Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know
The Association of American Publishers has sued Google over its Print Library Project, accusing the search giant of digitally copying and distributing copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owners. Google denies any copyright infringement.
"The publishing industry is united behind this lawsuit against Google and united in the fight to defend their rights," said AAP President and former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder. "While authors and publishers know how useful Google's search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, the bottom line is that under its current plan Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers."
Google denies any infringement: you can find books with Google Print but you can't just print them out – i.e. you still have to buy them. It disagrees with the AAP's interpretation of copyright law and on the spirit of Google's project.
Announced late last year, the Google Print Library Project involves the scanning and digitisation of millions of published books from the collections of three major academic libraries – Stanford University, Harvard University and the University of Michigan – from which Google plans to create an online, searchable database. Oxford University and the New York Public Library are also participating in the Library Project, but are only making available works in the public domain.
Writers filed a similar suit to the AAP's last month: the Authors Guild, which represents 8,000 authors, argued that while Google has the agreement of libraries to scan the books on their shelves, the authors of those books had not been consulted.
The AAP – which represents 300 publishers – says it went to court after negotiations broke down with Google.
The lawsuit, which seeks a declaration by the court that Google commits infringement when it scans entire books covered by copyright and a court order preventing it from doing so without permission of the copyright owner, was filed on behalf of five major publisher members of the AAP: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA), Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons.
Google's counter-argument is that its service will actually enhance the value of copyright in the books it scans. CEO Eric Schmidt wrote a commentary that appeared in yesterday's edition of The Wall Street Journal.
He explained that for many books, the search results will, like an ordinary card catalogue, "contain basic bibliographic information and, at most, a few lines of text where your search terms appear."
Schmidt continued:
"We show more than this basic information only if a book is in the public domain, or if the copyright owner has explicitly allowed it by adding this title to the Publisher Program (most major US and UK publishers have signed up). We refer people who discover books through Google Print to online retailers, but we don't make a penny on referrals. We also don't place ads on Google Print pages for books from our Library Project, and we do so for books in our Publishing Program only with the permission of publishers, who receive the majority of the resulting revenue. Any copyright holder can easily exclude their titles from Google Print – no lawsuit is required."
The AAP says it had asked Google to utilise the ISBN numbering system to identify works under copyright and secure permission from publishers and authors to scan these works. But Google rejected this proposal, apparently preferring an opt-out approach. "Copyright-holders are free to send us a list of titles that they don't want included in the Google Print index," wrote Schmidt.
Mrs. Schroeder said: “If Google can scan every book in the English language, surely they can utilise ISBNs. By rejecting the reasonable ISBN solution, Google left our members no choice but to file this suit.”
She added that, while “Google Print Library could help many authors get more exposure and maybe even sell more books, authors and publishers should not be asked to waive their long-held rights so that Google can profit from this venture.”
But clearly Schmidt doesn't see it that way. He argues that "some of Google Print's primary beneficiaries will be publishers and authors themselves."
