4. Chronology/Key dates
• Dec. 14, 2004
Google announces Google Print (later renamed Google Book Search) and begins
scanning book collections from the initial group of library partners: Harvard, the
University of Michigan, the New York Public Library, Oxford and Stanford.
• September-October 2005.
The Authors Guild (AG) and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) file
two separate lawsuits against Google for copyright infringement.
• October 28, 2008
Two lawsuits settled between the three parties, AG, AAP and Google. In addition
to other terms, Google will make payments totalling $125 million (U.S.) and
establish a Book Rights Registry (BRR) to help publishers and authors control
how their copyrighted works are accessed.
.
5. Chronology/Key dates (cont`d)
• September 4, 2009
Google must make cash payment for all books they have digitized
without permission before this date, including books which they
expect to digitize shortly after.
• November 9, 2009
Revised settlement (the Amended Settlement Agreement) filed allows
out of print books from only four English speaking countries to be
scanned, restricts the way that Google can make money from
scanning and digitizing out-of-print books, and requires a registry to
seek out copyright holders who do not come forward.
• March 22, 2011
‘Fairness hearing’ decision by the court (this is required for class
action settlements in the US)
• October 4, 2012
Google and publishers reach agreement on digitization
6. Original Settlement - basics
Class-action settlement: covers online access in the US for books only.
It includes titles that are:
– published before January 5 2009
– “Could” cover books published after above date
Google pays $125 million
– $34.5 million to establish Book Rights Registry
– $45 million to rights holders for books scanned prior to May 2009
($60 per title) – for past and future uses
– $45.5 million for legal fees
Split of future revenues:
– 63% to copyright holders
– 37% to Google
7. Class-action: what is it?
• An association acting on behalf of its members.
• A judge needs to certify the action.
• Three conditions need to be met:
– There must be evidence that the members could sue
in their own right if they wished;
– The subject matter is relevant to the association’s
purpose;
– The claim does not require the participation of
individual members
8. Settlement basics (cont’d)
Copyright scope:
– ‘In print’ in-copyright books are automatically excluded: this
means that rights holders need to opt-in to display uses –
– ‘Out of print’ in-copyright books (orphan works) are automatically
included : this means that rights holders need to opt-out of
display uses –
– In print = commercially available in US, Canada, Australia, and UK
Revenue streams:
– Individuals: sale of perpetual access per title via Google server
– Institutions: sale of annual access to Institutional Subscription
Database
9. The project so far
• 21 Library Partners
• Google-funded digitization
• In-copyright and out-of-copyright material
– Google and selected library partner servers only
• 15 million books to date:
– 3 million public domain (20%)
– 11.25 million in copyright, out of print (75%)
– 0.75 million in copyright, in print (5%)
• Eventual aim: (?) books
10. Types of Use covered by the
Settlement
‘Display’ Uses
• Access Uses: viewing and annotating the entire book, and printing and
copying/pasting portions of the book, subject to certain page number
limitations.
• Preview Uses: user to view up to 20% of a book (but no more than 5
adjacent pages) before making a purchase decision. For books of
fiction, Google will block the last 5% of the book. Rights holders may
change the preview availability.
• Snippet Displays: display three/four lines of text in response to a
user’s search.
• Display of Bibliographic Pages: display book’s title page, copyright
page, TOC and index.
11. Types of Use (cont’d)
• ‘Non-display uses’, i.e. that don`t involve display of content to the
public:
– full-text indexing
– geographic indexing
– algorithmic listings of key terms
– internal research and development at Google (how are they using
this data??)
12. The pace of Google’s digitization
• “Prior to our partnership with Google Inc., we digitized
between 5,000 and 10,000 works each year, a rate that
put us ahead of other digitizing libraries and well behind
the books, which were already decomposing before we
could get to them. At that rate, we estimated that it
would take us approximately 900 years to preserve our
2002 collection digitally. Our partnership with Google,
which the settlement will preserve, will enable us to
preserve approximately eight million works in less than
a decade.” – Paul Courant, University Librarian,
University of Michigan, Sept. 4, 2009
13. How many orphans?*
One possible calculation
Claimed
21%
3.5 million out of print books
scanned prior to May 2009
$45 M (rights claims)
÷ $60 per book
______________
Orphans
= 750,000 claimed books, 79%
and 2.75 million orphans Out-of-print titles
But $45 million is the minimum payment, so numbers may vary.
