GOOGLE: WHO OPTED OUT
on February 25th, 2010A list of authors who have opted out of the Google Book Search scheme settlement has been posted at I09.
Eric Shanower and several other creators complained that they are NOT on the list of authors whose names have been submitted to the courts, even though they opted out in time. UPDATE: Shanower is now listed on the GBS website as OPTING OUT.
Some names among the 6500: Joseph Michael Straczynski, Keith RA DeCandido, Ben Templesmith, Mark Helprin, Colleen McCullough, DC Comics, Matt Groening, Marvel Entertainment, Caitlan Kiernan, George R R Martin, Spider Robinson, Stephen King, Mayo Foundation for Education and Research, Bjo Trimble, BD Wong, and , of course, Ursula K LeGuin. And me.
After finding out via Diana Kimpton that editions of both Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code are listed in Google Book Search as “not commercially available” works, one is forced to question the effectiveness – or due diligence- of the biggest search engine in the world. Commercial availability seems to be determined by Google via ISBN # alone.
80% of the content of the “not commercially available works” are now available to read for free at Google Book Search, though no Harry Potter previews are there. Strangers in Paradise is however, though author Terry Moore claims all his works are in print, and that he did not opt in to Google’s scheme. Google claims the right to sell “not commercially available” works as digital books from which Google will take a 37% share. (Da Vinci Code publisher Random House already settled with Google.)
Google has no incentive to determine whether or not a book is “commercially available”, any more than they have any real interest in finding the author of a so-called “orphan work”. Google is a major sponsor of the Orphan Works legislation which has been shoved before Congress off and on for years. Google stands to earn billions from the scanning and sale of these “orphan works”.
Google has googols of conflict of interest issues. It is not qualified it to find an author it has no financial incentive to find.
Hell, it can’t even figure out if Harry Potter is “commercially available”.
If they are going to be using special editions as the marker for “not commercially available” then there will be all kinds of havock going on. Heck, the Ace edition of THE LORD OF THE RINGS would fit into that “description”.
This really, really sucks, the more it goes on. They HAVE to be stopped.
Okay…. using my librarian voice, appologies to all…
Google has scanned the books. This includes the title page verso, where the bibliographic data for the book is found. This page features the copyright notice. If the puublisher is dilligent (and most are not), you might find the Cataloging-In-Publication data there as well. This data is a mini catalog entry, with a Library Control Number. Unlike an EAN/ISBN, this number is linked to every version of the book. Hardcover, paperback,e-book… it helps keep like titles together in databases. This data is free (aside from processing costs) from national libraries. Copyright database information is also free and readily accessible.
Publishers frequently use the same layout when printing a hardcover and paperback. Thus a HC and TP will end on the same page. Again, if a book is scanned, a comparison of text on a random page will determine likeness.
Even if the layout is different, a whole-file comparison can be used to determine likeness. (This feature would also be of use to academic researchers.)
Finally, Google could make a killing be linking to bookstore websites. If it shows up somewhere as a used book, it’s “commercially available”. Google takes their cut, copyright holders maintain their right while losing the royalty, and everyone is happy?
If Google is EXTREMELY savvy, they will set up a print-on-demand publishing house similar to Lightning Source. They know what people are searching for, and could link Google Book ads to the search engine.
So… given the processing power of Google, this sort of problem is easily fixed.
That said… has Miracleman been scanned? Is Michigan State University one of the partner libraries? Mmmmm…
Well, that is great, but you incorporate the assumption that Google wants to solve this problem. I don’t believe Google wants to solve this problem. I think they want to maximize the books they are able to claim as orphaned or “not commercially available” so they can exploit the works.
If Google’s entire purpose was to create a great reference library, then they would not be trying to sell this material. But they are.
There is no need for common books like Harry Potter to be in this database. This is not about helping researchers, or creating a modern Library of Alexandria. This is about Google’s expansion into digital publishing using content they do not have to create, and for which they do not have to pay or obtain permission to use.
When I first heard of the Google book scanning scheme, I assumed it was limited to academic and out of copyright works.
There’s no compelling public need for Google to scan Harry Potter or anything I have ever done in my life for that matter.
I’m not sure how your suggestion applies to small press publications and ebooks. For example, if ADS was no longer available through stores, and I went POD, how would your suggestion apply? My work would be commercially available, but still not visible to Google as such.
Colleen, your question about the POD is exactly the one I had, and a primary reason I opted out. Because on top of being POD, THE SCRIBBLER’S GUIDE is available through Amazon, which in this situation would be one of Google’s competitors. And I don’t see Google being accomodating of THAT. They could easily go “Not listed on X as available, therefore it must be unavailable, therefore we can release it.”
They are not being logical or reasonable — except in the sense that their goal is to get maximum product with minimum expenditure and effort on their part, and authors’ contracts bedamned.
My librarian voice is the logical, analytical side of my personality.
My cynical side… yeah, I know Google is in it for the money. I like to ask stupid questions to make people look stupid (the Socratic Method).
