass scanning of books. Under the terms of the deal, Google will pay $125-million to establish a Book Rights Registry, to compensate authors and publishers whose copyrighted books have already been scanned, and to cover legal costs.
The settlement, which still needs court approval to go into effect, would resolve a class-action lawsuit brought in 2005 by the Authors Guild as well as a separate lawsuit filed on behalf of the publishers’ association. Publishers and authors argued that Google’s scanning of books for its Google Book Search program was a flagrant violation of copyright law’s provisions governing fair use.
“We had a major disagreement with Google about copyright law,” Paul Aiken, the guild’s executive director, said during a joint teleconference that Google and the publishers held with reporters today. “We still do, and probably always will.” But he said that the parties had been “able to set those issues aside” for what “may be the biggest book deal in U.S. publishing history.”
The deal goes far beyond money. Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the publishers’ association, described it to reporters as “breathtaking in scope, groundbreaking for publishers and authors, and trailblazing for intellectual property in general.”
Unlocking Millions of Texts
If approved by a judge, the accord would allow users of Google Book Search in the United States to see the full texts of books they can read only in snippets now. The deal would also have the potential to put millions more out-of-print or hard-to-find titles within the reach of readers and researchers. Institutions would be able to buy subscriptions so that their students and faculty members could have full access to complete texts. All public libraries in the United States would be given free portals for their patrons. (The settlement does not apply to the use of Google Book Search outside the United States.)
Users without library or institutional access would pay a fee to preview the full text of a book. Google and the copyright holders—the publishers and authors—would share the proceeds from subscriptions and individual use. Authors and publishers could opt out of the program.
The deal will “unlock millions of these texts for users,” said David Drummond, chief legal officer of Google, during the teleconference. Google, he said, considered the deal a great leap forward as well. “Search simply isn’t complete without this content,” he said.
Early reaction from academe has been enthusiastic. Stanford University, the University of California, and the University of Michigan issued a joint statement of support for the agreement, praising its “outstanding public benefits.” The libraries of the three universities have been among a number working with the plaintiffs and Google “to shape this agreement for the public good,” said Michael A. Keller, Stanford’s university librarian and Stanford University Press’s publisher.
Paul N. Courant, university librarian at the University of Michigan, said in the statement that “the opportunity to search and preview millions of books online” was especially valuable. “This is a service that libraries, because of copyright restrictions, could not offer on their own and goes well beyond what would have been possible, even if Google had prevailed in defending the lawsuit,” Mr. Courant said.
Google’s library partners also stand to benefit because Google will provide them with digitized copies of scanned materials, which will help in their long-term preservation efforts. —Jennifer Howard
Posted on Tuesday October 28, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Blackboard Announces Free Tool to Interconnect Its Software With Moodle, an Open-Source Competitor
Next: Researchers Create a Distributed Earthquake-Detection Network
Well maybe book writing will get back to the basics now: a love of the subject matter as the lure to writing about it.
Down the road this will probably morph into the end of multi-million dollar book deals (since so many people will have free access who will pay for a book) and that’s a good thing for the readerl…
— NYMOM Oct 29, 09:16 AM #
This summary is misleading. It gives the impression that what is being instituted here is an “opt out” system for copyright. But that is precisely what authors and publishers went to court to challenge! For all works in copyright that are still in print, the settlement confirms that an “opt in” approach is needed. “Opt out” applies only to works in copyright that are no longer in print. The provisions in this regard and others mimic the solutions proposed to the problem of “orphan works,” for which legislation has been proposed in Congress but not yet finally approved and signed into law. And, by the way, Michael Keller is not director of Stanford University Press; Geoffrey Burn is. Burn reports to Keller, who has the title of University Librarian and Publisher.
— Sandy Thatcher Oct 29, 09:26 AM #
Always good to hear from you, Sandy. I’ve corrected Keller’s title.
— Jennifer Howard Oct 29, 09:49 AM #
NYMOM, you may want to read this article and the terms of the agreement a little more closely. Free access will apply to people who are either affiliated with an institution that pays for access, or reads the book in the library. While there are many people who would save money by getting the chance to read the book for free, studies have shown that in general people strongly prefer to read long stretches of text in print rather than on a monitor.
Unless the provision allows for these portals to allow free downloading (which in my reading of the agreement it does not), then many users will be constrained by the need to be at the library and on a computer to read the book since remote access is not allowed.
While not a lawyer, my reading of the full text of the agreement is that a public library (or fitting non-profit educational library) gets 1 computer for free access and has to pay for others. Patrons who wish to download or print need to pay an additional fee which is split with Google and the copyright holder. Those institutions which enter into a paid commercial relationship have access to more simultaneous users and remote access rights.
While I applaud the spirit behind this agreement and the fact that it allows public libraries a free terminal to expand their collections, this is not going to be providing free access to millions of copyrighted books for everyone.
In addition the agreement seems to provide the option for the copyright holders to request their material be taken down and in another section for books that are currently on the market to be kept off of full view. So those seeking the most recent novels or books may not be able to access them.
— Geber Oct 29, 01:24 PM #