14. What Has the Reaction Been?
Positive:
– Will lead to a broad dissemination of an enormous corpus
representing a large portion of our cultural heritage
(‘breathing life into old works’ – Dept of Justice
submission)
– Bypasses the lack of ‘Orphan works’ legislation in US
Congress. NB- orphan works are those for which the rights
holder is unknown or un-locatable.
Negative:
– A de facto monopoly & copyright concerns
– Pricing issues
– Intellectual freedom & Equity of access
– Privacy issues
– Long-term security of data
– About 6,800 opt-outs by authors
17. Selected Supporters and Objectors
• Supporters
– Canadian Urban Library Council
– Computer and Communications Industry Association
– American Association of People with Disabilities
– National Federation for the Blind
– Stanford University Libraries
– Sony
• Objectors
– Amazon
– Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
– French Publishers’ Association
– Microsoft
– Open Book Alliance
– The Internet Archive
– The United States of America
18. Book Rights Registry
Non-profit independent collecting agency representing
plaintiff interests to:
– Manage rights database: copyright status, contact
information, rights information
– Negotiates terms and prices of online book uses on
behalf of rights holders
– Distribute share of revenue to rights holders, based
on formula in agreement
– The Registry does not have to be made public.
19. Pricing and market impacts
• Only Google can license ‘orphan works’ (in the absence of legislation)
• Opting out for orphan works would be very problematic – owners aren’t
known or locatable. Creates a huge locked-in pool of books.
• Concentration of book legacy in Google’s hands would have huge influence
on market pricing for out-of-print books.
• Rights holder can set price, or the Registry would use a pricing algorithm
based on similar books to determine price.
20. The Research Corpus
Represents all Google books except in-copyright works whose
rights holders have removed their works
Hosted at Google, up to two other mirror sites
‘Non-consumptive’ research:
– linguistic analysis, automated translation, book
relationships, index/search techniques
• If qualified users want to search the Research Corpus for ‘non
consumptive’ research, e.g. textual or linguistic analysis, their
research agenda needs to be approved by the host institution
• “Research Agenda” means a document that describes a
research project in sufficient detail to demonstrate that it will
be Non-Consumptive Research”
• Host institution is responsible. What will the criteria be?
• This will certainly conflict with academic freedom…
fundamental values will be at play
21. Copyright and monopoly challenges
Raises public policy issues regarding the delicate balance between public
and private good; how does it reflect upon the nature of copyright in a
digital world?
The interests of one group (known rights holders) are pitted against
another (absent rights holders or orphans) in relation to revenue
sharing and pricing.
Can a class-action settlement provide equity for economic rights and
address the public good? Does the Authors Guild represent the
academic authors whose works are the majority in the database?
Class action settlement is supplanting copyright legislation as the lever
for reproducing and disseminating in-copyright books to our collective
cultural heritage
A commercial model– what if Google’s business completely changes in
twenty years?
22. Copyright and competition
challenges (2)
The board of the Book Rights Registry will have no librarian or
reader representation… this is very problematic for a balanced
approach to copyright, access, and pricing.
Will have a damper effect on Open Access and Creative
Commons licensing – an ‘institutional bias’ (Samuelson)
against it. How will this affect the long-term plans of the Open
Content Alliance, for example
Other providers can be offered license terms better than Google’s
– but Google has enormous lead advantage
Any other company risked being sued if they follow the same
approach as Google
23. Reaction of the US Copyright Office
“In the view of the Copyright Office, the settlement proposed
by the parties would encroach on responsibility for copyright
policy that traditionally has been the domain of Congress.
