[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [InetBib] [AMIA-L] Google, orphan works, and objections



Hier weitere Infos zum Google Book Settlement und zur Diskussion in den USA
Peter Delin

Linda Tadic schrieb:
Hi all,

I attended the Google Book Settlement conference at Columbia University last Friday March 13. Reading between the lines (and sometimes overtly stated) of what was said, it seems that archives and libraries should be concerned about how orphan works legislation can be impacted by the settlement. While the settlement is focused specifically on authors of books, it establishes a mechanism for giving one corporate entity rights on orphan works that should be held by the public. This can easily be extrapolated to orphan works in any media.

I briefly list my concerns below, and list some links to blogs. But this email is a call to action. Members of the class that is part of the class action suit (authors and copyright holders) can file objections with the court by May 5. The court is holding its final hearing on June 11. Since I’m a member of the class (my book on metadata was published by Elsevier, one of the publishers involved in the settlement), I can submit an objection. However, my objection will focus on my concerns as an archivist and librarian on how the settlement will impact archives and libraries’ abilities to digitize and make available orphan works, a process that was being worked out through legislation. If anyone would like to sign my objection as a fellow archivist/librarian, email me your interest. I’ll email you my statement to review once it is ready, and you can decide then whether you’d like to sign it. If you’d like to submit your own objection, the info on how to do so is here:

http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q20 <http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q20>

Note that a consortium of library organizations is filing an amicus brief on the settlement: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6640461.html

People can also write to the sponsors of the Orphans Works legislation. It passed the Senate and is pending in the House. Could Stephen Leggett give us an update on where it currently stands? Mary Beth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, said in her presentation at Columbia that her office has not had one inquiry on the Google Settlement from any member of Congress. You can alert the Senators and Representatives listed here, unless Stephen recommends otherwise: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

My concerns in brief:

As part of the settlement, Google will establish a Book Rights Registry (BRR). Authors of orphan works can assert their ownership through the BRR. It’s estimated that 12% of orphan works will register, but 88% won’t. If a work is not registered, Google can still scan it and make it partially available through its subscription service (up to 20% of the content). If the author later comes forward, they can’t file a lawsuit against Google because Google is protected. It created a mechanism for registering works as part of a class action settlement that was approved by the court. Class action suits include “absent class members.” In essence, Google is protected unless an author opts out of the settlement.

Now let’s say that a library that is not a Google participating partner digitizes an orphan work that has been made available by Google. They put it on eReserves, or perhaps on their website, even if only available to their campus. That library could be sued by Google since it is impacting their sales. The library could also be sued by the copyright owner if they appear, since the library doesn’t have the same protections as Google. The settlement will impact libraries’ and archives’ ability to do digital preservation of orphan works (the scans created by Google are not even at print quality). Does the settlement contradict Section 108?

The BRR is for Google’s benefit, and while the settlement provides language that it can share the BRR with other entities, Google has “Most Favored Nation” status. In other words, the BRR can’t give a competitor a better deal than what it provides Google. I would argue that the settlement should require Google to make the BRR available to the public. I would even go so far as to say that Google should not be allowed to post or use orphan works until Congress passes Orphan Works legislation, so the establishment of the BRR follows the copyright law, instead of the copyright law following the Google settlement.

I could say more, but others have said it far better! Here are some links:

_Blogs on the __Columbia__ conference:_

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books-settlement-at-columbia-part-1.html

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books-settlement-at-columbia-part-2.html

http://paulcourant.net/2009/03/15/orphan-works-legislation-and-the-google-settlement/

http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/03/15/the-orphan-monopoly

The Google Book Settlement home page:

http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/

Best,

Linda Tadic

lindatadic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lindatadic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Audiovisual Archive Network

and

Adjunct Professor, MIAP

NYU




Listeninformationen unter http://www.inetbib.de.