As for POD, savvy small pressers buy EANs so that libraries and bookstores and websites have a standard access point. (Donna Barr does this.) Although POD is generally non-returnable and thus less attractive to retailers, it is still available. (B&N stores require payment in advance for POD orders.) B&N partners with Lightning Source, although many university publishers are doing POD for themselves. There are others.
Yes, authors own the football, but Google owns the stadium. So we need some oversight. Will we get it? I don’t think so. Authors and publishers will petition Congress, but the public will start a flame war similar to the recent Amazon-Macmillan War.
A stupid question: Google scans a work under copyright and posts it, and few people criticise. P2P sites scan works and post, and are considered criminals. How is Google different?
Google isn’t any different. That is the point. That is why I have been posting this mess for the last four years.
That is the reason there is a lawsuit.
It’s so nice that you use the Socratic method to make people look stupid, but I thought the point was to find the truth. And I don’t agree “few” people are criticizing Google’s actions. It’s also not particularly logical or analytical to skip around a principle motivation for Google’s behavior: they are out to make a buck.
It doesn’t matter what numbers “savvy small presses” stick on their books if Google fails or refuses to reference the same data. Moreover, since copyright clearly forbids the reproduction and sale of in-copyright works, why are we having this discussion in the first place? Google has no legal right to copy and sell in-copyright works just because Google says the work is “not commercially available”. It’s not about how Google determines commercial availability, it’s about whether or not they have the right to exploit property they do not own. There is no “copyright squatting” privilege.
Google only owns one stadium. There are other stadiums.
Google is attempting to change the law so that they can hijack copyright. Their robber baron activities are no different than any other book pirate’s, they just have the finances and the lawyers to enable their bad behavior.
Mob violence via flame war will not obviate the fact that what the public is trying to do here is socialize creative works. And they are foolish enough to loot at the behest of a behemoth corporation.
Now that’s stupid.
Here’s a question I don’t think has been addressed… when I tried to opt out the form told me I had to list specific works not to be included. What about works I create in the future? How do I protect them from being exploited?
Needless to say I didn’t get the form completed on time. But I’m more worried about protecting the projects I create in the future than the (few) I have already published. Because what this tells me is that anything I create in the future has the probability of being poached by some outside entity, and that as it stands, I will be powerless to take it back.
(that’s not to say I’m not interested in protecting what I have right now… they are POD works and in print… my publisher has the exclusive right to digital printing so if Google and them want to fight, I’ll go make popcorn
but when I move away from that company and reissue them as I plan to, they’ll consider the old version with the original, publisher-linked ISBN “out of print” and possibly grab it?)
Supposedly the settlement only covers books that were scanned and uploaded to Google’s database prior to 2009.
However, opting in to the settlement is the equivalent of signing a publishing agreement with Google, and the language is rather vague. It seems to cover future works as well as prior works.
The damned thing is 300 pages, and the amendments are 200 pages. So, without having read it, what Google wants you to do is to agree to a 500 page publishing agreement you cannot possibly understand.
My attorney is a specialist, and he has trouble with it. It might as well be in Sanskrit.
NO ONE knows what the fooking thing says.
Opt out.
And BTW, I have yet to speak to any attorney who thinks this opt-in/opt-out BS, is legal. You should not have to opt out of a publishing rights agreement you never read.
In the end, the courts may rule that the Authors Guild does not have the right to negotiate for all authors as a class, especially if those authors are not members of that guild. Many other authors and artists organizations do not support the Google settlement.
can I still opt out? I thought the deadline passed…
Sure, why not. Give it a try! I have no idea what effect it will have.
I, for one, welcome our new book overlords, and would like to offer myself for the cushy job of author liaison. Honestly, how hard is it to say, “Kowtow!” repeatedly?
Arlnee, FYI:
“By the terms of the settlement, if a rights holder doesn’t ask to have a book removed from the Google database within 27 months of the commencement date, they lose the right to do so, and Google gets to keep the book in their database whether the rights holder likes it or not. ”
http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/google_book_settlement/breaking_william_morris_stands_by_its_opposition_to_google_books_settlement_124450.asp
This whole Google mess gives me a screaming migraine. My university handed over their mailing system to googlemail this semester. Which makes me wonder what rights that gives Google over the papers students email their professors online.
Like I said my brain hurts just thinking about the ton of Master Thesises and papers that students send via the mailing systems. I’m going to go to bed now and sleep.
Marina, ouch! You just reminded me of something going back to the early days of email. The original legal precidents regarding email was that such communications were considered the property of the service delivering. (And if you send from one service and another receives it, where does ownership fall?)
I’m not sure how long that will continue to hold up. But it certainly holds enough at present, since internal emails get cited in legal cases, where an employer might release emails of employees. (Another reason not to use work email for personal business.)
Maybe if you stuck a copyright notice in all your email, you’d still have some protection – but we’re talking about Google here. Hence the reason I don’t use my Gmail account for much at all.