The settlement is not merely a compromise of existing claims,
or an agreement to compensate past copying and snippet
display. Rather, it could affect the exclusive rights of millions
of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with
respect to their abilities to control new products and new
markets, for years and years to come. We are greatly
concerned by the parties’ end run around legislative process
and prerogatives, and we submit that this Committee should
be equally concerned. “
– Marybeth Peters, US Register of Copyrights, Sept 10, 2009
24. Institutional Subscription
Licensing models
• Libraries that contribute books for scanning:
– ‘Fully participating’ libraries
• Give in-copyright books; get digital copies,
must meet security requirements
– ‘Cooperating’ libraries
• Give in-copyright books; get no digital copies
• Libraries that do not contribute books for scanning:
– May subscribe to ISD (either whole or discipline based)
– Pricing model set by Google and Book Registry
• Benefits of partnering:
– Ability to challenge institutional pricing model
– Some subscription discounts
– Information about inclusion / exclusion of books
25. Pricing concerns for the
Institutional Subscription Database
Pricing to be determined by: the pricing of similar products &
services; the scope of books available; the quality of the scan;
and features offered via the subscription
The settlement refers to two broad goals: 1)Market realization of
revenues for rights holders, and 2) Broad access by the public
including institutions of higher education …to be based on
“comparable products and services”. But which ones?
Could lead to a widening of the digital divide between wealthier
and poorer libraries.
Tension between these two objectives is one of the key problems
with the settlement
26. Pricing (cont`d)
“How the price of those subscriptions will be set
remains unclear. GBS 2.0 has some language explaining
the way its pricing algorithm will work, but it contains
no effective mechanism to prevent price gouging, no
provision for an antitrust consent decree that would
empower a public authority to monitor prices, and no
way to protect the public from excessive pricing should
Google be taken over in the future by rapacious
speculators.”
- Robert Darnton, “Google and the New Digital Future”
New York Review of Books, Dec. 17, 2009
27. Institutional Subscription Database (cont’d)
• Momentum driving supply & demand :
• “…it is possible that faculty and students at institutions of higher education
will come to view the institutional subscription as an indispensable only
because research libraries have invested significant resources in preserving
out of print books.. They might insist that their institution’s library
purchase such a subscription. The institution’s administration might also
insist that the library purchase an institutional subscription so that the
institution can remain competitive with other institutions of higher
education in terms of the recruitment and retention of faculty and
students.” ALA-ACRL-ARL Brief
• This can exacerbate inequalities among libraries, based on budget realities.
28. Intellectual Freedom & censorship
Google can exclude a book for editorial reasons: on what basis?
Pressure from governments or powerful interest groups could
have an important impact, e.g. Google saving itself from
embarrassment or bad PR by suppressing a controversial book
The Settlement requires Google to provide public access and the
ISD for only 85% of the in-copyright, not commercially
available books (potentially 2.25M books)
The Settlement doesn’t include pictorial works, eg photographs
and illustrations will be blacked out.
Works within works might be excluded, depending on rights
holder exercising a separate copyright, eg an essay, a poem, a
chart or a table
29. Privacy concerns
Google has an unprecedented opportunity to monitor and track user
reading habits, eg when a user prints out pages from a book in the
ISD, there will be a visible watermark displaying encrypted session
information “which could be used to identify the authorized user that
printed the material or the access point from which the material was
printed” (art 4.1)
“For purchases of online e-book access or access via institutional
subscriptions, Google will have the technical ability to track every
page that one views, even recording how long is spent on a page.”
(Alan Inouye, ALA)
For which purposes will Google collect data?
What are the safeguards against misuse of data?
30. Google’s response re privacy concerns
• “..because the settlement agreement has not yet been approved by the
court, and the services authorized by the agreement have not been built or
even designed yet, it's not possible to draft a final privacy policy that
covers details of the settlement's anticipated services and features. Our
privacy policies are usually based on detailed review of a final product --
and on weeks, months or years of careful work engineering the product
itself to protect privacy.” – Jane Horvath, Global Privacy Counsel, Google
• “The Bureau [of Consumer Protection] asks Google to commit to a
continuing dialogue regarding consumer privacy policies for Google
products and services…I believe such a commitment would require Google
to adhere to the concept of privacy by design,..” – Commissioner Paula
Jones Harbour
31. The Center for Democracy and Technology has
addressed this issue in their original submission :
• “Although Google does voluntarily provide some notice, we believe that it
should be required to clearly and prominently disclose the following:
• (a) What information Google collects in connection with the New Services,
including information that can be used to identify individual readers;
• (b) What information Google collects about individuals’ use of the New
Services;
• (c) The purpose for which this information is collected;
• (d) How long each type of data is retained;
• (e) What technical mechanisms Google uses to track readers on the site;
• (f) How readers can exercise choice about having their data collected and used
in connection with the New Services; and
• (g) How reader data is safeguarded against theft or misappropriation.”
