Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After 7 Years In Court, Google Settles With Publishers On Book Scanning

Posted by timothy on from the you've-been-organized-as-part-fo-the-world's-data dept.

redletterdave writes "After seven long years of litigation, Google Inc. and the Association of American Publishers have reached an agreement to settle over the search giant's book-scanning project, which will allow publishers to choose whether or not they want their books, journals and publications digitized by Google and accessed via its Google Library Project. The agreement, according to the two companies, acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright holders, so U.S. publishers can choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project, or choose to keep their publications available. For those that keep their works online with Google, those publishers will be able to keep a digital copy for their own use and sell their publications via the Google Play marketplace." Also reported by Reuters, as carried by the Chicago Tribune, and the BBC.

5 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Intensely idiotic by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?

  2. ...and in the rest of the world? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    so U.S. publishers can choose...

    What about the rest of the world? If the US publisher of a particular book says 'no' and the British publisher says 'yes' does the book get scanned or not? Does it get scanned but censored in the US? What about books with no US publisher?

  3. Re:Intensely idiotic by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm more concerned about orphaned works and the length of copyright causing a work to be completely destroyed before it can be preserved

    Actually, (according to the first link) the Orphaned Works issue is still pending, with the Author's Guild still fighting on the behalf of dead or unknown authors and asserting that they, (the author's guild) have standing to represent these dead or unknown authors, and force Google to remove their works.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. I hope Google does the right thing by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't be evil.

    I hope Google does the right thing and publishes a list of all publishers who opt out of Google's book scanning project. The list should be public and searchable.

    That makes it clear to authors which publishers are clueless. if an author publishes his book with one of these publishers, the author just made sure his book is not searchable by the best search tool on the planet.

    As a consumer, not only will I not happen to find any books from these clueless publishers, I would like such a list so that I can actively avoid buying from such clueless publishers.

    Let evolution take its course. Dinosaur publishers who don't want Google searching their books. Etc.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. Re:Intensely idiotic by tilante · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, no - I don't agree to anything. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, publishers tried exactly what you're talking about - they put a notice in the front of their books stating that you were only licensed this copy of the book, not sold it, and that you were not allowed to resell it. (In some cases, simply that you were not allowed to sell it below a certain price). The Supreme Court held this to be illegal, leading to what's called "The Doctrine of First Sale".

    The reason that you're not allowed to copy a book has nothing to do with agreeing with terms - it's because copyright law makes it illegal. It doesn't matter whether the book has a notice saying that you can't copy it, simply has a bare copyright notice, or has no copyright notice at all - it's equally illegal either way.

    Now, from a technical point of view, Google is allowing the making copies of copyright material. So that's copyright infringement, right? Well, maybe and maybe not. There are fair use exemptions, and there are precedents in things like libraries having photocopiers so that people can copy portions of books. If Google is making a good effort to set up things in such a way that people can't just copy whole books and make off with them, then there's a good chance that a court might hold that what they're doing is no more illegal than, say, the New York Public Library having lots of book and having photocopiers that people can take them to.

    That's what the publishers are afraid of, and that was Google's leverage to negotiate with them.