Google Print For Libraries Proves Challenging
Jason L. Miller | Staff Writer | 2005-07-14

http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-
20050714GooglePrintForLibrariesProvesChallenging.html#so


Details, details-such is the Achilles' Hell of the visionary
temperament. When Google put forth a massive online literary
digitization effort, the scholar, the literati, the purist self-
educator, the mousey, bucked-toothed, four-eyed little girl in all
of us cheered the soon-to-be nearer reach of all those words. But
visions, especially the grandiose, face the speed bumps, the
hurdles, of real world logic-or worse, lawyers.


Google Print Faces Copyright Hurdles


Editor's Note: Google Print for Libraries has opened a Pandora's
Box of copyright issues with publishers around the world. Google
says everything is covered under the provisions of Fair Use, the
original publisher agreements in Print for Publishers, and the
ruling Kelly v. Arriba Soft. Publishers dispute all of Google's
assertions. Do you think Google has covered all its bases? Or are
the publishers entitled to a separate, collective agreement despite
what the library, as is, could do for business? Discuss at
WebProWorld.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Two major associations of publishers have sent letters to Google
demanding the cessation of the digitization project that involves
scanning the entire text of copyrighted material until all pertinent
questions are answered and a collective copyright agreement can be
reached.

One letter, written by Peter Givler, executive director of the
Association of American University Presses (AAUP) on behalf his
organization and several others, claims that Google Print for
Libraries was sneaked in under provisions for the enthusiastically
received Google Print for Publishers. But, goes the letter, the
library project was never mentioned in meetings about the Print for
Publishers program and news of the project was a huge surprise to
everyone.

"…News of Google Print for Libraries came as a complete surprise.
It
had not been mentioned by Google representatives during any of the
discussions they were having with our members, and Google's
subsequent explanations of Google Print for Libraries have only
increased that confusion and transformed it into mounting alarm and
concern at a plan that appears to involve systematic infringement of
copyright on a massive scale."

The letter outlines 16 pointed questions the respective associations
would like answered.

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
(ALPSP), a non-profit trade association representing 300+ publishers
in more than 30 countries, wrote their own nasty letter to Google.
In it, Chief Executive Sally Morris contends that the project is not
covered by Fair Use/Fair Dealings, and requests a collective
agreement with publishers. Less detailed and more pointed than the
AAUP letter, the letter contains some chastising remarks.

"We cannot believe that a business which prides itself on its
cooperation with publishers could seriously wish to build part of
its business on a basis of copyright infringement," wrote Morris.

Quick Overview of Google Print for Libraries

Announced in December of 2004, Google plans to digitize the entire
collections of several prominent US libraries and one English
library. A ten-year, $200 million project, the online material would
be donated for scanning from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Michigan
University, and the New York Public Library.

Google says the goal is to provide a "virtual card catalog of all
books in all languages," while respecting authors and publishers'
copyrights.

The search giant addresses copyright issues with self-
described "conservative" measures. All books published in the US
before 1923 will be considered books in the public domain. The
entire text of these books will be available online without worry of
copyright infringement. Because of various international copyright
laws, all books published outside the US before 1900 will be
considered public domain.

As for books published after 1923 in the US and after 1900 outside
the US, Google plans to provide "snippets" of text related to a
search term. If a searcher wishes to have a complete copy of the
book, the service will provide links to libraries and booksellers
where the book can be found.

So What's All The Fuss About?

At first glance it would appear that Google has its bases covered
here. They cite a precedent ruling, Kelly v. Arriba Soft, which
allows search engines to index copyrighted images already on the
web. And as only snippets of copyrighted material are provided along
with a link to where the book can be purchased, one may conclude
that the library would be good for business in the same way that
Google Print for Publishers is good for business. After all, they
use the same search-snippet-to-vendor-link method.

According to the publishers, the difference is that they've been
left out of the process here and they're crying foul when Google
says the library project is under the same umbrella of principles as
the publisher project.

Peter Givler says that while Google's effort is "enormously
seductive," it has the fundamental flaw of a process that involves
the mass copying of copyrighted material.

"Copyright means the right to make copies, period,"
Givler. "Copyright law can seem pretty byzantine and technical and
elaborate and complicated, but at its simplest, that's what it is.
It's the right to make copies."

Sally Morris concurs. "The law does not permit wholesale copying
(which is what digitisation is) by a commercial organisation of
works that are still in copyright," she wrote. "It is also illegal
to make those works available digitally once they have been copied."

Not only is it the legality of physically copying the material that
concerns the publishers, it's what happens after they've been
copied.

"Nobody has convinced us that this can't be hacked," says Kay Murray
general counsel for the Authors' Guild.

Though the piracy concern doesn't seem to have been addressed,
Google denies that it has not attempted to work with publishers on
the matter.

Adam M. Smith, a senior business-product manager for Google
said, "We've actually gone out of our way to speak with everyone and
have a very open, receptive conversation with [publishers]. We
believe we're creating a product that is beneficial to publishers
and to libraries -- that by allowing full-text search of the books
that we would spur additional interest in books and in using books
and in purchasing books in a way that will benefit all people that
are interested in publishing generally."

If Google is accused and found guilty of copyright infringement, the
penalty is a $150,000 fine per infringement. In a digitization
effort involving millions of books, that could add up to one big
headache.

View All Articles by Jason L. Miller