– Also noteworthy is the fact that Google has not offered to allow institutions
subscribing to the ISD to manage the authentication process, even though
these institutions have the expertise and resources to do so.
32. Amended Settlement Agreement
(Nov. 9, 2009): key changes
• Restricted to works published in four countries before Jan. 5, 2009:
U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain; or the books were
registered with the Copyright Office before January 5, 2009.
– This would cut the size of the database approximately in half
• Book Rights Registry (BRR) is given the authority to increase the
number of free public access terminals in a public library branch
• Rights holders to authorize Google to modify or remove the default
restrictions such as the number of pages that can be cut and paste or
printed out with one command.
• Google is not permitted to digitize books from microform
• Google will not provide the BRR with personally identifiable user
information “other than as required by law or valid legal process.”
33. Amended Settlement Agreement:
key changes (cont’d)
• Board of Directors of the BRR will have at least one representative of
the Author Sub-Class and one representative of the Publisher Sub-
Class from each of the following countries: the US, the UK, Australia,
and Canada.
• The settlement provides that “..A certified user may be permitted to
access Books in the LDC in the form of electronic text used in
conjunction with screen enlargement, voice output, or refreshable
Braille displays (section 7 (2) (ii) (1)”
• “People with vision loss will be able to search for books through the
Google Books interface and purchase, borrow, or read at a public
library any of the books that are available to the general public in
accessible formats. As a result, vast numbers of books will be opened
up for many people for the first time ever.” – American Association of
People with Disabilities, July 27, 2009
34. Amended Settlement Agreement:
key changes (cont’d)
• Revenue from unclaimed works to be managed by an ‘Unclaimed
Works Fiduciary’
• The unclaimed funds will not be used for the BRR’s operating expenses
and will not be distributed to rights holders who filed claims.
• Rather, the BRR, in collaboration with rights holder organizations in
Canada, Australia, and the U.K., and in consultation with the
Unclaimed Works Fiduciary, can spend up to 25% of the unclaimed
funds held for five years on searching for absent rights holders.
• After holding the remaining 75% for another five years, the BRR, with
the approval of the Unclaimed Works Fiduciary, may petition the Court
for approval to distribute the unclaimed funds to literacy based
charities.
• BRR will facilitate rights holders’ requests that their works be made
available through alternative licenses for consumer purchase, such as
through a Creative Commons license (purchase price set to zero)
35. Amended Settlement Agreement:
key changes (cont’d)
• The original settlement included a “Most Favored Nation”
clause that required the BRR to extend to Google the same
terms it negotiated with any other entity – this has been
removed.
• The ASA permits only the following three additional revenue
models to be developed in the future: print on demand, file
download (e.g. PDF) , and consumer subscription. (original
settlement was open-ended regarding future revenue models)
• Authors and publishers who actively manage their books get
payment for uses made (and can control what uses are
permitted)
36. Integration issues
• Google has opened Book Search via APIs: libraries can embed
book images, previews, and links to Book Search within
discovery layers and catalogues
• OCLC is taking steps to integrate Google Books into the
WorldCat database - URLs for Google Books have been added
to WorldCat records
• In April 2010, OCLC announced that they will derive new
MARC records to represent this digital collection. WorldCat
Local will be used to provide a public interface for the
HathiTrust content
• Can we leverage the SFX link resolver to obtain maximum
benefit from enriched content in Book Search?
• Libraries can work closer with Google and OCLC to make it
very easy to move from search results to purchased content
(eg ‘Find in a Library’ link)
37. Integration (cont’d)
• Book Search offers a very limited form of collaboration (eg shared
annotation among small & predefined groups) but:
– Doesn’t permit enhancements of texts;
– Doesn’t permit the layering of new services upon texts;
– Doesn’t permit use of texts in digital mash-ups.
