Google's Plan For Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged 324
Death Metal writes to tell us that a growing tide of complaints are being piled at Google's feet in response to a far-reaching settlement that some feel will grant the giant too much power over the "orphan books" they have been scanning into digital format. The settlement could give Google near-exclusivity with respect to the copyright of orphan works — books that the author and publisher have essentially abandoned. They are out of print, and while they remain under copyright, the rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. "Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information. And without competition, they say, Google will be able to charge universities and others high prices for access to its database. The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'"
Re:Google will own the books? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite that easy. The original work goes into the public domain, but only the original work. Republications obtain a new copyright on the version of the work. So if Google scanned in a bunch of public domain books and distributed in their own format, they'd probably have a copyright on those digital files.
I say *probably* because a direct scan is likely to be Yet Another Legal Gray Area(TM). The courts might decide that the digital container is sufficient transformation of the work to warrant a new copyright. Or they might decide that it's merely space shifted and deny copyright protection.
For legal advice, please contact a real lawyer. (I just play on on Slashdot. Which is much more interesting than TV. :-P)
re-read the section you quote (Score:5, Informative)
Your rant may well be spot on in terms of the general attitude of librarians. But please note what the man actually said:
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly
Given that specific bit you quote, the man is concerned about Google being the exclusive source of access to these books; he's not expressing fear that his industry is going away, but that what's replacing it will have less freedom of access. You can debate if that's the case or not, but at least address what the man's talking about.
Re:The Same Old Story (Score:1, Informative)
Just like Lexis/Nexis, the Canadian-based company that has copyright notice on most online US law sources.
Re:Orphaned? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google will own the books? (Score:4, Informative)
The phrase you are looking for is per se, it's latin.
Google will be able to provide access to the material, that almost no one else can (since the books are out of print). They are free to sell access to, or to publish, those works (since no one will make a copyright claim against them for these orphaned works).
However, Googoe does NOT have copyright on these works. Anyone else may publish them as well, and Google has no recourse against them, since copyright did not pass to Google.
This is all fine.
Someone could actually copypaste from Google, and publish on their own, and Google would have no legal recourse regarding copyright. However, Google might have recourse based upon their contract with the person who copied from Google... the license contract between Google and the User to access the content might(!) specifically forbid republication, in which case the User could be liable.
Re:Google will own the books? (Score:4, Informative)
"So if Google scanned in a bunch of public domain books and distributed in their own format, they'd probably have a copyright on those digital files."
I don't think simply scanning something is enough to secure copyright - there has to be a creative artistic component before someone can secure copyright. I think the bar is set quite low, but it has to be there.
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't co-opting anything. They don't claim copyright on the orphaned books, they simply republish them with the majority of the funds going to the copyright holder (if they can be identified).
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed]
Going w/ Prof. Samuelson on this one (Score:3, Informative)
While the registry's agreement with Google is not exclusive, the registry will be allowed to license to others only the books whose authors and publishers have explicitly authorized it. Since no such authorization is possible for orphan works, only Google would have access to them, so only Google could assemble a truly comprehensive book database.
"No other company can realistically get an equivalent license," said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.
Her analysis of Sony V. Universal is required reading. Other articles can be found here [eserver.org]
Re:Except that... (Score:1, Informative)
Those books are not yours. That's the fundamental thing. THAT PROPERTY IS NOT YOURS. If I am Joe author of a book, and Google scans it, I have every right to demand Google yank it back out. Convenience is not an excuse to violate civil rights.
Once you publish it, the content is no longer yours; it belongs to society. This the fundamental tenet intellectual property.
If you retained ownership of the content after publication, society would have not have the right to either grant or revoke (expire) copyright terms. If you have an unpublished manuscript, you have all rights of ownership, including the right of disposal. Toss it in a fire if you wish. Once you publish it, you give up ownership and many of the rights of ownership. Authors can't decide they don't like their early published works and extinguish their existence. They published it, ergo they no longer own it.
The purpose of copyright are to return to the author some of the rights of ownership that are transferred to society upon publication.
If you need an analogy, think of land. No matter how long you have lived somewhere on mortgage-free parcel of land, you don't own it. Society does. If society decides your front yard is an ideal location for a new highway, you will discover who owns the land you live on. Society has given you some rights of ownership over the land. Don't mistake that for ownership. The same is true for content you have authored and published.
Re:Orphaned? (Score:3, Informative)
It may be that no living person or existing corporate entity does.
Doesn't happen - short of a copyright holder releasing the book into public domain.
What DOES happen is things like an author dying, the copyright passing to his estate, and the existence of the asset being unknown to the executor and heirs. The copyright has an "owner" but nobody living knows who it is and the owner and his agents are unaware of their status.
Similarly if a corporation dissolves. Similarly if a corporation's records are flaky. Similarly if a corporation goes through a merger or several. Similarly if there is a turnover in personnel. Etc.
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:3, Informative)
Citation as requested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7086572.stm [bbc.co.uk]
There's always Rule 6. (Score:3, Informative)
Project Gutenberg clears works under "Rule 6 [pglaf.org]"; some works which appear to be orphaned, published before 1963, are in fact in the public domain, but it takes a significant amount of legwork to prove this.
They've also advocated for reform on orphan works [copyright.gov], so they have been active on this.
Distributed Proofreaders harvests a lot of data from Google Book Search [pgdp.net], already, as well.
Re:The Librarians appear to be correct (Score:5, Informative)
So they have the power to grant Google access to orphan books whos publishers and authors haven't explicitly authorized it?
How does that work? 'we can grant google this power even though we don't have it, but we can't grant it to anyone else because we don't have it!'
That argument doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense to me.
This is a basic consequence of class action law suits. When a class action is certified, the representatives who brought the action are assumed (legally speaking) to speak for all members of the class (in this case everyone who holds copyright or publication rights in a book) with respect to the specific court case, and in settlements relating to that case. It's a legal fiction, but a generally accepted one.
In this case, it means that the Writers Guild represents all appropriate rights holders in negotiations with google. They don't represent those rights holders in any other case, so cannot negotiate similar terms with anybody except google; they could only do so in the event that a court certified that it would be in the interests of the class as a whole for them to do so (as happened in the Google case).
If you don't like it, you need to campaign to your representatives for a change in the law regarding class actions.