– Compare this with dynamic developments in ebook interfaces
for searching, sharing, storing, and managing ebook content
– Book Search won’t allow downloading of in-copyright books to
mobile devices.
– How will Google propose to integrate Book Search into the
researcher’s workflow?
38. The Competition….
• The sheer size and scope of Book Search will invite comparisons with
established commercial products, such as EEBO, ECCO, and the backlists
of major publishers like Oxford or Taylor & Francis.
• How would the pricing for the Institutional Database Subscription (IDS)
affect pricing models in the academic marketplace?
• How would the ebook aggregators (eg. ebrary, EBL) be affected? Google
has very deep pockets for R&D
• Turf wars - Google is providing public domain titles in ePub format to the
Sony ebook reader and announced that “it would let anyone resell the
millions of out-of-print books it has scanned from the nation’s libraries.”
• What was Amazon’s response?
– “an Amazon executive immediately rejected the idea of becoming
Google’s affiliate”
• Comparison of DRM systems would be important for assessing access to
material.
39. Google Books Settlement
Conference, UC Berkeley, Aug. 28,
2009
• Google Books is rife with metadata problems – wrong
publication dates, wrong subject headings, wrong
authors, etc.
• “Will GBS be an adequate resource for scholarly needs…
now and in the future? Depends on:
– Quality of imaging
– Reliability and robustness of search tools
– Quality and reliability of metadata
– e.g., date, edition history, author, subject
classification”
Geoff Nunberg, School of Information, U California
40. “In our panel discussion, Dan Clancy [Google Chief Engineer]
suggested that it should fall on users to take some of the
responsibility for fixing these errors, presumably via some kind
of independent cataloguing effort. But there are hundreds of
thousands of errors to pick up on here, not to mention an even
larger number of files with simply poor metadata or virtually no
metadata at all. Beyond clearing up the obvious errors, the
larger question is whether Google's engineers should be trusted
to make all the decisions about metadata design and
implementation for what will probably wind up being the
universal library for a long time to come, with no contractual
obligation, and only limited commercial incentives, to get it right.
- Geff Nunberg, “Google Books: A Metadata Train Wreck”, Aug
29, 2009. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1701
43. Canadian perspectives
• A group of Canadian authors led by David Bolt have argued that the
ASA would violate US treaty obligations to protect Canadian copyright
holders; would undermine moral rights under Canadian copyright law;
poses serious threats to reader privacy; and creates a monopolistic
model that undermines the interests of Canadian authors.
• The Association of Canadian Publishers, on the other hand, argues
that the ASA is in the interests of its members since there is flexibility
and transparency in allowing authors to opt out of the agreement.
• The Canadian Publishers Council praises the ASA for the flexible
approach to management of its members intellectual works and the
ability to control copyright interests. It also lauds the settlement for
providing it with representation in the Book Rights Registry; for
monitoring use of Canadian works outside of Canada, and for
protecting the economic interests of its members.
44. Canadian perspectives (cont’d)
• The Canadian Association of University Teachers argues that
the Authors Guild does not represent Canadian academic
authors, many of whom receive funding from the state to
carry out research and are employed by public (rather than
private) institutions. Also:
• “..the proposed settlement, among other things, contravenes
international copyright law and international trade
agreements, interferes with the moral rights of Canadian
authors, fails to reflect the open communication values of
academic authors and undermines privacy.”
45. Questions to think about
How do we partner with Google to take advantage of this dizzying
opportunity for ‘’ breathing new commercial life into millions of long
forgotten, commercially unavailable works”
Can library & educational values be respected, and what would this
require?
Can a modified settlement allow Google, publishers, and authors to find
compromise between private and public interests? Will it lead to
‘copyright peace’? (Department of Justice filing)
How does it impact or challenge the ways in which students, researchers
and others access culture, and enhance, collaborate, and produce new
cultural works for education and scholarship?
If the settlement went ahead, what does it mean for the publishing
industry, authors, and access to books in general?
How could the settlement affect Canadian libraries?
46. Commercialization of knowledge...
• “The settlement would facilitate a remarkable change in
the relationship among books, readers, publishers,
authors, libraries, and Google. Access to so many great
works would be greater than anyone imagined just ten
years ago. But American libraries would be
commercialized, essentially hosting Google vending
machines on their premises.”
- Siva Vaidhyanthan, The Googlization of Everything, p.
154
47. Judge Denny Chin’s decision on
March 22, 2011 (Fairness Hearing)
What did he rule and why?
48. The ASA (Amended Settlement
Agreement) was rejected...
• “The question presented is whether the ASA is fair,
adequate, and reasonable. I conclude that it is not.”
• “While the digitization of books and the creation of a
universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA would
simply go too far. It would permit this class action –
which was brought against defendant Google Inc. to
challenge its scanning of books and display of
"snippets" for on-line searching -- to implement a
forward-looking business arrangement that would grant
Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without
permission of the copyright owners. “
49. A few key points in the ruling
• “Not only are the objections great in number, some of
the concerns are significant. Further, an extremely high
number of class members -- some 6800 – opted out.”
• “The questions of who should be entrusted with
guardianship over orphan books, under what terms, and
with what safeguards are matters more appropriately
decided by Congress than through an agreement among
private, self-interested parties.”
• “The ASA would grant Google the right to sell full access
to copyrighted works that it otherwise would have no
right to exploit.”
50. Seven types of objections
discussed
• Notice to class members
• Representation of the class
• Future releases of class member rights
• Copyright law & public policy
• Antitrust concerns
• Privacy concerns
• International law
51. A few key points in the ruling
(cont’d)
“...many of the concerns raised in the objections would be
ameliorated if the ASA were converted from an
opt-out settlement to an opt-in settlement.... I urge the
parties to consider revising the ASA accordingly.”
52. What happened next?
Several options were possible:
• An appeal of the ruling;
• Revise the settlement and ask for another ruling;
• Abandon the settlement and go back to litigation;
• Publishers and authors drop the lawsuit;
53. Recent developments
– Dec. 12, 2011: Authors’ plaintiffs file motion for
class certification to sue Google as a group
– Dec. 22, 2011: Google files motion to dismiss the
above motion, ie to dismiss the class certification
and hence the case....
– Google’s ‘divide and conquer strategy’
– May 31, 2012: Judge Denny Chin grants class
certification and denies Google’s motion to dismiss
– A hearing is scheduled to go ahead, but the case has
been suspended pending Google’s appeal.
54. “Class action is the superior method for resolving this
litigation. It is, without question, more efficient and
effective than requiring thousands of authors to sue
individually. Requiring this case to be litigated on an
individual basis would risk disparate results in nearly
identical suits and exponentially increase the cost of
litigation.”
- Judge Denny Chin, Opinion Granting Class Certification
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/cases/authorsguild/2012-
05-31-opinion.pdf
55. How does this project and its endless litigation impact the perceptions of
copyright law and libraries’ involvement with Google?
The Authors Guild sued HathiTrust for illegally making available 7M ‘orphan
works’ digitized by Google:
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/authors-3.html
56. What did the judge decide?
• “I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would not encompass
the transformative uses made by [HDL] and would require that I
terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and
cultivation of the arts that at the same time effectuates the ideals
espoused by the [Americans with Disabilities Act]."
- Judge Harold Baer, Oct. 10, 2012
A major victory for the proponents of ‘Fair Use’...
57. “The creation of a search index is a transformative use under the
first fair use factor: "The use to which the works in the HDL are
put is transformative because the copies serve an entirely
different purpose than the original works: the purpose is superior
search capabilities rather than actual access to copyrighted
material.“
“The use of digital copies to facilitate access for the print disabled
is also transformative. Because print-disabled persons are not a
significant potential market for publishers, providing them with
access is not the intended use of the original work.”
- Judge Harold Baer, Oct. 10, 2012
58. Google and publishers reach
settlement
• Oct. 4: a deal is announced (doesn’t need court
approval)
• AAP (Association of American Publishers) can determine
whether or not to include their in-copyright publications
in Google’s Research Corpus: victory for the publishers
• Those deciding not to remove their works will have the
option to receive a digital copy for their use.
• The other details of the agreement are confidential
• This agreement doesn’t affect the lawsuit of the
Authors’ Guild
59. Conclusion
• A healthy balance between the public good, legislation and private
interests in regards to copyright and access to knowledge is
essential
• How will this case affect information policy more broadly, eg
competition, privacy, and international trade issues?
• How will this project shape the perceptions of the role of libraries
in the digital era?
• What does this case tell us about the differing interests and values
of authors, publishers, libraries, and Google?
• This case has enormous implications for the future of libraries to
provide broad & free access to our cultural heritage, and the role
of authors, publishers, and Google in controlling access to
knowledge & culture…
60. Readings
• A Guide for the Perplexed (ALA – Jonathan Band)
– Part 1 (original settlement)
– Part 2 (amended agreement with U Michigan)
– Part 3 (Amended Settlement Agreement)
– Part 4 (Rejection of Settlement)
• GBS: Who is Filing and What are they Saying?
• Amended Settlement Agreement
• Amended Settlement reaction
• The Public Index: “a site to study and discuss the
proposed Google Book Search settlement”
So there are the bones of the settlement, presented briefly. Before I finish, I want to pause here for a moment, on the subject of the out-of-print pool. As I mentioned earlier a major outcome of the s ettlement it that it enables Google to sell orphan books online. This is because the AAG and APA included all book copyright holders in their class, including the ones that couldn’t be found.The settlement is non-exclusive: rights holders do have the right to license their books elsewhere. But for the orphan books this is moot: no rights holders have come forward to exercise this right. So for this pool of books, through this settlement, and in the absence of any further legislation, Google is the only online seller. So how many orphans might there be ? Google argues that because they have created a commercial value for out-of-print books, and through the Book Registry, a mechanism for rights holders to claim their rights, the number of true orphans will diminish to perhaps 10% of the out-of-print pool, or 1 million of the 10 million currently scanned. However, if we look at the $45 million to be paid to the rights holders of books scanned prior to May 2009, that amount suggests an expected claim pool of 750,000 titles. Although the settlement stipulates that more money may be paid out in rights, this suggests a considerably larger orphan pool of 2.75 million out of the 7 million scanned to that point. Prior to the settlement, there was a great hope (in the scanning community at least) that the solution to the orphan book log jam was legislation to define how these books could be digitized and made available online. It has been argued that because the settlement creates a commercial value for these orphan works that did not exist before, it may have a negative impact on any future orphan works legislation that might provide that more general models for access. Another point of note is that under the settlement, revenue would be generated for all titles that are out of print. That re venue is split between Google and the active rights holders, even though orphans may comprise a large percentage of the out-of-print pool.
Reasons why opting out is problematic. BRR & Google will have enormous benefit from non-display uses to analyze the market and set prices accordingly. Huge impact of discoverability – and impact on ILL – but no ILL permitted on digital books. (only originals)
Let’s turn now to the proposed licensing models Google Book Search: Google is the primary host. All individual titles subscriptions, and the ISDs, will be accessed on the Google server. Some libraries – fully participating partners -- have limited rights to host a portion of the corpus, if they meet stringent security requirements, subject to audit by the BRR. There are other important b enefits for google’s library partners : Partners have a mechanism for challeng ing institutional pricing model, and may receive information about the ISD pricing strategy Some receive subscription discounts (UMich free for 25 years) Information about inclusion / exclusion of books: GB must disclose to partners information such as whether books are commercially available, and whether books are included in ISD. Only the identify of public domain books and the identity of books excluded from display uses for editorial reasons may be publicly disclosed. Libraries that do not contribute books for scannin g m ay subscribe to ISD on an annual basis, on the google server.
Various applications now available… Can we leverage SFX, eg create portfolios of subject area collections within Book Search and create targets?
Pricing is supposed to be comparable to existing pricing…but there is nothing comparable. Fully Participating Libraries will have their costs subsidized based on the scale of works that have been digitized…U Michigan gets free access for 25 years.
Tranformative use justified the copying Transformation= altering the original with new expression, meaning, message for a non-commercial, educational purpose Superseding the use of the original work, eg a film adaptation of a book.
